Peers urged to reject selective licensing on final day of Renters’ Rights Bill report stage

Here’s part of my reply to one of heads of Nottingham Council Selective Licensing this morning. It seems I may have to evict as I can’t comply with their rules.

Your letter dated 14 July 2025.
I’ll copy in Homeless section see if they can work with you, as your actions are causing an immense amount of stress & expense at that side of the Council.

You say:
I write in response to your representation, dated 26 June 2025.
What do you mean representation? I can’t recall us meeting via Zoom or talking?

You say:

There is a lot of information outlined in the letter
Who’s letter, mine or yours?

You say you propose to call me Wed 16 Jul 1130, I do have scheduled call 1130 Wed. Can you ring me 1230 or Tues today between 10 & 12. Or Thurs 17 July 1000?

I can see or I think I can see you are trying to help me, but your hands are tied by rules.

I still don’t think Licensing is fully understanding each tenants individual circumstances here.
Do we proceed with the Licensing rules you talk about & make tenants homeless? Or do we use common sense & keep the tenants safe in their homes?
The SAME tenant in the SAME house who lived there way before Licensing came in.
The SAME tenant who DOESN’T want Licensing.

Are you telling me we HAVE to FIRST REFUSE the Licenses?
Then 28 days
Then TEN for 3 months
Then extend for 3 months?
Then if we can’t find a buyer for the tenants home, we then have to evict?
Or pay for a WHOLE NEW LICENSE again having already paid £400ish?

I’m struggling to get my head round that-As do many common sense people-Even Council employees I’ve spoke to find this bizarre.

4. Can we clarity I am understanding your words correct:
The Council does not intend to place the refusal notices on hold
So you do wish me to proceed with eviction then if I can’t find Landlord buyers in time to comply with your rules to keep the tenants safe?

You then mention ONLY 5 houses. Why only 5? I thought there were 10 or 11?
I am getting really confused now and this is making my Aspergers head explode.

You say this:
If the properties will not be sold or removed from licensing within this time frame, I would advise you to pay the Part B fee and we can issue the Selective Licences.

Are you aware selling houses at the best of times is not an exact science? There are no exact time guidelines.
Quadruple that with selling tenanted property. And multiply that by 4 again, now 16x for selling Benefit tenanted property that CANNOT comply with Licensing rules. Have you got a queue of waiting Landlord buyers for that?

We’ve now got-Or you have-A problem. As your own Council is not able to work with your deadlines, so something you are trying to invoke, your own council cannot comply.

Have you any idea how this sounds?
If you believe the properties will still require licensing after six months, the Council recommends paying the Part B fee so that we can issue the final licences. However, if we issue a final refusal for these properties and the TEN’s expire while the properties are still licensable, you will need to submit new applications and pay the Part A fee again.
So you are saying the £400ish I paid Dec 2023 is TOTALLY WASTED? Where has that money gone then? For me trying to keep tenant safe, losing £20,000 on house value to find Landlord buyer, the £200pm below normal rent the tenant is paying to keep them safe, Nottingham City Labour Council WANT to disregard all that. And are only interested in strict homeless inducing rules?

I’m sorry XXX , if this is the stance, I am going to have to go to the Media with this.
My main goal is to keep tenants safe in their homes. Licensing main goal is to get that money in, regardless of the consequences of the homeless catastrophe it brings.

Your point 7. So you are saying We can’t email Licensing any more?
With no record of having sent an email? As I have proof those Contact us forms misplace messages from website users.

Your point 9 you say:
The Council must work within the legislative requirements and timeframes that are outlined within the Housing Act 2004. As outlined earlier, we will either need to refuse the licences and grant a TEN, or you will need to pay the Part B fee and we can issue the final licence.

Ok XXX , I get it. Legislative requirements which were bought out years after tenant moved in are for more important than if tenant comes homeless.

10. Why was the withdrawn mentioned then?

11. If the properties aren’t sold after your strict concocted timeframes, what then? Are you saying, a WHOLE NEW EXPENSIVE fee has to be paid again?

12. Thank you for clarifying the Council would rather tenant be homeless as long as the Council has followed legislation, rather than using common sense & keeping long term tenant safe.

I’ll repeat this:
PLEASE DO NOT waste the money I have already spent on first application for the Licenses. That would be utter bonkers & highly irresponsible by the Council.

Previously sent on this:

In a normal human world, it is not going to work out how Licensing rules are set out.

I can only abide by your rules if I evict the tenants-Which I don’t want to.

The only way I can comply with your rules is if I evict them,
My main goal is to keep people in these houses, this is why it is gonna’ take longer.

I don’t like the sound of that withdrawn thing. What happens to my money I’ve already paid, no refund.

I don’t want to get to that stage where have to pay the License again from the start.

The only way I can comply with Licensing’s rules on selling the houses is if I evict all the tenants, which I don’t want to. Many have lived there for 20 years. If we do it my way & find the right Landlord & are not constrained by Nottingham City Council Selective Licensing’s deadlines, we can find Landlords who are going to keep them in & not increase their rents straightaway.

Can I also ask you to ask whoever is sending the pay fee emails to leave mine till last as many will be waiting before me that aren’t selling.

Why are the Lords wasting days and weeks debating the RRB and ‘agreeing’ amendments, when all the government will do when it returns to the Commons is completely ignore them?

I’m off to Russia for a nice easy life – it can’t that bad!

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 15/07/2025 – 11:23
Playing ‘democracy’ and to justify their existance.

Roll on 2 years, and it will be a select committee looking at how much this legislation failed. Homelessness up, court process at a standstill….

What RRB becomes law, is there a breathing space to pack my bags and run? Re’ EPC ‘C’ When trying to get information about the deadline, some web sites say it has been scrapped other say for new tenancies it’s December 2025 and 2028 thereafter. Going on the government site is even more confusing – I don’t think even they know!

I suspect the government will rush the Bill through with zero amendments, before the Summer recess.

Reply to the comment left by LaLo at 15/07/2025 – 12:15
Nothing about EPC changes have been put into law yet.

Reply to the comment left by LaLo at 15/07/2025 – 12:15
wait until the full implication of the RRB hits first on supply…
When that does, the EPC C mantra will also go the same way….

The whole crap about NZ is on its way to imploding – the latest ‘plan’ to state subsidise the sale of electric cars now being pushed.

Also today it has been announced that there are problems with properties being too insulated – causing issues with overheating. Now the plans to retrofit also include subsidies for heat pumps to be duel use mechanisms for air con purposes.

Basically the government are a joke and anything they say it to be taken with a pinch of salt. Until something actually happens or is about to happen its not worth worrying about.

Selective Licensing is just code for Tenant pays for the regulation that central government will not fund.
In practice there’s no Selection as each LA decides they want it Borough wide with no objective justification beyond the usual activist propaganda.
£40,000 or £7,000 makes no difference as a few percent return will not fund that, so eviction and sale will follow.
Reform this is not. Its a deliberate housing crisis.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 15/07/2025 – 09:50
How were you in breach?