Des Taylor & Phil Turtle, Landlord Licensing & Defence

At Landlords Licensing & Defence we already see scenarios like @Mark Alexander has described with one tenant complaint leading to fines at one property, a check on companies house and elsewhere to identify all the charges (ie all the landlords other properties), a “valuation” of the landlord’s worth against which to issuing fines, and what can only be described as a witch-hunt against all his other properties.
Being motivated by revenue (because they get to keep the fines) officers are merciless. We have evidence time and again that they are happy in cases to leave tenants in mortal harm whilst concentrating on their case to justity fines.
One case in Northampton, the council left tenants on a death trap for SEVEN YEARS (because the fire doors were poor and the tenants kept removing the fire alarms) whilst they put together a case for £110,000 fines against a property worth £220k
At the very least the landlord suffers immense mental cruelty and harm and properties have to be sold to pay the fines.
It is not a new facet introduced by the RRA, but my god is it going to accelerate wildly.... Read More

£60 property licences are alive and well
In Jersey they have a licensing scheme for all rental properties
Each residential unit of accommodation that is rented out needs to be licensed, the cost of which is currently £60 and is valid for two years.
So not only is it infinitely cheaper it is actually far safer in that all “proof of safety” documents are uploaded and checked every two years.
If they can do this why can none of our bottomless money-pit councils do it?

Maybe the 118 investigative editorial team could ask our government for an explanation?... Read More

Silly councillor

They are public and have been for years

Scotland
https://housingandpropertychamber.scot/previous-tribunal-decisions

England
https://www.gov.uk/residential-property-tribunal-decisions... Read More

Pe385

https://www.property118.com/member/?id=18745

What / where is the evidence it is an HMO?... Read More

Rachel Reeves has committed a strict liability crime under section 95 of the Housing Act 2004 (failure to licence a property) with unlimited fines if prosecuted in court. Alternatively councils can issue a civil financial penalty up to £30,000 (and keep the money).

Councils treat this as one of the most heinous crimes possible and we see dozens of small landlords every week fined often between £12,000 to £20,000 for this exact same criminal offence.

Just like speeding, it is a strict liability crime and there is no defence of “I didn't know” or my letting agent didn't tell me. Councils are absolutely merciless in prosecuting small landlords because for them, fining landlords has become a major revenue stream.

Will Reeve’s apology get her off the hook. It certainly wouldn’t get any one else who rented out their former family home and didn't licence it. Council’s see these landlords as low hanging fruit for their revenue.

And let’s be clear we see hundreds of examples each month where councils leave tenants in danger whilst they concentrate on getting their pound of flesh from the landlord. Note councils concentrate on small landlords not the real rogues because hey never actually get cash from the rogues!

The whole licensing and enforcement environment in private sector housing is toxic and corrupt. ("Dear Council: keep as much fine money as you can raise" was never going to lead to a fair system and has in fact become an effective land grab as councils take ever bigger slices of the equity of small landlords.)

Also councils go out of their way to persuade tenants to make a rent Repayment Order for 12-months rent back (shortly to be 24-months under the new Renters Reform Act.

Will the full merciless weight of the law with civil penalty fines and rent repayment orders bear down on our chancellor as it does on every other landlord who didn't realise they needed a licence?

We wait with bated breath - and of course Landlord Licensing & Defence would be happy to defend Ms Reeves to the full extent the law allows!

As we do for every landlord what falls foul of the horrendous housing enforcement fiasco https://landlordsdefence.co.uk/pr10... Read More

If it was converted in 1988 ot is not going to have complied with 1991 building regs which were not published until 3+ years later
Therefore it is section 257 HMO if 2 or more out of the 3 units are rented rather than owner occupied
S257 is a complicated area of the housing Act 2004 that councils are only just starting to understand (as a money making machine) 11 years after the law was introduced
If your local authority says they need licensing they are probably correct. If you need assistance please get in touch with us at Landlord Licensing & Defence... Read More

There is nothing in legislation requiring that bedroom to be limited to an under 10 unless it is a licensable HMO
However the minute you accept (or fail to represent against) a licence with conditions that the council has plucked out of the air it become a CRIMINAL offence not to comply. Breach of a licence condition is punished at Level 5 on the criminal tarrif ie unlimited fines or up to £30,000 (soon to be £40,000 under the Renters Rights Act) if the council prefers to issue a civil fine and pocket your money.
Yes councils have legally untrained officers creating new criminal offences on a daily basis with not controls or accountability.
As for the poor OP if you allow that child to stay you are in criminal breach of your licence – see above
You could apply for a licence variation before the offence starts to be committed (it will count as being committed daily by the way).
If your licence expires before the offence is committed you can apply for a new licence with that child explicitly declared and they *should* give you 18months to remove her
If you need further help please contact our expert team at Landlord Licensing & Defence... Read More