Osman specialises in Housing Law and has many years of experience in the area. He undertakes a wide range of Housing cases including rent and other possession cases, succession, disrepair, unlawful eviction, homelessness internal s202 reviews and s204 county court appeals. He has also successfully applied for Judicial Reviews against the London Boroughs of Hillingdon and Ealing amongst other boroughs, including out of hours applications to the High Court. He has an in-depth knowledge of the developments in Housing Law and has acted for a vulnerable client challenging the Council’s decision to seek possession on a ‘flexible’ tenancy. Osman has also acted for private client’s and has proficiency in representing both the vulnerable young and elderly people, as well as families requiring support and accommodation from social services. He also has skills in assisting families with no recourse to public funds to obtain support. His eagerness in supporting the vulnerable members of society is well known when challenging children and adult assessments eligibility criteria and provision for services.
Having gained in-depth knowledge of Welfare Benefits, Osman has assisted clients with reviews, appeals and disputes against decisions made by the Jobcentre Plus, Tax Credits Office and Housing Benefit / Council Tax Benefit departments. Osman has worked on challenging failed medical assessments, benefit fraud and overpayments of benefits. He has been successful in challenging benefit decisions in a First-Tier Tribunal and appealing the same to the Upper Tribunal.
Osman attends and advises monthly pro-bono sessions at local Citizen Advice Bureau’s.
R (Hindis Abdulrahman) v Hillingdon LBC  EWHC 2647 (Admin), 28 October 2016. Successful Judicial Review in which the High Court held that Council had not been entitled to conclude that the claimant’s new application to them for assistance under Part VII, Housing Act 1996, was based on exactly the same facts as her previous application. The Council had irrationally concluded that the fresh application was based on exactly the same facts and/or that the new facts were irrelevant to the claimant’s application. Noticeably for homelessness applicant’s, the case shows what constitutes a ‘relevant’ change of circumstances. In this case, the fact that the new application was a single one rather than a joint one and that the number of people seeking assistance had changed, both constituted a relevant change of circumstances. The full judgment can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2647.html
Jhawer v Vatts  May Legal Action 40. County Court at Brentford, 18 February 2016. Successful in dismissing a claim for possession, applying the principle in Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues  EWCA Civ 669 to a case where the deposit had been taken, and retained, by an agent who went out of business before the replacement tenancy was granted. The deposit was nonetheless held to have been “received” by the landlord in relation to the replacement tenancy. The lack of repayment of the deposit, together with the tenancy terms on the second property requiring a deposit, showed a deposit had been paid in respect of the second property, and not protected.
Chaudry v Cooley . November 2016 Legal Action. County Court at Brentford. Successful in defending possession claim and counter-claiming for non-protection of deposit. The DJ awarded compensation one times the amount of the deposit for each of the three fixed-term AST’s and three times the deposit for the statutory periodic AST. The Defendant was awarded damages for disrepair, nuisance and for the interruptions to the supply of gas and electricity.
Tyto v Narang  July/August Legal Action 47.* Assisted in claim for damages for unlawful eviction and breach of tenancy deposit requirements, resulting in a judgment for over £29,000 in damages.