Liverpool Landlord Licensing Falls Foul Of Deregulation Act

Reply to the comment left by "Cheeky Chappy" at "25/05/2016 - 23:27":

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about the licensing fee only covering the cost of the scheme. Local authorities are supposed to ring fence their funds for certain purposes but they often don't. How do I know this?

I heard this from at least two people, one who has worked for several councils, another who is himself a former counciilor and is now known as Gavin Barwell MP.

If these schemes had fully benefitted from the revenue collected from licensing fees, more care would surely have been taken with their drafting, implementation and enforcement than seems all too obviously apparent.

Reply to the comment left by "Cheeky Chappy" at "25/05/2016 - 23:08":

If the rules of correct English grammar are applied, the clause is clearly stipulating that a section 21 notice must be issued, and is not offering an alternative:

Clause 4.3 (g) "(g) If after 14 days of giving a warning letter the tenant has taken no steps to address the antisocial behaviour and the ASB is continuing the licence holder shall take formal steps under the written statement of terms for occupation, e.g. the tenancy agreement or licence and which shall include promptly taking any legal proceedings to address the anti-social behaviour by issuing a section 21 Notice and in due course, should the ASB persist, by application to the court for a Possession Order. "

You are forgetting that this a clause on a LEGAL document, the EXACT wording of which is law. Unlike a post on a forum, an email, even a newspaper article, there is no latitude for error or wide interpretation.

The document must therefore be taken LITERALLY at its word, not interpreted as what the writer MEANT to say, or even would have said if he or she had possessed enough knowledge of housing legislation.

I totally agree with you Mandy

Reply to the comment left by "Cheeky Chappy" at "25/05/2016 - 23:32":

Hi Cheeky Chappy,

As you are a new member, Welcome to Property118 🙂

This topic covering Liverpool Landlord Licencing has obviously peaked your interest and as your views are strongly supportive of Liverpool Council may I ask if you are involved or connected to this in any way or just a concerned Landlord.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Patterson" at "26/05/2016 - 08:57":

I am not connected with this in any way I am also not taking sides just trying to be objective and toally impartial, but I understand the principles of selective licensing. I tend to think local authorities running such schemes all over the country are doing so to address particular issues. Licensing was introduced in the Housing Act 2004 to address low housing demand and or anti social behaviour, these sometimes go hand in hand. In regards to low housing demand it would address poor standards of property management and maintenance from a minority of poor landlords and managers, which contribute to low housing demand. Many people making negative comments about such schemes have their own agenda and not interested in dealing with genuine issues in private sector housing

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "26/05/2016 - 07:39":

You are incorrect on the licensing fee,s. The ring fencing is referring to main stream funding. Selective licensing must be self financing in accordance with the act. The fee only reflects the cost of running the scheme

There are some people who seem determined to keep the discredited council flag flying. .They firstly tried to convince us that landlord condition 4 did not specify that landlords must use a section 21. Cheekie Chappie and Mr Smith the solicitor were proved wrong. Then Mr Smith tried to convince us that appeals go to the FTT(first tier tribunal).when in fact according to Liverpool council, appeals go to the RPT(residential Property tribunal). Mr Smith please do not take my word for this . I absolutely admire how you have sung from the Liverpool hymn sheet, which is why The HMO section of Liverpool website should give you joy , because for once Liverpool are correct .It is the RPT and not the FTT. Unfortunately Mr Smith for you WRONG AGAIN. My advise to you would be to carefully appraise yourself of the facts, study the Housing act 2004. This site is for serious people who are in full command of the facts. I find it difficult to believe that a solicitor, or indeed anybody with rudimentary knowledge of the law would actually state that it was not the wording on a legal document that was relevant, rather what the author of the said document meant . Full credit to My Landlord friend Mandy from Croydon who put it so aptly. Perhaps the unfortunate Mr Smith rather than lacking legal prowess, simply has a poor grasp of English. I do believe some local authorities are most accommodating in this regard and can facilitate Mr Smith with translation facilities. .

Reply to the comment left by "Cheeky Chappy" at "25/05/2016 - 23:08":

The only way the condition makes any sense is if the 'eg' is to clarify " the written statement of terms for occupation" and the "and..."refers back to "take steps".
If everything after the 'eg' is intended as an example, then it does not make sense in English.

(on first reading I was going to agree with you; on second reading I saw my error)

Mr Sweeney I am sure you will enjoy that fact that it is you who is not in possession of the full facts regarding the old RPT, fortunately on this point David Smith and Cheeky Chappie are correct. Although in a strange way it provides you with information contained in LCC licence conditions again contains an error.

On 1 July 2013 the new First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) came into being in England combining the old Leasehold Valuation Tribunals, Residential Property Tribunals, Rent Tribunals, Agricultural Land Tribunals, Rent Assessment Committees and the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. These reforms to the old tribunal system are part of the Ministry of Justice’s policy of unifying and simplifying the court and tribunal service in England and Wales. The aim is to create a one-stop service for all property, housing and land registration disputes. The new Property Chamber deals with three separate types of cases, Residential Property; Land Registration; and
Agricultural Land & Drainage.
The new Property Chamber are governed by a new single set of practice and procedural rules brought in under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

On a different point, its such a pity that an interesting thread has descended into a name calling exercise by the original poster when an alternative opinion was given or challenged. Please can we keep this as an informative thread and not a name calling exercise?

My Thanks to Mr Frances for the detailed reply.I am happy to concede this point .If I am wrong on the FTT or RPT Then I am wrong. This is a serious forum and it does not help when individuals claim to be legally qualified and come out with the utter nonsense about the section 21 in the Liverpool license conditions. I would like to see an acknowledgement from these people accepting that Liverpool were excoriated by the ICO for data breach and a further acknowledgement that license condition 4 is flawed unworkable and contravenes the de regulation act.It would benefit everybody if those who posted attempting to Defend Liverpool accepted that Liverpool are wrong.This is not an opinion it is a fact.Once again thanks for the Information re the tribunals and for highlighting that Liverpool council also got this wrong and their website therefore is flawed as well.
I am delighted that I am not alone in discovering further flaws in their not fit for purpose scheme.