Liverpool Landlord Licensing Falls Foul Of Deregulation Act

Reply to the comment left by "Cheeky Chappy" at "26/05/2016 - 22:08":

Theoretically, and strictly speaking, yes, in practice, this can't be relied on.

A statement from a former council cabinet member, who served as a councillor in Croydon from 1998 - 2010, who is now the MP Gavin Barwell:
"Mr Barwell said that his time as a cabinet member on the council, however, made him realise there were “grey areas” where seemingly ring-fenced funds could be used in a variety of ways."

This was part of a report by the Croydon Advertiser on a meeting on landlord licensing held in September 2015. I attended that meeting and the Advertiser's report is extremely accurate. You can read the full article here:
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Landlords-rail-Croydon-Council-s-unjust-licence/story-23005748-detail/story.html#ixzz49q6YJLSu

I also know someone who worked as a safety inspector for several London Borough councils. He once told me he was shocked at some of the rule bending and even downright illegal practices that took place behind closed doors when the councillors wanted to push policies through.

The only mention of a Section 21 in the licence is preceded by the letters 'e.g.' isn't it?

The serving of a Section 21 appears to be an example of what action could be taken to stop asb, not an instruction.

Am I missing something?

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Franklin" at "27/05/2016 - 10:26":

Fair point, Paul, but look at the excerpt in more detail: "e.g. the tenancy agreement or licence and which shall include promptly taking any legal proceedings to address the anti-social behaviour by issuing a section 21 Notice..."

The "e.g." is referring to the tenancy agreement or licence only, not the words proceeding from "and" onwards.

For the phrase to read as you're suggesting, it would have to be worded something like this: "e.g. the tenancy agreement or licence and which FOR EXAMPLE COULD [not "shall"] include promptly taking any legal proceedings to address the anti-social behaviour by issuing a section 21 Notice..."

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "27/05/2016 - 11:13":

Ok, yes I see your point. It's badly worded at best.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Franklin" at "27/05/2016 - 11:29":

Honestly, I take better care of wording my posts on here, and even on emails and texts to friends, than the person who wrote that thing for Liverpool Council which carries the force of law!!

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "27/05/2016 - 11:13":

My guess is that it was originally, correctly, written with a comma before "and", to show that it is parenthetical, and that someone in the proofing stage "remembered" a (incorrect) rule (that I was taught) that "you do not put a comma before 'and'" and removed it.

Mandy" s Analysis is exact. This document with the sect 21 clause would not stand scrutiny in the local Bar, Never mind a court.
There is a further issue with this license condition.
The council stating that a section 21 must be used clearly breaches the de regulation act. I wont labour this point as readers will by now have got it.
However forcing the landlord to issue a section 21 prevents the landlord from corporate lets. The landlord could not rent to a limited company because a limited company cannot sign an AST therefore no section21 could be issued and the landlord would find himself in breach of this condition. What an absolute mess. To force landlords to sign up to this garbage is appalling. I have today called for the housing minister to intervene and scrap this license scheme, and I urge all Landlords to assist us an email amin.uddin@communities.gsi.gov.uk. Please inform them that Liverpool are in breach of the 2004 Housing act by failing to issue licenses in a timely manner. Their 5 yr license is not a 5 yr license .If they issued all outstanding licenses tomorrow, which is impossible as the licenses already issued are flawed , the maxium period of validation would be 3 yrs 10 months. This combined with all the flaws revealed make this scheme a complete fiasco. I urge every landlord in the UK to email this to the above address.

In legal parlance they've acted "ultra vires" - outside of their authority - as they are potentially requiring a landlord to override English law by issuing a section 21 in ALL circumstance to get rid of an anti social tenant, when the law only allows issue of a section 21 in CERTAIN circumstances.

Although I doubt very much that the Liverpool licensing scheme will be scrapped as it followed due process.
However, I do have an issue of the wording of the licence conditions and it maybe prevalent to progress this point a little further. The only way I can see that LCC can amend the ASB item is to vary the licence conditions under Schedule 5; Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. Can you imagine the paperwork that would have to be generated to first consult with each licence holder and relevant person before a full variation notice can be issued?
If they refuse to vary, you can apply to the tribunal to have it varied.
Obtain the public register of the licences and write to each licence holder requesting they want their licences varied. Will take a fair amount of administration, but what disruption!
Remembering that it would only apply to licences issued after 1st October 2015 after the De-Regulation Act came into force. The licence applied for before that date would be OK unless a new AST has been signed after that date.

Reply to the comment left by "John Frances" at "27/05/2016 - 13:34":

Even prior to the Deregulation Act, a section 21 notice was not appropriate for all circumstances; for example, during the fixed term of a AST (you could issue the notice unlike after the Act, but it would still only take effect after the fixed term), or as has been pointed out, if the tenancy isn't an AST to begin with, for example, a company let or other licence or common law tenancy.

Even allowing for the above, a section 21 still isn't appropriate for ASB as it's supposed to be used to simply request the property back, where there's no fault on the part of the tenant, and the tenant gets at least 2 months notice.

If someone is committing ASB, you would want them out sooner and it's likely you would also want to pursue damages or rent arrears too. In practise, section 21 is often used as a workaround where there's a tenancy breach as it can take so long for cases to go through the courts.