A landlord who tried to claim that he was the superior landlord of an unlicensed HMO has failed in his bid to avoid paying a Rent Repayment Order.
In the first RRO case since the landmark Supreme Court judgement which ruled that these can only be made against an immediate landlord, Sabour Mansour was found to be responsible for the property in Pott Street, Tower Hamlets and his two tenants were awarded more than �6,000.
A First Tier Property Tribunal heard they had paid their rent to Mansour's agent KJSZ Ltd; he said he lived in the property and that the tenants were only lodgers.
He also argued that the tenancy agreements were not with him but with KJSZ and that he didn't receive fees or rent. Mansour's argument was '� following the decision in the Rakusen case '� that the tribunal had no power to make an order against him.
However, the tribunal found he had not provided any evidence to show that he had created any leasehold interest in the property in favour of KJSZ, and there was no evidence that it had any proprietary interest in the property.
It said:'Regardless of who received the rent, the applicants' immediate landlord was clearly the respondent.'�
It added that Mansour must have entered into an agreement with KJSZ for the company to receive the rent on his behalf.
'There was no evidence that KJSZ was itself an owner or lessee of the property. It followed, therefore, that the respondent was a person managing the property by virtue of section 263(3)(b) of the 2004 Act,'� it added.
'He (albeit wrongly) believed that the fact that rent was paid to KJSZ Ltd afforded him a defence to the proceedings.'�
Tags:
Comments