It has been a while, but today felt like the right time to revive the tradition of the NL Naughty Step, prompted by a First Tier Tribunal decision on a rent repayment order application. This is the decision, Jupet, Dupau & Maschka v Jonathan Krogdahl & Nicky Krogdahl LON/00BK/HMF/2024/0156. Do remember the joint landlord Jonathan Krogdahl, for he is our main character. By the end of this post, you will not forget him.
There is an interesting point of law in the decision, concerning section 44(4) Housing and Planning Act 2016, which reads (so far as relevant)
(4) In determining the amount the tribunal must, in particular, take into account – (a) the conduct of the landlord and the tenant,
Could conduct after the end of the tenancy, and indeed during the RRO tribunal proceedings, be considered as ‘conduct of the landlord’? The Tribunal’s answer was yes, following Kowalek v Hassanein Ltd (2022) EWCA Civ 1041, (our note) in which tenant conduct in accruing rent arrears, but doing so outside the period of the RRO application, was considered. Further, excluding landlord (or indeed tenant) conduct in the RRO proceedings would have required an express exclusion.
As for why the FTT considered this to be a live issue in the case, read on…
Jupet, Dupau and Maschka were the tenants of a flat owned by Ewan Partners Limited (directors and shareholders, Jonathan and Nicky Krogdahl). But the tenancy, for a two year term with a twelve month break clause) named Jonathan and Nicky Krogdahl as landlords and gave their home address, not the company’s registered office. Rent, however, was paid to the company’s bank account. The flat should have been licensed under City of Westminster’s additional licensing scheme, from August 2021. During the relevant period of the tenancy, May 2022 to May 2023, the property was unlicensed. The landlord had licensed in May 2023. The fixed term of the tenncy ended in September 2023, the tenants moved out in October 2023.
The Krogdahls tried to argue that they were not the landlord, the company was. This was not successful, as they were in person on the tenancy agreement, and could have received the rent as disbursements from the company, so both landlord and person having control or managing. There was no issue that the property was unlicensed and should have been, and an argument of reasonable excuse by way of a series of bereavements was not sufficient to amount to a defence.
So an RRO was to be made. The question was the amount. And here section 44(4) came into play. The FTT found no issue in tenant conduct, despite Mr Krogdahl’s accusations (we’re getting there, honestly). So then the issue was landlord conduct.
In what follows, you’ll need to bear in mind two incidents during the tenancy. First, Mr Dupau’s first rent payment had been made (for unclear reasons) to Mr Jupet’s account. Mr Jupet paid it to the company’s account the next day. (So, the company had all the rent). Second, during the tenancy a kitchen light switch had arced and had to be disconnected. The tenants requested a replacement be fitted. Mr Krogdahl sent them a switch but did not arrange for it to be fitted. One of the tenants, an electrical engineer, fitted it. (The safety of the switch was later confirmed in an electrical inspection report that was in the documents provided by the landlord in the proceedings).
During the tenancy, Jonathan Krogdahl had variously:
Given the tenants 2 months notice in May 2023, (after the landlords had become aware that the property should be licensed) while (perhaps foolishly) informing the tenants that the property needed licensing but, he said, couldn’t be in its current arrangement). The notice was of course of no effect.
In subsequent discussions about staying on and a new rent, he characterised an email from the tenants asking for a telephone call to discuss a situation “tricky to navigate for both parties” as being threatening and intimidating.
When the tenants said it would be difficult for them to find new accommodation in time for the revised supposed notice date (no notice was served at the time) of the September end of the fixed term, Mr Kroghdal replied
“…given that you have probably never been in this situation in the UK before, it is worth me highlighting to you the likely steps that will be taken should you choose to stay beyond this contractually agreed end
date, on the 11th September we will:
1. Begin the process of having you formally evicted from the property (Section 8). When we have been forced to run this process in the past, we have been required to prepare a case to present to a county court judge (should it get this far). In doing so, we will collate all documented exchanges and will be requesting character references from your employers in support of our case.” (Tribunal emphasis)
When the tenants asked for notice in proper form – a section 21 notice – Mr Krogdahl replied
“We will begin the process for eviction and will record all of our costs for doing so, which we intend to claim from you even if this process doesn’t proceed to court. Can you each please share the name of your manager to help with character references as we prepare for this eviction process? This will avoid the need for me to call your company’s reception and potentially speak to the wrong people in trying to find out who you report to.” (Tribunal emphasis)
At the Tribunal, Mr Krogdahl tried to argue this was a perfectly normal part of the section 21 possession process. The Tribunal, unsurprisingly, thought this was ‘ridiculously unsupportable’, as indeed it is.
