{"id":3405,"date":"2022-09-06T11:02:27","date_gmt":"2022-09-06T11:02:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rfblegal.co.uk\/?post_type=insight&p=3405"},"modified":"2025-11-14T13:26:38","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T13:26:38","slug":"klasik-bakimsizlik-savunmasi-basarisiz-oldu","status":"publish","type":"insight","link":"https:\/\/rfblegal.co.uk\/tr\/icgoruler\/klasik-bakimsizlik-savunmasi-basarisiz-oldu\/","title":{"rendered":"Klasik Bak\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131k Savunmas\u0131 Ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rudi Ramdarshan and Marissa Lawrence were successful in obtaining possession of a high-value \u00f6zellik<\/a> in Westminster, despite the tenant being an Assured Tenant, the original tenancy being lost, and issues of disrepair<\/a> being raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arka plan<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The firm was instructed by one of its portfolio landlords in respect of konut<\/a> premises in Westminster. The premises was a flat located in a building owned by Westminster Council, and which was located within a conservation area. The client was the owner of a long lease<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tenant had been occupying the property since 1997, at first under a fixed term assured tenancy, which upon expiry of the fixed term, became a statutory<\/a> periodic assured tenancy. The tenant had raised issues of disrepair which resulted in the client deciding to decant the tenant and fully renovate the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the renovation, the tenant fell into arrears<\/a>. In February 2018, the landlord<\/a> served a section 8 notice on the tenant on the basis of rent arrears<\/a> relying on ground 10. Following expiry of the notice, the tenant remained in arrears and possession proceedings were issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daval\u0131'n\u0131n taktikleri<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A common tactic by defendants<\/a> when facing<\/a> possession proceedings based on rent arrears is to raise allegations of disrepair and to seek to suggest that such a sum reduces or extinguishes the rental arrears. In practice, despite the Court having the power to order possession at a first hearing summarily when faced with an unmeritorious defence, Courts are reluctant to do so without a factual enquiry which often means requiring expert and factual evidence<\/a>. This tactic can delay possession being granted for months if not years, all the while arrears are likely to continue to accrue. In addition, landlords are faced with having to shoulder the ilave<\/a> costs of a full trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to the claim for possession and arrears, the tenant issued a defence and counterclaim. The tenant included multiple claims<\/a> within her counterclaim, with a large portion being dedicated to alleged disrepair at the premises and damages flowing from the landlord\u2019s alleged breach<\/a> of duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout the progress of litigation<\/a>, the landlord (through RFB and their agents) requested access to the premises in order to (1) investigate any alleged disrepair and (2) complete any remedial works required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kirac\u0131n\u0131n kendi onar\u0131m uzman\u0131na ve ev sahibinin uzman\u0131na eri\u015fim izni vermesine ra\u011fmen, kirac\u0131, e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n masraflar\u0131 ev sahibi taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmak \u00fczere depoya yerle\u015ftirilmesi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle ev sahibine eri\u015fim izni vermeyi s\u00fcrekli olarak reddetmi\u015ftir. Kirac\u0131n\u0131n binada depolanan e\u015fyalar\u0131, ev sahibinin uzman\u0131n\u0131n da g\u00f6zlemledi\u011fi gibi, binadaki alan\u0131n neredeyse 70%'sini kaplayan hacimli siyah \u00e7\u00f6p torbalar\u0131ndan olu\u015fuyordu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ev sahibi ve temsilcileri her zaman onar\u0131mlar\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye haz\u0131r, istekli ve muktedir olduklar\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015flerdir, ancak kirac\u0131 s\u00fcrekli olarak eri\u015fimi reddetmi\u015f veya m\u00fcteahhitlerle yap\u0131lan randevular\u0131 iptal etmi\u015ftir - genellikle denetim g\u00fcn\u00fcnde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duru\u015fma<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bu davalar\u0131n duru\u015fmas\u0131nda, kirac\u0131 ve ev sahibinin temsilcileri, bak\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131k durumlar\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmesi, eri\u015fim talepleri, eri\u015fimin reddedilmesi ve \u00f6nceki tadilat\u0131n