Pujah Shan

Solicitor - Chartered Legal Executive

SRA ID: 50198201

I am a Chartered Legal Executive in the Housing Department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. I have an in depth understanding of the Housing Law sector, in particular Landlord and Tenant law, as this is my area of expertise. I have dealt with a number of legal cases within the Housing sector, including: Homelessness Disrepair Service of notices Issuing possession proceedings Possession hearings Bailiff applications Counterclaims Defences Unlawful entry Landlord and tenant duties I am currently based in the Milton Keyes office and have recently completed my CILEx qualification, qualifying in October 2022. Since doing so, I have continued to work on a variety of matters, representing both landlords and tenants. I have significant experience in assisting clients to recover vacant possession of their rental properties. Because of laws in England becoming more strict, such as the laws surrounding the safeguarding of tenants, the correct process of renting a private property has become increasingly difficult for landlords. I enjoy keeping up to date with this rapidly changing area of law, in order to ensure that I can provide the best possible service for my clients. Career: Duncan Lewis Solicitors 2023 - Present Warner Goodman LLB 2022 - 2023 Dutton Gregory Solicitors 2019 - 2022 Recent and Notable Cases: Rakusen v Jepsen and others [2023] UKSC 9 The Respondent, Mr Rakusen, is the leaseholder of a flat. He granted a tenancy of the flat to Kensington Property Investment Group Ltd. Kensington then entered into agreements with the Appellants granting them each possession of one room of the flat for an aggregate fee of £2,297 per month. As this was a house in multiple occupation (or “HMO”) it is required to be licenced under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 however it was not licensed. In 2019 the Appellants applied to the First-tier Tribunal for a Rent Repayment Order against Mr Rakusen pursuant to Section 41 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 due to the required license not being in place. Mr Rakusen denies that he committed an offence and attempted to strike out the Appellants’ application. The strike out application was made on the basis that a Rent Repayment Order can only be made against the immediate landlord of the person making the application. The First-tier Tribunal refused to strike out the application, holding that Mr Rakusen was “a” landlord of the flat, albeit not “the” landlord of the Appellants. Mr Rakusen appealed to The Upper Tribunal with permission of the tribunal judge. The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Rakusen’s appeal, holding that that a Rent Repayment Order can be made against a superior landlord of an applicant. The Upper Tribunal judge granted permission to appeal.The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Rakusen’s appeal, holding that a Rent Repayment Order could not be made against a superior landlord. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.