On 13 September 2023, presumably when it became clear that the tenants were (perfectly lawfully) not going to vacate before or at the end of the fixed term, Jonathan Krogdahl wrote to them accusing them of blackmail. He then accused Mr Dupau of fraud over the first rent payment mix up (the rent money that the company had received), and then, astonishingly,
a report of fraud was made by Mr Krogdahl to Mr Dupau’s bankers and an investigation followed that caused considerable difficulty to Mr Dupau in operating his banking facilities for a period, ultimately resolved in his favour by a determination that he had engaged in nothing untoward.
The Tribunal notes Mr Krogdahl’s ‘malicious vindinctiveness’ and proceeds onwards, because oh yes, it can get worse.
The tenants found another property and informed the Krogdahls that they would move out on 17 October 2023. Jonathan Krogdahl, apparently incensed that the tenants (all employed in professional jobs) had found another property without needing a reference from him – one of his previous threats – took steps to track down the identity of the landlord of the new property, told the tenants he thought they had forged a reference from him and implied he would contact the new landlord to confirm this.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants found that they had overpaid rent in the sum of £830.62. They asked for it to be repaid.
Mr Krogdahl initially refused to refund it, asserting that it might be viewed as a “gratuity for us being fantastic landlords”. After some emails back and forth Mr Krogdahl agreed to refund £633.54 of the overpayment, before unilaterally declaring that he would only refund £337.92, and finally on 7 November 2023 notifying the Applicants by email that the Respondents were no longer willing to refund any monies derived from the overpayment.
So far, so reprehensible. But it was once the tenants had made an application for a rent repayment order that Jonathan Krogdahl went into overdrive.
After being served with the application. Mr Krogdahl sent to the tenants
an invoice in the name of the Company the total sum of £10,620.90 relating to what was by then alleged to have been defective installation of the switch, comprising the (perfectly reasonable, on its face) sum of £150 for an electrician to inspect, £54.94 for the Respondent’s alleged travel expenses, £1,411.04 for the Respondent’s time, at a rate of £156.25 per hour, and £9,004.90 said to be a “Contract Breach Penalty Fee – equivalent to rent loss potential from the time of the breach (3rd Aug ’23) to arrival of new tenants (28th Oct ’23)”
Recall that that the light switch was perfectly fine on the landlords’ own documentary evidence. There was, of course, no basis in the tenancy agreement to levy a ‘contract breach penalty fee’, or the landlord’s time and travel expenses. Nor was there any loss of rent, as the tenants had paid rent up to 17 October 2023 (in fact overpaid, as above).
Not satisfied with one ludricrous and unjustifiable demand, Mr Krogdahl followed this up with
what appears to the Tribunal to be another wholly unjustifiable claim based upon the alleged frustration of a previously uncommunicated desire to sell the Property in 2023, meaning that capital had been unable to be applied to more lucrative projects. The (as we find) wholly unjustified sums sought in relation to the light switch, as augmented by this novel concept, never before articulated, led to a demand from the First Respondent for payment of the total sum of £28,303.87 to the Company.
Somewhat incredibly, Mr Krogdahl then issued county court proceedings for these claims. These apparently are not yet determined and are ongoing, and of course the Tribunal’s findings are not binding on the county court, and of course we don’t comment on ongoing proceedings, but… well, good luck to whoever is making his case at trial.
Mr Krogdahl followed this up with a demand that the RRO application be dropped, as the landlords were
so incensed at the alleged injustice of the tenants’ actions that they propose to use this decision as an example to share with the media, UK real estate agencies and industry bodies to establish a “rogue tenants register”.
