Floor 2, 35-37 William Road, London NW1 3ER
LON/00AG/HMF/2022/0001 · Camden · decided 23 Sep 2024 · rent repayment order
old rules| Offence | Unlicensed HMO |
|---|---|
| Landlord | Company: Global 100 Limited |
| Applicants | 3 tenants |
| Rent | not stated as one figure |
| Period the order relates to | 4 Mar 2020 to 15 Jan 2021 |
| Maximum the tribunal could award | not stated as one figure (or not yet checked); £1,050 then deducted for utilities |
| Amount the tribunal ordered | £3,427 per applicant on average; £10,281 in total for 3 applicants |
| Share of the maximum | 70%, as the tribunal stated it |
| Tribunal fees to be reimbursed | £300 |
| Rules | Old rules (offence before 1 May 2026): maximum 12 months' rent. |
Read from the PDF automatically. Amounts are totals for the decision, across all its applicants; the maximum is left out of the statistics until it has been checked.
From the tribunal's reasons on the amount
taken account of the guidance provided by the Upper Tribunal, including particularly where the Upper Tribunal has substituted its own redetermination. … We do not repeat that material here, but have been guided by it. … As we have indicated, the Respondent is certainly a large landlord with a substantial portfolio. Fire safety failings are particularly important aggravating features, which put tenants in danger. We also consider the failure, in this case, to provide the basic security of a working lock on what was effectively the front door of the flat to be an important failure to secure adequate provision. … We do not think that this case is as serious as that. First, the fire safety failures in that case were more serious than those in this. Secondly, the Respondent in this case rectified the deficiencies reasonably quickly, although the repeated failure of the system thereafter detracts somewhat from the force of that point. … It is true that the Respondent did not seek to licence the property until January 2021, but it is not right to describe that as a deliberate failure in the sense of operating a business model that knowingly and deliberately flouted the law. The Respondent had a wrong, but not fanciful, case that it did not require a licence during the relevant period. …
An extract from the part of the decision that sets the amount. To keep people's names out, any sentence that might contain one is left out (marked …). The full reasons are in the original decision.
The original
Other rent repayment orders near NW1 3ER · Licensing schemes and register for NW1 3ER
Past decisions are not a prediction. The tribunal decides each case on its facts, including the landlord's and tenant's conduct.