Tweet
I'm having a bit of fun with a former landlord who I'm aiming to serve a Rent Repayment Order on. The problem I'm now having is that I think my Council's selective licensing department is mis interpreting the law. The issue is that according to their own guidelines I should, as a tenant in the property for more than 3 years, have been consulted before a license was issued. The council is now saying that I should not have been consulted at all.
The Council says
"I can confirm that the Council conform to the requirements of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 2004 which sets out the meaning of “relevant person” for the purposes of consultation. The Act specifically states that any tenant who has an unexpired lease of 3 years or less is excluded from the consultation process prior to awarding a Selective Licence. That is why you were not consulted."
Schedule 5 says, in the only reference to 3 years at all
"13(1)In this Part of this Schedule “licence” means a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act.
(2)In this Part of this Schedule “relevant person”, in relation to a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act, means any person (other than a person excluded by sub-paragraph (3))—
(a)who, to the knowledge of the local housing authority concerned, is—
(i)a person having an estate or interest in the HMO or Part 3 house in question, or
(ii)a person managing or having control of that HMO or Part 3 house (and not falling within sub-paragraph (i)), or
(b)on whom any restriction or obligation is or is to be imposed by the licence in accordance with section 67(5) or 90(6).
(3)The persons excluded by this sub-paragraph are—
(a)the applicant for the licence and (if different) the licence holder, and
(b)any tenant under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less."
If correct this means tenants are never consulted.
Is this correct ? And if not, why not ?
The Council says
"I can confirm that the Council conform to the requirements of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 2004 which sets out the meaning of “relevant person” for the purposes of consultation. The Act specifically states that any tenant who has an unexpired lease of 3 years or less is excluded from the consultation process prior to awarding a Selective Licence. That is why you were not consulted."
Schedule 5 says, in the only reference to 3 years at all
"13(1)In this Part of this Schedule “licence” means a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act.
(2)In this Part of this Schedule “relevant person”, in relation to a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act, means any person (other than a person excluded by sub-paragraph (3))—
(a)who, to the knowledge of the local housing authority concerned, is—
(i)a person having an estate or interest in the HMO or Part 3 house in question, or
(ii)a person managing or having control of that HMO or Part 3 house (and not falling within sub-paragraph (i)), or
(b)on whom any restriction or obligation is or is to be imposed by the licence in accordance with section 67(5) or 90(6).
(3)The persons excluded by this sub-paragraph are—
(a)the applicant for the licence and (if different) the licence holder, and
(b)any tenant under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less."
If correct this means tenants are never consulted.
Is this correct ? And if not, why not ?
