Three students living in a London flat which was a “danger to their health” have won more than £20,000 back from their landlord.
A residential property tribunal ruled in their favour after they sought a rent repayment order in the row over the £1.2 million flat in Sherwood Court, Bryanston Place, near Hyde Park in west London.
The flat was found to have suffered from cold, damp and mould and to have had “inadequate” fire safety arrangements.
The three students, Jaime Closa, Alexandra Schwartz and Annie Darwent, brought the case against landlord Tope Osazee.
They applied for a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 for the offence of having control of, or managing, an unlicenced (HMO) house in multiple occupation.
The tribunal ordered Mr Osazee to pay Mr Closa £8,729, Ms Schwartz £5,763 and Miss Darwent £6,393, a total of more than £20,880.
They had lived at the three-bedroom, second floor flat for different periods of time between August 2021 and August 2023.
They paid a rent of £37,180 for the year to August 2023, which had gone up from £35,360 the previous year.
In its ruling, the two-person tribunal, which included Judge Tildesley, said it was “satisfied that the applicants were living throughout the relevant periods of their claims in a property which was a danger to their health from categories 1 and 2 hazards of excess cold and damp and mould, and was unsafe with its inadequate fire safety arrangements”.
It added it had “found in this case that the respondent was a professional landlord who had committed the offence of having no HMO licence for a period in excess of 18 months and had exposed the applicants to dangerous living conditions”.
The landlord disputed that the property was in poor condition and argued he had a “reasonable excuse” for not having an HMO licence, on the basis that the City of Westminster council had not notified him of this requirement until April 3 2023.
The tribunal heard that a Westminster environmental health officer inspected the property in April 2023.
In June, the council issued an improvement notice against the landlord which identified “a category 1 hazard of excess cold and a category 2 hazard of damp and mould at the property”.
The environmental health officer found that the heating system was “defective and expensive to run”, that there was “significant heat loss” from the windows, “uncontrollable draughts” in one of the bedrooms, as well as “disrepair to the heating system and no heat output detected in the largest bedroom, bathroom, hallway and kitchen”.
The environmental health officer identified that the window in the third bedroom could not be opened due to seized up sash chains and that there was “evidence of mould growth on the window in that room”.
Mr Osazee pointed out that only Ms Schwartz had complained about the property and claimed that the students had chosen not to put on the heating because of the cost.
They said the flat was “permanently cold throughout the winter months and suffered from mould particularly around the windows”.
An Energy Performance Certificate for the flat dated 4 July had a rating of 43 E which was the “minimum score for rental properties” and described the main heating (electric underfloor) as very poor, the tribunal heard.
The local authority had in August 2021 brought in an additional licensing regime for houses in multiple occupation occupied by three or more people comprising two or more households.
Mr Osazee, who told the tribunal that he owned seven to eight properties, applied for a licence on April 19, 2023 for the Bryanston Place flat, but it did not cover the earlier period.
He denied that he was a professional landlord, saying it was a side business to his main activity as a recruitment specialist in the construction industry, the ruling added.
But the tribunal, which described the students as good tenants, said it was satisfied “that the size of his rental portfolio, his hands-on approach to managing the properties and the length of time he had been engaged in such activities had all the hallmarks of a professional landlord.”
It added: “As such the Tribunal formed the view that it was reasonable to expect the respondent to make himself aware of the current licensing and regulatory requirements in relation to his rental business.”
It found that he had committed the offence of control or management of an unlicensed HMO contrary to the 2004 Housing Act from 30 August 2021 to 18 April 2023 in respect of the property and that he did not have a defence of reasonable excuse.