Stoke-on-Trent back off landlord with 37 properties!

Stoke-on-Trent back off landlord with 37 properties!

9:57 AM, 7th March 2019, About 4 years ago 8

Text Size

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has introduced compulsory selective licensing for all landlords in an area of Fenton. However, the Council seem to have set a precedent or admission by saying it was not in the public interest to force a landlord in the area to licence all 37 properties of his properties at a saving of over £16,000.

The Council have also refused to say why they will not be prosecuting for failure to comply with licensing, but did confirm decision followed legal advice. Landlords in the area, and further areas where there are plans to roll out the same scheme, can now point to the fact there must be severe problems to address first.

Cabinet member for housing, communities and a safer city, Randy Conteh, said: “There are 37 properties owned by one individual where it was deemed not in the public interest to pursue prosecution.

“External legal advice was obtained and the external opinion was not to proceed further. This amounts to lost income of approximately £16,700.”


Rob Crawford

12:58 PM, 7th March 2019, About 4 years ago

I am intrigued as to the landlords reason and also legal advice given to the LA. Could the same argument be used against any LA imposing city wide additional or selective licensing? Please can we get more info from the LA / Landlord?


15:20 PM, 7th March 2019, About 4 years ago

Interesting case we so far have fought off selective licensing in Brighton however i am sure they will try again. What is annoying is the comment from the cabinet minister “this equates to lost income of £16,700”.
Selective licencing should not be treated as income, it is not income it is purely a method of last resort to solve a specific housing issue. Councils are treating selective licensing as a method of funding. They fail to recognise the fact that the cost of a licence would pay for a hard wired interlinked battery back up smoke alarm and will ultimately go back into increased rents. The average council can not deal with their existing licence workload and fails to enforce against the rogue landlords anyway that they can unde their existing powers.

Frederick Morrow-Ahmed

15:51 PM, 7th March 2019, About 4 years ago

Why was one large landlord with 37 properties let off when possibly smaller landlords with perhaps single property had to comply? Backhanders?

Old Mrs Landlord

8:09 AM, 8th March 2019, About 4 years ago

Just following the example of central government and HMRC - one law for the big guy and another for the individual struggling to provide for himself without handouts.


9:49 AM, 8th March 2019, About 4 years ago

The authority announced from the outset that this is a cost saving measure. When cut backs occur someone else generally picks up the tab and in this case, and not for the first time this is to be landlords. The Government are presently reviewing the effectiveness of licensing. but the authority is not prepared to await that review. No consideration is made that LHA rates have been frozen for some considerable time and expenditure keeps increasing. The consequences of this is the landlord generally seek a top up, the tenant cannot afford it and gets evicted. In some cases that leads to homelessness. We have all seen the stats of deaths from homelessness recently published. We all have different opinions on how "poor" housing conditions could be addressed , this is my view ; Government amend current SL "poor" housing criteria. Those landlords that produce up to date and satisfactory gas,electricity safety certificates along with a recent EPC at a suitable rating receive a licence either foc or at a nominal sum and are excluded from inspection subject to conditions incl being members of a recognised association . Some basic training may be included. Landlords that do not produce these certificates within a specified period are treated as they are now. Such a measure would reduce council admin. and target those that need to be targeted. Of course this measure could apply to all private rented properties rather than discriminate against those landlords who own property in subjective parts of the City. Would that not be fairer to all parties and save rent increases for tenants who have compliant landlords ?

Mick Roberts

15:19 PM, 12th March 2019, About 4 years ago


One can surmise he's threatened to evict all tenants which would leave council with a MASSIVE bill.

I have similar amount in Nottingham that I've had to license & I'm getting close to jacking it in, where the big losers will be the tenants cause of the councils preposterous £780 per house. When you've done nothing wrong.

Paul Fay

0:23 AM, 21st March 2019, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 12/03/2019 - 15:19
Why dont you add £15 a week to the rent to cover the cost and if a tenant complains point them in the direction of the tax collector? You could email the tenant and copy in the council.

Mick Roberts

6:43 AM, 21st March 2019, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Paul Fay at 21/03/2019 - 00:23
They've all had a little rent increase to cover the costs which Nottingham Selective Licensing denied would happen. They are since not allowed to say your Landlord should absorb the cost & shouldn't put your rent up.
The Councillor who really pushed for Licensing, we gather she has been forced out cause of some of her ridiculous not got a clue about housing tenants statements.
A lot of tenants have been to the other side of the council to ask for help after Landlord selling cause of Licensing & the other side of the council told Licensing this would happen.

Leave Comments

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


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now