This was followed with a threat that a county court judgment against the tenants would mean
“…a flat ‘don’t hire’ for any FCA/PRA regulated positions. Given that you all work in financial and professional services, I just want to make sure that your ‘lawyer’ has advised you accordingly.”
(We’ll come back to Jonathan Krogdahl’s work as an HR consultant below.)
There was also – naturally – a complaint to the police by Mr Krogdahl alleging the tenants had committed blackmail. Unsurprisingly, the police found no criminal conduct whatsoever.
Then, in the RRO proceeding itself
Mr Krogdahl’s ill-judged onslaughts continued to this Tribunal. In the Respondents’ written presentation of their case they unjustifiably alleged fraud against Mr Dupau, in seeking to strike out his claim, and his evidence. They repeatedly, and again entirely unjustifiably alleged blackmail against all Applicants. They variously allege the Applicants to be “devious”, “manipulative”, “falsely pious”
The landlords had also told the tenants (and tribunal) that they had moved to Australia, without giving an address, and they deleted the email addresses previously used to communicate with the tenants, in an apparent effort to avoid service (and then accused the tenants of not serving the application by post as directed.
All in all, the Tribunal found
In this case, the very foundation of the Respondents’ defence, once the issue of them being the landlord was determined, was their slew of allegations of fraud, blackmail, dishonesty and malice against the Applicants. This went further than simple allegations in the present proceedings, to threats to jeopardise their employment, as we find, to unwarranted allegations to Mr Dupau’s bank, engendering a deeply uncomfortable investigation, and at worst a criminal allegation of blackmail made to the police. All of these matters arose from the landlord and tenant relationship between the Applicants and Respondents. These allegations would, if true, constitute serious criminal offences.
On the evidence before us, we have found Mr Krogdahl’s accusations to be false. In these extreme circumstances, we think it would – in Judge Cooke’s words – offend any sense of justice if we did not take this appalling behaviour into account.
The RRO would have been for 50% of rent for a simple failure to license. In view of Mr Krogdahl’s conduct, this was increased to 70% of rent.
Mr Krogdahl then had the cheek to write to the Tribunal to ask it to order the tenants to pay the awards totalling some £25,000 to Shelter. As the Tribunal tartly observes, it has no jurisdiction to do so, and anyway
The Tribunal applies the law as it is, not as Mr Krogdahl might wish it to be, and the state of the law is that an RRO requires repayment of rent to the tenant, not a third party. What the Applicants may choose to do with such sums is entirely their own affair.
So, that is Jonathan Krogdahl, who was landlord of some 5 HMO properties, it appears. Also former Tory councillor on Sevenoaks District Council from 2015, (albeit with a somewhat spotty attendance record). Also former managing director of an HR consultancy specialising in ‘change and transformation’ (that is sacking people).
Also, in the words of the Tribunal, a vexatious, threatening, intimidating, maliciously vindictive bully.
It appears Mr Krogdahl did indeed move to Australia in September 2024. He appeared at the Tribunal by video. It is not clear whether he continues to be a landlord in England. If so, we can only wish the best to his tenants. In the meantime, he goes on the Naughty Step.
You drop the G in ‘Krogdahl’ a few times above. Worth noting that Nicky aka Nicoleta, is his wife, not his sibling.
Sorted on the Gs. And no, though she is his wife, the relation is not really important in this context.
This is interesting. It is a little similar to one of my cases that I was involved in as a litigant in person.
I sued the estate agent a few years ago. The people who turned up at the county court hearing were actually the estate agent and not the landlord. the landlord knew nothing at all about what was happening in that the tenancy agreement had the property owner’s name on it as the landlord. Yet the estate agent sent a S.21 eviction notice delivered by hand after I had actually left the property after having received a nasty email to leave. I took the email as a notice, but it didn’t say notice or s.21, it just said, you have two weeks to leave the property. After that the estate agent stole my deposit, then lied about disrepair and then added hundreds of pounds onto the alleged rent arrears that were receipts from contractors, carpet and other upgrades. I took them to court, but the property owner knew nothing about it, the estate agents turned up and told the Judge a pack of lies. It is all in the bundle. I submitted a lot of documents proving I didn’t owe anything but that they actually owed me money, excess rent and rent deposit. The estate agent was also charging me for things like missing ‘ appointments’ that didn’t exist, I had no idea what appointments they were referring to. They were charging me for gas safety checks, for example, they had not arranged the date and time for the gas safety check in advance but decided to wait until I was out before letting themselves in and carrying out the gas safety check. They then charged me £30 for not being in. There were a lot of unlawful charges.
