Where can landlords pay £1.85pw to Nottingham Licensing?

Where can landlords pay £1.85pw to Nottingham Licensing?

9:13 AM, 30th July 2018, About 3 years ago 34

Text Size

Come on who’s telling you to write these letters below? A few tenants have asked Licensing for proof of where the Landlord can pay £1.85pw. We all know that’s codswallop and those landlords that talk to their tenants have told them the same.

I’m having to ask for a lot of rent increases as we speak. I’ve tried keeping their rents the same, but cost have surmounted too much now. They all know it’s because of Licensing.

I feel sorry for tenants that have been given their Section 21 due to Licensing. Imagine being made homeless when you’ve done nothing wrong. All from an immoral charge plucked from thin air from the Council.

For the first time in my 20 years as a landlord I’ve had to cancel a new kitchen this week I was doing for a tenant as there was no money left after paying Licensing fees.

Below is a photo of bathroom refurbishments we are just about finishing. This bathroom is a dream for someone on benefits believe it or not. Especially someone who has been ‘let off’ paying the proper rent for the last 4 years or so. Who now has to pay more – not because of the bathroom, but because of the Licensing fee. This bathroom would have been delayed had I started paying for Licensing fees. Loads of Landlords are saying they clamping down now on refurbs & do-ups & nice stuff for tenants etc.

What Landlords are asking is, they’ve come forward, paid the fees, but apparently Nottingham got only 3000 applications out of 33000. Landlords are saying there is no way you can come inspect their houses when you haven’t even got all the Landlords you need to get and we need to know your views on that? That is a question mark by the way. About 1025 of them not been answered and someone in the next few months is going to want to know why. We have to answer questions, but Licensing don’t. It seems they are above the rules.

We urge the Government to review the proposed scheme and the areas selected to ensure they do meet the Governments conditions for Selective Licensing before the scheme is allowed to commence.

Please Click Here to sign the petition.

Can you Landlords please sign this and forward to all your contacts.

A small hope we have, but it is worth trying anything and everything. The more Licensing & Govt start to see these things, who knows.



by Larry Sweeney

18:52 PM, 31st July 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to Luke. No If the shelf company sublet the directors or who ever collected rent could face prosecution for operating without a licence. However if the end tenant incorporated ,cost 20 quid, and a business lease subject to the 1954 ll and tenant act was signed then this would fall outside licensing legislation. Obviously no claim for HB could be submitted as HB payable to individuals not corporate bodies.

by Heather G.

17:38 PM, 1st August 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Clare_V at 30/07/2018 - 21:20
Hi Claire, our first license, applied for in 2016 I think took 16 months to issue and they have yet to visit that property. Other LLs I've spoken to in the area have said they've never had an inspection. Would love to know how they're spending our hard-earned money. Will try to put a note up here on the Croydon LL Forum I went to last week -not very inspiring to say the least!

by Robert Mellors

18:07 PM, 1st August 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 31/07/2018 - 18:52
Hi Larry, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but what you seem to be suggesting is that the "end tenant", i.e. private tenants, e.g. a family/couple/single person, incorporates themselves into a limited company so that they can have a commercial lease of a residential property instead of an assured shorthold tenancy? And if they did this, then the property would no longer fall within the category of needing a licence under the selective license provisions?

Surely this would not only be a possible fraud or contrivance, but it would also mean that the tenant would lose their tenancy rights (e.g. protection from eviction), would be unable to claim housing benefit/UC housing costs if they became unemployed, and would have to submit sets of accounts to Companies House each year. - Why on earth would any tenant do this?

I must surely be misunderstanding your suggestion.

by Larry Sweeney

10:22 AM, 4th August 2018, About 3 years ago

Hi Robert, apologies for delay in replying
This post was for Luke. He mentioned leaving properties empty rather than pay a licence fee at the end of a scheme. The problem with a vacant property is that the ll is on the hook for CT. My suggestion was to let the accomodation to a shell company on a commercial lease. This would mean that no licence regime would apply as it falls outside the act. Secondly the company becomes liable for the CT. Whether the company discharges its CT liability is another story and who cares. As regards your point obviously a corporate body could not obtain HB and i certainly would not put a family in on a commercial lease. On the other hand in the case of a small unit of accomodation if a potential tenant were to approach me and asked to rent the unit to their company for day holiday lets id have no problem with that scenario. No deposit protection, no licensing, no section 21 bullshit etc etc.

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?