‘Gracious’ letting agent to pay tenants £12,450 over licence error

Despite persuading a First Tier Tribunal that he and his wife had been good landlords and managed the property well, his former tenants are to enjoy a considerable cash windfall.

lydford rent repayment orders hmo

A letting agent has been ordered to pay a tenant trio £12,450 after a First-Tier Tribunal judged that the property involved in the case was an unlicensed HMO.

While it is generally landlords who pay rent repayment (RROs) orders like this, it was decided that Tim Gorgulu and his wife were both the joint legal owners of the property, managed it themselves and were also the landlords.

The £250,000 property, which is in Dalston in North London (main image), was rented out to three unrelated tenants between May 2023 and May 2024 but, Gorgulu admitted, did not have the necessary HMO licence required by the London Borough of Hackney under a scheme that began in 2018.

Gracious

He successfully pointed out that as the owner of a local lettings agency, he and his team had fixed problems at the address (main image) promptly including the fixing of a boiler and that they were “polite, gracious and responsive” and that overall the property was in a good state of repair.

They also said that all the necessary compliance had been completed including ensuring its Gas Safety Certificate and EPC were up to date.

The tenants claimed that Gorgulu had not placed their rental deposit in an approved scheme and had entered the property without seeking permission first, in order to complete repairs, a claim he denied.

But the Tribunal found that while Gorgulu as a property industry member and professional landlord should have know about the HMO rules, his good conduct justified cutting the RRO from £24,000 to £12,000.

Gorgulu has until this week to appeal the decision. Read the decision in full.


One Comment

  1. Whilst they should have known better, the fine is ridiculous and so is the red tape. What “harm” in the lawful meaning was done exactly? none. I bet they are thinking that they are sick of the industry like so many others. This just encourages claims – but I guess that then keeps the judges in a employed Fine them £100 and move on.

What's your opinion?

Back to top button