I also found out much too late that a person cannot make a claim for rent deposit in a county court, it has to be in a magistrates’.
But the way things go, even that might be wrong.
Despite me knowing that I should have won that case, my claim was dismissed.
I did not appeal it because I felt that at least, it was all in the bundle, on the records.
At the hearing, I asked the Defendants (estate agents) “Where is Mr ……..?” (the owner of the property named as landlord on the tenancy agreement) and (where is the consent form to show that the owner has given consent for the estate agent to act in a legal capacity for the owner?) they didn’t respond to any of the questions at the court hearing.
Though I did not appeal it, the amount of money I was claiming was low, I felt it was a waste of costs and expense to take the matter further. It is on the records though.
Anther reason I made that claim was because the estate agent was sending things to my new employers, my place of work, which I felt was wrong as well.
Do Estate Agents have a legal right to represent the properties they manage in a legal capacity, for example, at court?
Or does that breach the Rule in Battle Rule?
An agent can’t represent the landlord at court in a possession claim.
A claim for breach of tenancy deposit regulations is in the county court. not the magistrates.
If your claim in the county court was against the agents, not the landlord, this may have been the wrong defendant.
also Mr. Krogdahl is a trustee/director of Invictus Education Trust, appointed for 4 years from 2024. This is a group of state schools in the West Midlands. He carries out his duties from Australia, it would appear.
https://www.invictus.education/page/?title=Mr+J+Krogdahl&pid=38
“Jonathan is a dedicated management consultant and human resources professional with an undergraduate degree in Education (English & History) and a master’s degree in Human Resources. With a passion for both learning and people development, he brings a unique blend of academic expertise and organisational insight to the Invictus Education Trust.”
He certainly brought something unique to his role as landlord.
On that I would agree
So the tenants have a Court Order telling the landlords to pay them money, but now they have even more time and expense in trying to actually get the money from a person currently residing overseas.
Will they ever get their money or is it a pyrrich victory
It looks like there are still assets and indeed professional appointments/employment in the UK, so prospects are fair, I’d think.
70% award only? professional landlord who misrepresented the law in eviction notice…e.g. Simpson House 3 Limited v Osserman & ORS [2022] UKUT 164 (LC) was increased to 80% for R conduct that was tame by comparison
‘Professional landlord’ is a shibboleth – Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC). The section 21 in this case, when eventually served, was apparently not defective. The property was of a good standard, and landlord conduct was the only aggravating issue on an otherwise simple failure to licence. 50% starting point broadly in line with UT decisions and Newell v Abbott [2024] UKUT 181. That said, on this extent of egregious conduct, I can see how a higher uplift than 20% could have been made.
On Simpson v Osserman, there was harassment and revenge evictions, as well as the misrepresentation of the effect of a s.21 notice. That resulted in a 15% uplift, so perhaps not that out of line.
I believe “professional landlord” is still an important consideration, despite Daff. Newell considered a range of awards against professional landlords (including Daff)) and concluded at §57 “Factors which have tended to result in higher penalties include that the offence was committed deliberately, or by a commercial landlord or an individual with a larger property portfolio”
I think it is unhelpful. Firstly because it creates an apparent category of ‘amateur’ landlords. The starting point has to be that all landlords are expected (required) to act professionally. Secondly, because the way it has been deployed suggests that there is some significance in number of properties/corporate ownership etc..
The only real question is whether there is any mitigation for the failure to licence (absent any reasonable excuse defence). In that inferences may be drawn from the extent of experience of the landlord and their situation as to whether accident/lack of knowledge is plausible, or whether there is the appearance of a deliberate failure. That is what Daff means, I think – it is a question of all the relevant circumstances.
