Liverpool Landlord Licensing Falls Foul Of Deregulation Act

Liverpool Landlord Licensing Falls Foul Of Deregulation Act

23:09 PM, 24th May 2016, About 8 years ago 51

Text Size

Liverpool Landlord Licensing Also Falls Foul Of Deregulation Act

Not only does the application form for Liverpool Landlord Licensing fall foul of the Data Protection Act, the scheme rules also fall foul of the De-Regulation Act.

I refer to condition 4 of their Landlord License . The Council insist that Landlords issue a section 21 where anti-social behaviour is taking place.

Their specified timeline would mean a landlord issuing a section 21 after a maximum of 45 days, YET the De-Regulation Act clearly states that in the case of new tenancies, a section 21 notice cannot be issued in the first 4 months of a tenancy.

If a landlord fails to comply with the conditions imposed by this council, (s)he could be fined, get a criminal record and have the management of his property taken away from him/her.

On the other hand, if (s)he issues the Section 21 as per the Licensing Condition then that would not be valid based on the De-Regulation Act.

That is the nonsense Liverpool are forcing landlords to sign up to, and their co -regulation bodies, with their legal teams, seem to have overlooked this detail.

In my opinion Liverpool City Council are not a fit body to regulate landlords judging from the paucity of their Landlord application forms and the actual licenses themselves.

I call upon the Housing Minister to intervene.

On the 10th May , The ICO stated that in their view Liverpool City Council’s Landlord Licening Application Form falls foul of the Data Protection Act. Despite this damning verdict Liverpool are writing to Landlords waffling about having received advice from the DPA but failing to admit to the breach. This issue will not recede as the forms are not compliant and Liverpool do not have Landlords signatures agreeing to their draconian conditions.

The license and its conditions could quite easily result in a criminal prosecution for any landlord operating in Liverpool. With the help of Property118 and its members I now want to take the fight to Liverpool Council, which itself has has been prosecuted in the magistrates court for a criminal offence in 2006/2007.

I am holding a meeting for all Landlords who feel strongly about this and want to take further action. The Council and their co-regulators (the RLA) are neither invited nor welcome.

To explain what we can do now, with a view to getting this licensing scheme scrapped altogether, I am hosting an emergency meeting and inviting all Liverpool Landlords to attend on at 7PM on Thursday 26th May 2016. There is no cost to attend. The venue is the Conservative Club, Birkdale Village Southport.

To book your place please complete the form below. I will receive a copy of your contact details.

Oops! We could not locate your form.

 


Share This Article


Comments

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

19:17 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

.
Also, please see our latest article, linked below

http://www.property118.com/is-landlords-licensing-compliant-in-your-area/87245/
.

Luke P

21:36 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "25/05/2016 - 19:09":

I too feel my respect for David Smith is waning somewhat.

Why is anybody in the industry defending LCC? If any of us had made a mistake on a similar level, we'd be hung out to dry!

As for the RLA, they are not representing their membership in the way I believe they want them to, hence why I am no longer a member and why I am also keen to see an unpoliticised P118 association work for the benefit of landlords.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

22:08 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "25/05/2016 - 21:36":

I completely see your point Luke but I do think the RLA and other landlords also have their place.

I don't think one organisation alone can possibly cover all the bases.

Even if/when Property118 Landlords Association is launched I will retain my membership of ELA or one of their competitors.

Larry Sweeney

22:57 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Luke is correct .We would be hounded by this authority if we had erred. I also agree with his comments about the Co regulation partner. The RLA have a conflict of interest. They had an opportunity to abandon this position today, Instead Mr Smith attempts to justify the Council/RLA position.
Liverpool council/RLA are still in denial. The Scheme is flawed the DPA breached / No conformity with the De regulation act and further flaws to be revealed tomorrow. It will be fascinating to see the Liverpool council/RLA position when we expose further short comings.
It is not all bad news Though. If Mr Smith the solicitor has any difficulties with the legal points I have raised ,I would be delighted to explain them to him at no cost. I would insist however on one condition, that the RLA abandoned the licensing Co Regulation nonsense and Dis associate themselves from this discredited Council. I suppose Its like a failed marriage. You know your partner is dodgy but you try to stick it out because "breaking up is so hard to do." What would the cost be to the RLA if they withdrew from the scheme.? Liverpool would probably try extract more monies from the unfortunate landlords who have been mislead. Would the RLA landlords sue the RLA. What a mess. I did speak to the NLA when Liverpool/RLA announced their partnership. I asked the NLA why they were not Co Regulation partners. To their credit the NLA responded. " We would not touch this scheme with a bargepole, we could not represent our landlord members when we disagreed so profoundly with the introduction of Blanket Licensing. I must admit I completely concur.

Cheeky Chappy

23:08 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "25/05/2016 - 10:53":

I agree with Dave Smith comments that it is clearly intended to use s21 where appropriate. The paragraph that heads the section on anti social behaviour in the licence conditions clearly mentions amongst other steps as appropriate. Which clearly indicates s8 notice where appropriate. It appears you have read this condition to suit a particular agenda.

Cheeky Chappy

23:14 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "25/05/2016 - 22:57":

There is no court ruling on any breach of DPA regulations and only a matter of opinion. The Housing Act 2004 allows local authorities to obtain certain information under the act to perform its duties under parts 1-4 of the act

Luke P

23:14 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "25/05/2016 - 22:08":

Indeed they have their place, but it seems this could be the beginning of the likes of the RLA becoming slowly eroded and moved away from their intended purpose.

The idea of licensing makes sense to most of us and the more this industry can be professionalised, the better. However, I don't personally feel any of the LAs I have come into contact with are genuinely capable of delivering such a system. They are poorly resourced and ill-informed, with only one thing in their sights...raising revenue.

Larry Sweeney

23:20 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "25/05/2016 - 19:09":

Mr Smith states that even if license conditions are wrong there is an opportunity to appeal them to the FTT. This is not factually correct. One does not go directly to the FTT (First tier Tribunal). One in fact actually appeals to the RPT (residential Property Tribunal). If unsuccessful then, on a point of law an appeal can at that point be made to the FTT.
Is Mr Smith real ?
Is Mr Smith a lawyer.? Am I really in the ring with a solicitor on these posts.
It is starting to get quite boring educating apologists for Liverpool/RLA.

Cheeky Chappy

23:27 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "25/05/2016 - 23:14":

I do agree that local authorities are poorly resourced, but it is a misconception to think that licensing is about raising revenue. LA's can only set a licensing fee that covers the cost of administering the scheme and is not a means of raising revenue.

Cheeky Chappy

23:32 PM, 25th May 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "25/05/2016 - 23:20":

I'm afraid it is you that is wrong Mr Sweeney and Mr Smith is correct all appeals to licensing conditions to the RPT are dealth with by the First Tier Tribunal.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now