In March of this year we reported on a case concerning an appeal from a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision on occupation of a property (in Camden) by property guardians, the HMO status of such a property and the application to such a property of rent repayment orders. That decision in turn has been appealed from the Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) to the Court of Appeal where a hearing is yet to take place.

In the meantime the UTT has heard another appeal involving one of the companies involved in the prior case - Global100 (a company that arranges property guardianships). This new case involves a property in Hounslow that provided for occupation, by up to 30 people as property guardians, of an empty NHS office building.

In relation to HMO status the Judge in the present UTT case, Mr Justice Fancourt, referenced the the decision in the prior case (Jimenez) and it's outstanding appeal to the Court of Appeal and said, dismissing that ground of the present appeal "although the issue ..... would be argued in due course before the Court of Appeal, I was very unlikely to be persuaded that the Deputy President [in Jimenez] was clearly wrong and depart from it" and that given the upcoming Court of Appeal hearing the appropriate course was to follow the decision in Jimenez. Thus, an HMO licensing offence had been committed.

He further decided (as to whether there was a tenancy) that one of the appellants, Global Guardians Management Ltd (GGM) - a company interlinked with Global100 - was a lessee with exclusive possession granted by the NHS and able to profit from converting the property for residential use by 30 licensee occupiers.

He also found that GGM was a person managing the property so Hounslow council's penalty notice was valid; that Global100 was a person having control of the property so the penalty imposed by the council on it was also valid; and that the rent repayment orders imposed by the FTT were also valid because Global100 had control of the property and received the licence fees at the time the offence (operating an unlicensed HMO) was committed; the 3rd appellant (the sole director of both companies) also had his appeal dismissed and thus the fines of £6000 each on both companies and the sole director were valid. A useful analysis can also be read here.