Quite agree, but wonder if, because the FTT felt it was being somewhat adventurous in having regard to conduct which nearly all took place outside the relevant period, that made it more cautious. Hopefully future panels follow suit, but treat conduct as serious as this as just as aggravating as they would had it taken place during the relevant period.
Not sure if you have received any ‘unusual’ comments here, but I posted about this on Reddit, and there are some users (or more likely one user) making some rather strange comments in the past few days:
E.g. Alias1:
” So let me understand what you are saying. These three French foreigners turn up and take really well paying jobs from British workers, probably on temporary visas. Most likely only buy French food and wine, eat in French owned restaurants, holiday back in France and send money back home rather than spend it in the UK. They rent a really nice place from a British landlord who probably made next to no money on it and seems to have done everything right up until these three complete bastards realise they can get 100% of their rent back and screw him over. Not because of any loss or damages for them but because a poorly designed law gives them 12 months to make a claim with a guaranteed win. The landlord closes his business, takes his money and family out of the UK, maybe never to return and you attack him? It is because of people like you and Stasi Starmer, that nothing works in the UK anymore (housing, water, hospitals, policing/crime!) and people like me and this landlord, that you seem to hate so much, have left and have taken their families, their money, their businesses and their investments with them out of the UK. The UK is now a third world country and by posting this you are just making it worse! Well done traitor! ”
Alias2:
“It says it is a ‘News Article’ but are you sure that this isn’t a fake story? Did you make this up or did you check any of this information with any of the tenants or the landlord before posting it here?”
“There is a lot that you’ve claimed that isn’t in there. Guess that you just made all of that up then!? This is why Trump made up the term ‘fake news’. Nothing checked with actual people, just an anonymous guy attacking landlords on a Reddit echo chamber made for idiots!”
No way of identifying who Alias1 & Alias2 are, or whether they are the same person, but the way that Reddit works, stories don’t really get any comments or reads after the first day or two, so it’s more-than-ordinarily eyebrow raising when such comments appear a week or so later.
There have been no comments here. But I have had an email. The timing is… interesting.
I posted on the 30th. His LinkedIn started attracting lots of comments mocking him, and at some point, several days later, he deactivated the LinkedIn account. He has now restored it, but removed his recent posts, thereby also removing the rude comments about him.
A “In Defence of the Landlord: The Other Side of the Story” was posted on the 8th at 4:55am UK time (obviously this would be rather more sociable hour in Australia) on Reddit. Unfortunately it was deleted before I could read it.
Subsequent comments in his defence were posted on the 11th at 4:25am, 13th at 2:26am, 14th at 1:40am, 15th at 7:17am, and 16th at 00:40.
Melbourne is around 9 hours ahead of the UK, FWIW.
I don’t disagree that the landlords behaviour was quite appalling. I should say that I represent Landlords and Tenants in court proceedings, whomever my client happens to be.
With regards to them occupying the naughty step, I think justifiably so.
I would just like to make an observation, that is How many Tenants ever appear on the naughty step ( or is that step just for landlords ) Similarly, how many Labour Councillors or indeed M.P’s and there have been a few of late, are put on the naughty step.
There is a ‘Dr Shipman’ in Every profession.
An interesting question would be what proportion of Landlords or Tenants are ‘guilty of misdemeamours – Contract breaches. Considering 83% of tenants are satisfied, we could look at how many RRO’s or any other findings there are against Landlords with the sheer number of Possession claims, quite aside from unpaid rent that no action is taken upon for various reasons.
Bias is a terrible affliction.
Oddly enough, the most recent naughty step type of post concerned a Labour MP
https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2024/08/the-mp-for-ilford-south-and-a-teachable-moment/
And the actual last naughty step before this one featured a then Labour councillor and wannabe MP.
https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2023/06/on-the-naughty-step-a-rising-star-of-barking/
So I rather think your accusation of bias has its origin in, well, bias.
As the history makes clear, the naughty step is for particularly stupid or egregious behaviour, and not necessarily as a landlord or tenant. It is a unique accolade for entertainment value. Mere bad behaviour doesn’t cut it.