Additional Licensing Judicial Review
by chris wright
Breaking News from Enfield High Court 
I just got off the phone and I’m delighted to report that Mr Constantinos Regas was successful in getting permission to proceed to with his Judicial Review at the Royal Courts of Justice this morning. Though not everything went his way, the judge didn’t accept his application in full, however he is clear to proceed and challenge additional HMO licensing, the judge said that:
“Additional HMO Licensing was arguably unlawful” and probably shouldn’t be imposed on the people of Enfield
It is not known if Enfield council will be withdrawing their scheme to license the whole borough in the light of these proceedings or will spend more tax payers money to fight on at a full Judicial Review hearing against Mr Regas. One thing they have to bear in mind is senior counsel Mr Richard Clayton QC has agreed to assist Mr Regas on no win no fee basis at that hearing.
Will Additional Licensing Be Outlawed?
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Buying Land From a NeighbourNext Article
Avoiding CGT on selling part of my residence
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 646 - Articles: 1
11:26 AM, 7th October 2014, About 12 years ago
hI
Dont see irrationality in the classifications. ‘selective’ covers all rentals in a defined area as s.79, whereas ‘additional’ covers all small HMO’s in a defined area as s.56. small hmo’s will still be caught by s.79 even if there is no additional licensing regime. additional licensing allows LA’s to stipulate more stringent standards than for selective licensing and this presumably is the reason for the two regimes.
Member Since July 2014 - Comments: 131 - Articles: 2
11:48 AM, 7th October 2014, About 12 years ago
On a re-read of s.79 it says 2 or more DWELLINGS and in the definitions s.99 dwellings are described (i.e. self contained not sharing living spaces) and cannot be defined as households which is the criteria for additional HMO…..seems cut and dry.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 646 - Articles: 1
4:03 PM, 7th October 2014, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “chris wright” at “07/10/2014 – 11:48“:
yes on careful re-read seems you are right. although if an hmo is occupied under one agreement it will still fall within s.79 selective licensing definition. the s.79 definition only excludes houses with more than one TA or licence from selective licensing. all very odd drafting as there is an overlap with additional licensing for HMO’s let on one tenancy, but not for HMO’s let on multi agreements. i think they never contemplated 3 or more unrelated sharers on one agreement.
Member Since July 2014 - Comments: 131 - Articles: 2
8:18 PM, 7th October 2014, About 12 years ago
Maybe there is a wriggle there Joe, any legal opinion you seek might be on yourside but only a court case would fix it for sure, who wants to be first – there would i think, be too much to risk for the larger portfolio LL’s