Liverpool Licensing and the Surveillance Comissioner

Liverpool Licensing and the Surveillance Comissioner

9:30 AM, 8th September 2016, About 8 years ago 32

Text Size

It would now appear that Liverpool Landlord Licensing may now be on a collision course with the office of the surveillance commissioner. The Council in their conditions on ASB, and their insistence on Landlords obtaining details of guests in spare bedrooms not only breach the tenants right to privacy and quiet enjoyment as well as the DPA, but the authority is actually forcing Landlords into surveillance which is illegal and can only be carried out by appropriate bodies with correct judicial oversight. I will revert later and expand on this , but it is another reason for landlords to seek clarification before signing up to this rubbish.sinking boat

I wish to alert landlords to the fact that Liverpool are now attempting to pass the buck by passing the legitimate queries from landlords about the legality of their scheme and their continued data breaches, to their “have your say procedure.” This internal Liverpool Council review mechanism is simply a white wash. One council officer investigates his mates and finds in their favour.

We do not want this, and landlords should state in no uncertain terms that they require the authority to address all our concerns about the ongoing data breaches and the illegality of licences issued to date.

Finally to those who perhaps feel that getting the licence they have done with the agro, I would draw their attention to the prosecution and conviction of a Durham Landlord for breach of a licence condition. See article on Property 118 >> https://www.property118.com/criminalisation-landlords-durham-council/90254/ It is for this reason that no Landlord should sign up to the Liverpool licence until such time as Liverpool give us a Scheme which is legally compliant in every respect.

The ICO are still looking at the 4 complaints made by me and I will provide readers with the outcome in due course. Finally almost 18 Months have gone by and thousands of us still await our licences, and those which have been issued are illegal.

What a Mess.


Share This Article


Comments

Neil Patterson

14:16 PM, 12th September 2016, About 8 years ago

From Larry Sweeney,

Councils acting illegally by insisting references are obtained. The law states that Demand suffices.
I have screen shot an Email from Liverpool who amazingly have in this instance correctly interpreted the Housing act.
Could you post this up in the Liverpool and Durham conversations ,which hopefully will assist Landlords, where their Councils are acting contrary to the act by altering a mandatory condition . This should give clarity hopefully.

"Regarding your statement on the condition may I please refer you to the condition to read.

1.9. The licence holder shall demand a reference from persons who wish to occupy a letting in the property before entering into any tenancy, licence or other agreement with them to occupy the accommodation.

I will explain this condition so as that all your previous points you made are answered.

This is a mandatory condition set by the Government not Liverpool City council.

The conditions states that the licence holder shall demand a reference from a person. The condition clearly states that you demand a reference if you do this and one can't be or isn't provided you have met this condition as you have demanded one. What you consider a reference is your choice as is the choice to take on a tenant."

Larry Sweeney

14:51 PM, 12th September 2016, About 8 years ago

Hi Tony
With respect to our area Liverpool The council accept that primary legislation states that a reference must be demanded.I have it in writing from Liverpool that once demanded whether actually obtained or not a Landlord is in compliance.
As regards other views the reality is that a Council which inserts other clauses to alter subvert or change underlying legislation is going beyond their remit and such a clause would not stand up.Once again Michael the first port of call in a prosecution is Magistrates and not a judge.

Tony McVey

15:08 PM, 12th September 2016, About 8 years ago

Best advice might be that landlords should actually obtain a reference. "Demand" is a stronger word than "request". If a landlord allows a tenant into a property without a reference ( unless there is some very good reason) and there is subsequently ASB, guess who will be blamed?

M P

15:38 PM, 12th September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Tony McVey" at "12/09/2016 - 15:08":

Would hate to be a tenant in Liverpool with the slightest hint of ASB with a previous landlord. It will be a hostel or B and B future for them.

Michael Barnes

16:13 PM, 12th September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "12/09/2016 - 14:51":

A Magistrate, like a Judge, should look at what the law says, not what a council representative says.

The Act clearly says
a) Licence must include requirement to demand references.
b) Other requirements may be added.

It does NOT say "no condition may be added to require references to be obtained".
Therefore the requirement to obtain references is not illegal (or unlawful, which would be more-likely).

Michael Barnes

16:28 PM, 12th September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Tony McVey" at "12/09/2016 - 13:30":

Tony,

I'm guessing that this is a response to my comment of 12/09/2016 at 13:26, specifically point 1, and I will answer on that assumption.

Please advise what part of Schedule 4 you are referring to.

I am referring to paragraph 2, where it states (with preamble):

"Additional conditions to be included in licences under Part 3

2 A licence under Part 3 must include conditions requiring the licence holder to demand references from persons who wish to occupy the house."

M P

11:06 AM, 27th September 2016, About 8 years ago

Larry. Have you had any reply from the ICO regarding the issues raised.

Larry Sweeney

9:08 AM, 3rd October 2016, About 8 years ago

In Response to MP question regarding the ICO, I am happy to update readers.
The ICO are now in possession of 5 complaints regarding Liverpool Council Licensing sham/scam.
I will provide further updates in due course. I note the co regulators yet again failed to spot any of these flaws, failed to bring them to the attention of landlords and instead kept quiet as did their Council Pals.

Joe Gervin

17:44 PM, 19th October 2016, About 8 years ago

Hi Larry,

Hows things? We are up to our necks in correspondence from the Council. On top of this they are billing us £8k out of nowhere. There is no explanation where it comes from and are threatening bailiffs! Talk about a joke!

Regards

Alex Russell

17:15 PM, 2nd February 2017, About 7 years ago

Hi Larry,
I have applied for the liverpool licensing scheme almost 2 years ago. They are only coming after me now because I haven't paid, they have now threatened me that if I don't pay in full in 14 days they will escalate the issue. What are the 4 points that the ICO are looking into in simple; to the point; terms.
The email also says I haven't applied even though I have, thats probably why they have my email. Shoulkd I apply again?

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