X

Sign Up

or

By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Sign Up

Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google

or


By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Log In

or


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Forgot Password

To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.


Already a PT member? Log In

Don't have an account? Sign Up

  • Buy-to-Let

    Selective licensing may be illegal - claim

    Currently being challenged - see below excerpt from Giles Peaker's Nearly Legal blog:

    The Queen on the application of Mr Peter Gaskin v LB Richmond Upon Thames (2018) EWHC 1996 (Admin) (Not on Bailli yet. Report here.)

    We didn’t report round 1 of this, probably because it was so completely inconclusive, but here is round 2 and a decision that will very significant for every Local Authority landlord/letting licensing scheme.

    The issue was the upfront level of fees charged by LB Richmond on Thames for an HMO licence. LB Richmond maintained that the fee level could be set at a level designed to cover not only the costs of processing his application but also to contribute towards the costs of LB Richmond running its HMO licensing scheme more generally, including enforcement. Mr G, the landlord, maintained that the fee could only be set at a level covering the costs of processing the application.

    Mr G was prosecuted for failing to pay the licence fee demanded and that resulted in a judicial review. The first part of the JR – dealing with domestic law – is here. Mr G mostly lost. But it resulted in an adjournment on the issue of whether there was a breach of EU law to a later hearing. This was that adjourned hearing.

    The issue was whether private letting of accommodation was a service for the purposes of EU Directive 2006/123/EC. If it was, then the licence fee would be restricted to just the apportioned costs of processing the application, not the broader costs of the operation and enforcement of the licensing scheme.

    The High Court found that the letting of private accommodation was provision of a service that would fall under the Directive. It was not relevant that council tax rather than business rates were paid on the property. The express exclusion of social housing from the directive indicated that other housing provision was included.

    LB Richmond’s upfront licence fee was therefore unlawful

    https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/08/service-not-included/

    1
    0

    This is very good news.   Hopefully others will take this up and challenge the ridiculous fees and impositions required.  I recently paid £750 per property in one area I rent homes.  I then had an inspection and it was obvious from the moment the inspector walked in the door they were looking for an excuse to attack me.  They didn't find much to work with but noted that the neighbours had left rubbish in the front garden so wanted the landlords contact details there as "The landlord is responsible for this".

    0
    0

    Would be interesting in view of this if LL started to FOI (Freedom of Information) request LA to provide the breakdown of costs they have used in calculating the costs. Especially as Giles points out all the known schemes charge a single upfront fee.

    If LA refused LL could ask the Information Commissioner to issue enforcement notices on the basis that LA show they are complying with this Judgement.

    0
    0