Kartal Cetin v Epping Forest District Council

For the purposes of Housing Act 2004, a “person managing” is identified by management responsibility, not merely by the receipt of a payment. A landlord may acquire that status when a tenancy begins, even if the first rent payment is made before occupation. The position is different for a “let only” agent which receives a single payment at the commencement of the letting and has no continuing involvement in management. Such a payment is not, without more, within section 263(3). The agent is therefore not subject to the continuing licensing and management obligations imposed on a person managing an HMO.

Kartal Cetin, a director of a residential letting agency, appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Tribunal had upheld the finding that he was liable for a housing offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004, while reducing the financial penalty imposed by Epping Forest District Council.

The agency had acted on a “let only” basis. It arranged the letting of rooms in an unlicensed HMO and received a holding deposit and one month’s rent in advance, but had no continuing role in managing the property. The central issue was whether that receipt made the agency a “person managing” under section 263(3).

1. Appeal allowed. The financial penalty imposed on Mr Cetin was set aside.
2. The definition of “person managing” in section 263(3) identifies a status to which continuing statutory responsibilities attach. It should not be construed by focusing on the precise instant at which a payment is made or occupation begins. A strictly literal construction could produce distinctions inconsistent with the statutory purpose of improving housing standards.
3. A landlord receiving rent on the day a tenancy begins may be a person managing throughout the initial tenancy period. The landlord’s status and responsibilities do not depend on whether the first payment was made immediately before or immediately after occupation.
4. The same reasoning does not apply to a letting agent whose only function is to complete the letting and who has no continuing management responsibilities. The receipt of a single instalment of rent is not, in that context, sufficient to make the agent a person managing.
5. The continuing nature of the duties under the Management Regulations and HMO licensing provisions supported that conclusion. Treating a “let only” agent as a person managing would create uncertainty about the duration of its status, duplicate the owner’s obligations and cause confusion about who managed the property.
6. Jacques v Liverpool City Council supported a contextual construction of the statutory language. It demonstrated the relevance of temporal connection and management-related payments, while recognising the difficulty of treating a complete one-off transaction as sufficient.
7. The Company was not a person managing the HMO when it received the payment from the tenant. Mr Cetin therefore had not committed the section 72(1) offence.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed the appeal and set aside the financial penalty.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): found that the appellant had committed the offence under section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004 and reduced the Council’s financial penalty by half.