NLA in action

NLA in action

  1. The issue: NLA backs Humber Landlords Association in High Court challenge to Hull City Council

Summary

The National Landlords Association (NLA) is supporting the Humber Landlords Association (HLA) in its High Court legal challenge against Hull City Council’s new private-sector housing enforcement policy.

Hull City Council has taken an unusual approach in deciding to discard the standard informal stage of enforcement, usually used to resolve relatively minor issues related to disrepair in the private rented sector (PRS), in favour of moving directly to formal enforcement.

Government guidance encourages enforcement agencies to adopt an informal approach where suitable. Typically a tenant’s complaint to the local authority about a housing matter will be followed by an approach to the landlord in the form of a conversation or a letter outlining what action the authority expects to see in a defined timescale. Failure to resolve the matter will then be escalated and result in formal enforcement action.

However, in accordance with Hull’s new policy, in the event of a tenant complaint the Council will now move straight to enforcement by way of an Improvement Notice and charge a fee of at least £250 unless the landlord is accredited through the council’s accreditation scheme.

HLA believes the council’s change of procedure is unlawful and is challenging it.

NLA view

We are supporting the HLA financially and practically in its High Court challenge because we have real doubts over the legality of Hull City Council’s decision.

We believe that the decision to ignore government guidance and go straight to enforcement is unfair and potentially unlawful and we are backing the HLA’s decision to challenge this in court. In addition, the NLA is deeply uncomfortable with the Council’s attempt to use its own independent and restrictive accreditation scheme to create a two-tier PRS in the local area – allowing only those who subscribe to the scheme access to support in the event of a complaint.

Local authorities are undoubtedly struggling to finance essential services, including enforcement action. So we can be sympathetic to Hull City Council’s desire to both save money and charge landlords for legitimate enforcement, but it seems clear that Hull has taken this decision to use landlords as a means of generating revenue, rather than to improve the quality of housing stock or outcomes for tenants.

A judge will assess the application for judicial review, probably in a few weeks, to determine if there is a legitimate case to argue. If permission to proceed is granted, then it’s a case of challenging the authority’s decision in the High Court.

 

  1. The issue: NLA’s backing of member Peter Gaskin in appeal against London Borough of Richmond decision on HMO licence renewal

Summary

Like many thousands of NLA members, Peter Gaskin called our Advice Line in 2014, for help in a dispute with Richmond-upon-Thames Council over the fee for a licence renewal for an HMO and additional data requests. Fortunately, most calls to the NLA’s Advice Line can be resolved in relatively short order; however, Mr Gaskin needed a little more support and embarked on a process that has recently received a lot of attention – even though it may not yet be at an end.

Faced with a demand for information and payment which he deemed unreasonable, Mr Gaskin refused to pay the full fee or provide the additional data on the tenants that Richmond Council was requesting. The Council took him to court and were initially successful, but Mr Gaskin appealed.

Last month the High Court ruled that Mr Gaskin was providing a service and as such should fall under the remit of the EU Services Directive. This means that Mr Gaskin can challenge Richmond Council over the fee structure for the renewal of an HMO licence.

NLA view

Since 2014 we have been working with Mr Gaskin to secure a judgement in his favour. We are pleased with this outcome, but of course this particular case may have some way to go before a final conclusion is reached. We continue to support Mr Gaskin with the specialist knowledge and experience at the disposal of the NLA team.

 

  1. The issue: government consultation on longer tenancies

Summary

Even before the government’s eight-week consultation on longer tenancies drew to a close, rumours emerged suggesting they were about to mandate three-year tenancies. Just a few weeks on, there is talk in Westminster of significantly watering down the proposals.

NLA view

We have submitted our response to the government’s consultation and continue to lobby ministers on behalf of landlords on the issues raised . There have been a lot of rumours in recent weeks and we have responded to all those pronouncements, offering a few suggestions of our own. However, at this stage all we can do is wait and see.

We expect a decision ahead of the Budget in December, but government timetables are notoriously difficult to predict.

 

Do you need advice? The NLA’s Telephone Advice Line is staffed by our team of experienced landlords, who have a wealth of knowledge. The Advice Line (020 7840 8939) is free for members. Find out more about membership here.

4 thoughts on “NLA in action

  1. I am really pleased that the NLA is backing the HLA in this matter. It will be money well spent. I am more than happy for my t NLA membership subscription to be used in this case

  2. If the government brings in 3 year tenancies I will sell up my 6 rental properties. I totally object to having my hands tied by having to give accomodation to a tenant who turns out to be a problem. Who can call upon Peterborough City Council to put unnecessary unwarranted pressure on me. Margaret Randall professional (many years a landlord)

  3. would you be able to sell the property with a sitting tenant? How would the existing lease be affected? Are they intending to alter section 21 in which case let’s all bale out.

  4. As an ex-housing enforcement officer and Building Surveyor, I can’t believe that Hull is doing this. It stinks of higher management who don’t have a clue trying to rake in funds from a simple tenant complaint. How unreasonable and disproportionate can they get? Their legal department doesn’t seem to have a clue either. Part of the job is to educate and this is more important than most Council’s ever seem to understand. Its bad enough having over-zealous Environmental Health Officers who mostly don’t have a clue either when trying to understand building defects and how they interact with the HHSRS and Landlord and Tenant Law. I’m very glad to see it being challenged. Maybe a more serious review of their policy should be instigated such as a judicial review or similar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s