City landlords sign up to sue council over ‘extortionate’ licensing fee

Reply to the comment left by Mike at 04/06/2025 – 11:22
agree. By gov delegating power to councils to decide if they introduce SL or not (why wouldn’t they its free money) then they can just step back from it all.

They will see issue as only a problem for the LL who is kicking off not wanting to pay – blind to anything else.

The only real way to get councils attention is if the tenants themselves kick off about rent increases as a direct result. If LL’s make it EXPLICITYLY what the cost of SL is alone as part of the rent increase then they have something themselves to argue about. If they are getting charged for SL then as the payee they can ask to see what it is being spend on and how it supposed to benefit them as a private tenant (especially as this is not universally applied for all tenants and therefore discriminatory.)

NB also helps the LL if ever the T should go to the Ombudsman for a rent appeal post RRB. Its ok the ombudsman looking at the rent, but they need to also be aware that some properties in some postcodes will cost more to rent because of SL and this will NOT show up within overall market rent assessments of an area.

SL is deemed payable by default of the property being PRIVATELY rented only.

This means it is only mandatory once a private tenancy has being created and the property is occupied by them.

It IS the contractual status of the person themselves occupying the property that is the overriding factor that decides if a SL is actually required.

If the property is privately owner but empty – SL not required.

So, it is justified to state that the cost of the SL IS a directly linked to that specific property provision to that specific tenant and so it is an additional and specific cost that can to be reflected in the rent.

Reply to the comment left by at 04/06/2025 – 12:45
Reform could and should review those councils they have won.

Leicester city council only require licences in certain areas of the city, I don’t know how or why they choose which areas. I have rental properties in Leicester city and county but don’t require a license in my areas. If this court case is successful in reducing the cost of a licence I fear the council will just apply a lower fee but to additional areas.

Reply to the comment left by John Bentley at 04/06/2025 – 19:17They must have evidence that more ‘rogue’ landlords are there. In which case, focus inspections in that area e.g. Inspect a couple of registered HMOs each day, and come down hard on those who aren’t compliant. Not difficult and don’t need licensing for that!

Excellent to read, we all know it’s a cash grab from councils..how strange that on Peterborough’s first licence scheme if you were an accredited member of NLA the licence fee was £50!!
I luckily got 2 through with that and some months later I’d missed a property that didn’t come up when checking on their website but they then charged me the full £650 at the time.
No surprise it’s been scrapped this time round. A 15 minute inspection and a following report for £908 this time. I even had to pay it for a property I was going to sell and is empty as according to them I had tenants in it when the scheme was first introduced although they haven’t inspected it 🤬

Selective Licensing yet no transparent metric to justify that selection means it’s simply a tax raising power for local authorities that central government has no intention of funding.

In practice local authorities can apply Licensing to the whole Borough with no justification nor oversight whatever.

Further, fines up to £30,000 for administration errors make HMO an excessive risk to a property owner, out of all proportion to the few percent profits available. So that’s a straight market interference.

Anywhere landlords are facing consultation or implementation of Selective Licencing where the council plan to inspect every property — ask the council for the legal basis for powers of entry to conduct ‘precautionary’ inspections — because they don’t have any legal right to violate privacy of your tenants in their homes unless it is necessary per Section 239 of Housing Act 2004. Take out the cost of the majority of inspections and fees will be more reasonable. And whilst you are at it, question the compatibility of Licence Conditions with Reg 15 if The Provision of Services Regulations 2009. I’ve reviewed multiple schemes and not one is fully compliant with the law.

Definition of Selective Licencing: Legalised Theft to feed Bankrupt Councils – Packaged as a scheme when it’s really a tax.
Or in my words – Mob Money as collected by the Mafia!