Sweeney V Liverpool City Council

by Larry Sweeney

8:41 AM, 2nd April 2017
About 2 years ago

Sweeney V Liverpool City Council

Make Text Bigger
Sweeney V Liverpool City Council

As predicted four days ago, the Tribunal released a decision , which is beyond comprehension ,unless one lives in Local authority world.

I will summaries the decision of the the First Tier Tribunal Manchester Case number MAN/00BY/HML/2016/0005.
SWEENEY V LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL:

The Tribunal refused to rule on my first point but accepted my last two arguments and will in due course rule on these.

So why is this a Farce. The first argument was that LCC had breached the 2004 HA regs by issuing draft copy licences which were undated, therefore they do not constitute copies.

I will cut to the chase, and leaving aside the merits/demerits of my argument, if the Tribunal struck out my argument then it abdicates responsibility for ruling on the validity/legality of the licence.

How then can this impotent body rule on conditions contained within the licence which it states it cannot rule upon.

This is a farce personified and makes a complete mockery of the Tribunal especially when LCC themselves admit that copy licences should NOT contain start dates despite LCC issuing licences with start dates.

My congratulations to Liverpool City Council on taking the first tier tribunal for a ride.



Comments

Luke P

16:43 PM, 2nd April 2017
About 2 years ago

So let me get this straight, Larry -the Tribunal won't make a decision because that would make them responsible for it? Disgraceful!

Anyone reading this who doesn't have experience of attempting to hold Government to account (both local and national) to account, through the proper channels, believe me when I say there is absolutely no justice delivered nor responsibility -especially following a complete shambles- taken by those responsible. Essentially LAs are a law unto themselves.

Larry Sweeney

21:56 PM, 2nd April 2017
About 2 years ago

Thanks Luke,
I understand you have NE Lincs Council also at the Tribunal. We know the LG Ombudsman is a waste of time ( staffed by ex Council Honchos) But I honestly believed the Tribunal would be Impartial. Instead the language of the Tribunal questioning the motives of applicants can best be described as worrying. This Body should avoid personalities and stick to points of law. An utter fiasco. Let us see if the upper tier is a serious forum. The irony is that the tribunal had evidence before it ,proving that the Council had not only lied , but that it"s stance was contradictory.
Liverpool City council to their credit made an absolute mockery of this useless tribunal , and conned it beyond belief. This tribunal now having stated that they cannot decide upon the legality of licences, will pretend to rule on a couple of minor conditions. Lets hope the Upper tier take the law and the HA more seriously and refuse to be sucked in to petty arguments. The argument is about the implementation of the Housing act, not the applicants motives. This is where the Tribunal stumbled and failed.

Michael Barnes

13:49 PM, 3rd April 2017
About 2 years ago

When you say "refused to rule", are you saying
a) They have referred it to a higher tribunal, or
b) No ruling is to be made?

Also, could you post the exact wording?

Larry Sweeney

15:21 PM, 3rd April 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "03/04/2017 - 13:49":

Michael,
Its quite lengthy but to summarise they say that a procedural irregularity would not invalidate a licence. They also query my motives for bringing the challenge. This is nonsense. The challenge was brought on a point of law and the tribunal instead of rambling should stick to the law. We must adhere to the provisions of the HA therefore Councils should as well.
I will update further later as I am seeking permission to go to the Upper tribunal.

Chris Daniel

8:44 AM, 8th April 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "03/04/2017 - 15:21":

I want to see you win, but foresee that legal representation, especially at that level, is crucial to success.
Have you thought of Crowd funding, because I'm sure there would be a lot of Landlords, especially in Liverpool who would contribute 😉 and I'd like to be the first.

Larry Sweeney

18:08 PM, 8th April 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Daniel" at "08/04/2017 - 08:44":

Chris , Thanks for your support. To be Frank , the legal point is quite clear. My argument is that a copy licence should be indeed a copy therefore contain a start date. The lower tier Tribunal actually said any irregularity would not invalidate a subsequent licence. The Housing act must be complied with fully and completely. The Tribunal say no problem a few errors here or there by the council is fine. If we dare to enter court without everything in order our applications for sect 21 or sect 8 will be dismissed. There cannot be one law for Councils and another for the Public.
My argument is very simple, if the HA is not complied with, the Licence is void.
Lets see what the Upper Tribunal think. Lets see if its a serious forum or does any old Council Tosh over rule the HA there as it did in the other forum.

NW Landlord

17:37 PM, 10th April 2017
About 2 years ago

Started receiving emails today from Liverpool CC re licensing. Would love to know how other landlords have responded?


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

Do Housing Associations have a responsibility?

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More