A Tower Hamlets landlord, who primarily resides abroad, has been mandated by a property tribunal to reimburse two former tenants a total of £14,611.20 due to operating an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The decision, rendered on February 2, 2026, targets landlord Ahmed El Hamoudi for the property located at Printers Mews in Bow, East London.
Serious Management and Safety Failures Uncovered
The landlord's agent, who managed the property and occupied one of the six rooms, faced allegations from tenants including cutting off electricity, attempting illegal rent increases without proper notice, and threatening to dispose of tenants' belongings over cleanliness disputes in common areas. Although these specific complaints were not formally pursued in the tribunal, they highlighted significant management issues.
Unlicensed HMO and Deceptive Contracts
The property in Bow featured six rooms, each with a numbered entrance door, and was let to five individuals from more than two households, constituting an HMO that lacked the required license. The tribunal noted that the rental agreements were structured as "sharers' agreements," which potentially aimed to strip tenants of their standard legal protections under UK housing law.
Landlord's Defense Rejected by Tribunal
Mr. El Hamoudi, who did not attend the hearing, argued that he was letting rooms in his own home and believed licensing only applied to overcrowding or poor conditions. Upon learning of the requirements, his response was to reduce occupancy from five to three tenants, with plans to further decrease to two, rather than applying for a license. He also cited financial burdens like mortgage, insurance, and maintenance to mitigate penalties, but the tribunal dismissed these as normal legal obligations of property ownership.
The panel, consisting of Judge Nicol and Mr. J Stead, firmly rejected his claim of ignorance as a "reasonable excuse." They emphasized that landlords are expected to stay informed about legal requirements, and being "vaguely ill-informed" does not justify non-compliance.
Rent Repayment and Tenant Compensation
The first tenant, who resided at the property from August 2022 to October 2024 while paying £786 monthly, is set to receive £7,545.60. The second tenant, who lived there from February 2023 to July 2024 with a monthly rent of £736, will be awarded £7,065.60. Both tenants will also have their tribunal fees reimbursed, ensuring full financial redress for the period of unlicensed occupancy.
Critical Fire Safety Hazards Identified
During an inspection on December 19, 2024, an Environmental Health Officer uncovered severe fire safety deficiencies. These included missing smoke alarms in bedrooms, alarms that were not interlinked, a lack of proper fire doors, and all bedroom internal doors being key-operated, posing significant risks in an emergency.
While tenant-provided video evidence showed the property was otherwise in reasonable condition, serving as a minor mitigating factor, Judge Nicol remarked that the landlord was fortunate no fire incident occurred. He stated this was "not a point in his favour," underscoring the gravity of the safety oversights.
Additional Tenant Complaints and Tribunal Conclusion
Tenants also raised issues regarding unprotected deposits, and the failure to provide or display gas and electricity safety certificates in the property. The tribunal concluded that the setup was clearly a "commercial HMO" and that the landlord had been careless in fulfilling his legal duties. Deeming this a "serious default," the tribunal awarded the tenants 80% of the maximum possible rent repayment amounts, reflecting the severity of the violations.
This case serves as a stark reminder to landlords in London and beyond about the imperative of adhering to HMO licensing regulations and maintaining rigorous safety standards to protect tenant welfare and avoid substantial financial penalties.