ard\u0131ndan binan\u0131n durumu konular\u0131nda \u00e7apraz sorguya tabi tutuldu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his judgment, HHJ Luba QC found that he preferred the evidence put forward by the landlord\u2019s agents. HHJ Luba QC specifically commented on the tenant\u2019s treatment of the property, in particular that the excessive storage of black bin sacks would exacerbate any alleged issues at the premises. HHJ Luba QC also held that following the previous renovation, the Property was left in a good standard<\/a> of condition. HHJ Luba QC held that the deterioration in the state of the Property following the renovation was, on the balance of probabilities, more likely to flow from tenant misuse than any alleged breach of duty by the landlord.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HHJ Luba QC, kirac\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131 davas\u0131n\u0131n, bak\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131k ve tazminat taleplerinin tamam\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erecek \u015fekilde, kay\u0131ttan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u015e\u00fcphesiz olumlu bir sonu\u00e7, ancak m\u00fcvekkil, tebligat\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131ndan bu yana 4 y\u0131ll\u0131k bir gecikmeye katlanmak zorunda kald\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kira Art\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n Ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another<\/a> central element of the tenant\u2019s defence and counterclaim was that the landlord\u2019s rent increases had failed to follow the form set out in the tenancy agreement<\/a> and, as such, were invalid. The tenant included in their counterclaim a claim for the return of alleged overpaid rent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin kira art\u0131\u015flar\u0131 ile ilgili maddeleri a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki gibidir:-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBu S\u00f6zle\u015fme kapsam\u0131nda \u00f6denecek kira bedeli a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki gibi olacakt\u0131r<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a.\u0130lk G\u00f6zden Ge\u00e7irme Tarihine kadar \u0130lk Kira ve<\/p>\n\n\n\n

b.Birbirini takip eden her bir G\u00f6zden Ge\u00e7irme D\u00f6nemi boyunca, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131dakilerden b\u00fcy\u00fck olan\u0131na e\u015fit bir kira (\u2018Yeni Kira\u2019):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. G\u00f6zden Ge\u00e7irme Tarihinden hemen \u00f6nce \u00f6denecek kira art\u0131 5%;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II.A\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki 3. alt maddeye uygun olarak tespit edilebilecek kira bedeli;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bu Ev sahibi her \u0130ncelemeden \u00f6nce<\/em> Tarihinde Kirac\u0131ya G\u00f6zden Ge\u00e7irme D\u00f6nemi i\u00e7in Yeni Kiray\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak bildirecektir.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Y\u0131llar boyunca, kirac\u0131 ve ev sahibi, g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irme d\u00f6neminden \u00f6nce kira \u00fczerinde anla\u015fmaya varma s\u00fcrecine girmi\u015flerdir. Ev sahibi genellikle kirac\u0131ya mektup yazarak kiran\u0131n art\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtiyor, bunun ard\u0131ndan kirac\u0131 ve ev sahibi yeni bir kira \u00fczerinde anla\u015fmak i\u00e7in m\u00fczakerelere ba\u015fl\u0131yordu. Bu kira, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uyar\u0131nca talep edilebilecek miktardan daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olurdu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the counterclaim, the tenant alleged that (1) the rent increases were invalid as they did not follow the formula set out in the tenancy agreement and (2) rent increase notices<\/a> were required to be sent out to the tenant in advance of the review date, informing the tenant of the new rent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ev sahibinin pozisyonu (1) taraflar\u0131n kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde belirtilen form\u00fclden farkl\u0131 bir kira bedeli \u00fczerinde ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 anla\u015fabilecekleri ve (2) kira art\u0131\u015f bildirimi gereklili\u011finin tetikleyici bir bildirim \u015feklinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (yani, kira art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ancak ge\u00e7erli bir kira art\u0131\u015f bildiriminin al\u0131nmas\u0131yla ge\u00e7erli hale gelece\u011fi) y\u00f6n\u00fcndeydi. Bunun yerine, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bildirim, kirac\u0131ya kiras\u0131n\u0131n ne olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildiren bir bilgilendirme notuydu. Bildirim, ev sahibinin kesin kiray\u0131 bile belirlemesini gerektirmezdi - sadece uygulanacak mekanizma (bu ister RPI'ye at\u0131fta bulunarak ister 5%'lik bir art\u0131\u015f olsun, kirac\u0131 bunu kendisi hesaplayabilirdi). Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin kat\u0131 bir \u015fekilde yorumlanmas\u0131 halinde, bildirim bir sonraki g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irme d\u00f6neminden \u00f6nceki gece saat 23:59'a kadar yap\u0131labilir.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the tenant\u2019s cross-examination at trial, she admitted that it was the usual course of action for herself and the landlord to privately agree the rent which was to be paid<\/a>, which was lower than that which she accepted could be due under the tenancy agreement. The tenant also admitted that the rent which she had was by way of housing<\/a> benefit and discretionary housing payments. The tenant still asserted she should be entitled to the return of any unpaid rent and would then privately liaise with the housing benefit office to determine who would keep the overpayment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HHJ Luba QC, ev sahibinin kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin kira g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irme ko\u015fullar\u0131na ili\u015fkin yorumunu tercih etti ve bu nedenle, Mart 2018'deki g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irme d\u00f6nemine kadar olan kiran\u0131n ev sahibi ile kirac\u0131 aras\u0131nda kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve bu rakamlara g\u00f6re belirlenmesine karar verdi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bundan sonra, a\u00e7\u0131k bir anla\u015fma olmamas\u0131 halinde, kira bedeli ya Perakende Fiyat Endeksine g\u00f6re ya da 5%'den hangisi y\u00fcksekse ona g\u00f6re artacakt\u0131r. Bu da 2018'den itibaren \u00f6nemli bir kira art\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile sonu\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. HHJ Luba QC, kira g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irme bildiriminin tetikleyici bir bildirim olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, ancak ev sahibinin iddia etti\u011fi gibi, kirac\u0131n\u0131n kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde hesaplamalar\u0131 tamamlayarak her g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irme d\u00f6neminde kiran\u0131n ne olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a teyit etti\u011fi i\u00e7in kiran\u0131n hangi y\u00f6ntemle art\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirten bir bilgilendirme notu oldu\u011funa karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of further relevance, during the tenant\u2019s cross-examination, it was discussed what position the tenant would be left in if the rent were to increase beyond that payable immediately before March 2018. The tenant stated that if the rent increased beyond that figure, they would not be able to afford the rent and would have to explore the possibility of obtaining part-time employment<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sonu\u00e7lar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130\u00e7inde summary<\/a>, this case was beleaguered by several factors which would frustrate and complicate even the most straightforward of rent arrears possession cases. As Property Litigators will<\/a> know, the combination of the legal aid defendant and a disrepair counterclaim often spell delay in the mind of Claimant Landlords, and it is all too common to see unmeritorious disrepair counterclaims being taken all the way to trial due to parties refusing to make reasonable concessions, and indeed the Court\u2019s backlog meaning listing dates for a trial for disrepair are often a long wait.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HHJ Luba QC'nin bu davadaki karar\u0131 pratik ve tam olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc ve Davac\u0131 Ev Sahibine uzun zamand\u0131r beklenen zaferi kazand\u0131rd\u0131. Dava, kirac\u0131lar\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti geciktirmek i\u00e7in haks\u0131z bak\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131k iddialar\u0131n\u0131 kullanabilmelerine ra\u011fmen, nihayetinde Mahkemelerin g\u00fcr\u00fclt\u00fcy\u00fc kesece\u011fini ve m\u00fclkiyeti emredece\u011fini g\u00f6stermektedir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ek Bilgi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haber Yazar\u0131: Marissa Lawrence | Rudi Ramdarshan<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3406,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[81],"class_list":["post-3405","insight","type-insight","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-litigation-team-dj"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t