Jump to content


Recommended Posts

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 ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last line of the Act says it all.

Only secure tenants with 3 or more years to go on their lease or licence are "relevant persons" and so have to be consulted. It doesnt matter how long you have lived there, it is the length of the tenancy still to run that counts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/07/2019 at 13:36, ericsbrother said:

the last line of the Act says it all.

Only secure tenants with 3 or more years to go on their lease or licence are "relevant persons" and so have to be consulted. It doesnt matter how long you have lived there, it is the length of the tenancy still to run that counts

 

 

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are secure tenants this would apply to but they have probably lived in the property for decades rather than years, nothing to do with leasehold or freehold, it is the tenany of the occupier and they are not the owner.

as for this part of the schedule that refers to the piece of legislation as it is a vriant of an existing  piece of law.

So with private parking matters we refer to Sch 4 of the POFA 2012. ther are other parts that are nothing todo with parking so in your case refers to the whole of the 2004 Act, not just one paragraph but the legislation was passed  with a load of conditions that were enabled at different times so it applies to the whole Act but specifically  as described in  parts 2 and 3.

You cant pick out a phrase as a stand alone and read it to have a different meaning than parliament intended

 

You need to rethink this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...