Didn't need to submit an N245. So long as I'm unemployed this is suspended and as I've said, at my age the chances of me getting work are very, very low. I looked at the N245 form and it was identical to the N56 form. I also took advice from the National Debt Helpline. They were very nice and helpful so if anyone's afraid of calling them, they needn't be.
They also told me that if I did want to submit the N245 I could also submit the form N160 which gives help with fees. I decided just to submit the N56 as requested, ticking the box unemployed as you suggested. The Court accepted that. They have left it open that should I find work then Lowells would be free to reapply to the Court which is what I expected. However, it is unlikely that scenario will arise so as far as I'm concerned, the matter is over. If the impossible happens and I do get a job, then I will deal with that as and when it arises.
Had I not been so careless in the first place by forgetting the Hearing date and gone to Court to fight my corner, then this would have been killed stone dead a couple of years ago. However, what is done is done but as the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.
Again, thank you for all your help. You've been marvellous 😀
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 ?
Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!