Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Faustus

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. So the only people who are consulted on the granting of a licence are those that have a financial benefit from a landlord or their agent being allowed to let a property ? That seems a bit wrong to me
  2. But very few people have tenancy agreements with 3 years or more. Pretty much the only people in that category are going to be people who brought a property leasehold not freehold. Which seems to be predominantly London based thing. My other query on that is the the schedule says "In this Part of this Schedule " which surely means the definition within this section only refers to this part of the act, not the whole act ?
  3. I'm having a bit of fun with a former landlord who I'm aiming to serve a Rent Repayment Order on. The problem I'm now having is that I think my Council's selective licensing department is mis interpreting the law. The issue is that according to their own guidelines I should, as a tenant in the property for more than 3 years, have been consulted before a license was issued. The council is now saying that I should not have been consulted at all. The Council says "I can confirm that the Council conform to the requirements of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 2004 which sets out the meaning of “relevant person” for the purposes of consultation. The Act specifically states that any tenant who has an unexpired lease of 3 years or less is excluded from the consultation process prior to awarding a Selective Licence. That is why you were not consulted." Schedule 5 says, in the only reference to 3 years at all "13(1)In this Part of this Schedule “licence” means a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act. (2)In this Part of this Schedule “relevant person”, in relation to a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act, means any person (other than a person excluded by sub-paragraph (3))— (a)who, to the knowledge of the local housing authority concerned, is— (i)a person having an estate or interest in the HMO or Part 3 house in question, or (ii)a person managing or having control of that HMO or Part 3 house (and not falling within sub-paragraph (i)), or (b)on whom any restriction or obligation is or is to be imposed by the licence in accordance with section 67(5) or 90(6). (3)The persons excluded by this sub-paragraph are— (a)the applicant for the licence and (if different) the licence holder, and (b)any tenant under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less." If correct this means tenants are never consulted. Is this correct ? And if not, why not ?
  4. This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  5. Just had it confirmed by the Council that there is still no licence and a Section 21 notice can not be served until such time as there is one.
  6. No formal rent increase was ever made, it was just suggested in an email from the Letting Agent. My local council used the powers provided by the Government in 2015 and declared 4 areas as selective licencing, including mine. So far my reading of this is that a Section 21 notice can not be served if a property is not licensed and doesn't fall into one of the exemption categories. My flat has no licence as of the 3rd October after checking with my local council.
  7. Sorry. Periodic Rolling Tenancy. It gets better thro. I live in an area that my local council has designated as a Selective Landlord Licensing area. This was set up in 2015 and runs for 5 years. The criteria for this area is that it is an area of low housing demand, according to the council's own blurb. A query to the council revealed that only 1 flat has a licence for that flat only, and it's not my flat, and no one has applied for a licence at all for the whole building.
  8. *Cough* "Anyway. My response to this email was that I would await a formal notice but believed that the new rent was excessive. The response was a hand delivered Section 21.4(a) with a letter attached citing rent arrears as grounds to evict." He has....
  9. I'm currently living in a flat that I have occupied on the same level of rent for 14 years. The building my flat is in has been recently sold, with that information and a new Gas safety certificate being passed to me by the Letting Agent. The Letting agency confirmed by email that the building had new owners and that the new owners would like to offer me a new tenancy at a higher rent rate, some £75 dearer. Which is unaffordable and massively greater than the current rate of rent of 2 bedroom flats and houses in my area. There are currently 4 repairs that require doing to the building and flat, namely the front door is insecure, the fire alarm system has no power, one of the radiators leaks in my box room amd the boiler has a persistent and intermittent leak that hasn't been traced yet after 3 attempts. My previous landlords were aware of all these repairs, which I had reminded them of before leaving to work away from home in July. I have no evidence that the new landlord is aware of these and I have grounds to suspect the Landlords have been less than honest with the Letting Agency. Anyway. My response to this email was that I would await a formal notice but believed that the new rent was excessive. The response was a hand delivered Section 21.4(a) with a letter attached citing rent arrears as ground to evict. My feeling is that I am being evicted in response because I have made clear that I find the unofficially suggested new rent excessive. Thoughts ?
  10. Since becoming unemployed I've fallen behind with my energy bill to what was GB Energy, now changed to Co-OP Energy. I'd managed to pay various amounts off but setting up a DD with Co-Op has proven a nightmare with random sums being taken, or attempted to be taken, from my bank account at random dates during the month. They're now threatened to move me onto a higher rate tariff. Can they do that ? And can I stop them as it seems pointless to move me to a higher rate tariff when I'm struggling to get back on track with the current tariff
  11. Not quite. Before I became unemployed I was clearing the CT arrears at £120 month. Once I was unemployed I keep paying £5 to £20 a month from my Army Reserve income. Once my UC claim was sorted out I keep paying £10 a month from my AR income. Once I finally got all the paperwork from DWP I was able to finally complete the claim for Council tax benefit, which only took DWP 5 months to sort out. At that point I discovered that I'm expected to make a contribution to Council tax.
  12. Partly. I've been making small ish payments, £5 here and there but seems on UC I'm still expected to make a contribution to my Council Tax bill........
  13. All the UC side is sorted out, only took about 4 months to get everything sorted so a complaint has gone in about that plus the factually incorrect advice DWP Staff gave me in the first place.... So my LA know I'm on benefits, I've explained how where all my money goes. I'm pretty much left about with about £110.00 a month to pay for food and travel costs so I've made an offer I know I can just about afford as long no bills go up for now. Yet they're rejected that offer as unacceptable. I can't offer more as then I have to choose between paying the rent in full, or paying the telecom bills so I can find and get a job or paying less on the utility bills and run up even more debt or going hungry. I can't cancel contracts to reduce costs as that leaves me with a big bill I can't pay. I can't afford to move flats as I can't afford a bond, fees, rent up front or the movings costs so that's out of the question. Frankly my LA (it's in the South Yorkshire area so I'll leave you to guess) is so utterly ****e and corrupt I have no interest in going hungry to pay them any more than I have to or risking losing my flat, telecoms, the lights or heating. I'm pretty confident I know the basics of the legal situation but I need to know if the council is legally justified in chasing someone who has no spare cash ?
  14. I'm currently unemployed and claiming Universal Credit and Council tax benefit. My council, knowing I'm unemployed and what I'm claiming is chasing me for arrears and has rejected the best offer I can make and pay every month. I've laid out where my money goes and politely told them to forget it. Where do I stand legally ?
  15. Not sure of that. For every £100 you earn, you have £65 docked, leaving you with £35. To my mind earning £338.10 would see £219.76 docked from £317.82. Throw in the Housing benefit part and I worked out I'd need to just clear over £1,000 net to lose every single penny of a UC payment.
  • Create New...