A landlord’s legal fight to prevent a local authority bringing in mandatory licensing has resulted in only partial victory.
Enfield Council’s decision to introduce a selective licensing scheme was found to be lawful by the High Court. The scheme will impose blanket licensing on all rental properties occupied by single households.
However, Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that an additional licensing scheme, which would have extended HMO licensing to any dwelling with three or more sharers, is “arguably unlawful”.
The application for a judicial review by landlord Constantinos Regas was for both the selective and additional licensing schemes.
The application had been listed to last 30 minutes but took four hours.
While the judge ruled that the selective licensing scheme is lawful, he granted Regas permission to proceed with a judicial review of the additional HMO licensing scheme.
Regas said: “Enfield Council estimates that 40% of private rented properties in the borough are small HMO house-shares. This ruling calls into question the financial viability of the scheme as well as its enforceability. It is unclear how much council subsidy would be needed to make it work and I call on the council to scrap the entire licensing scheme.”
If he continues with his judicial review, it is likely to be heard next month.
Comments (1)
There is a world of difference between HMO bedsits and HMO house shares. In my opinion, HMO house shares should not be classified as HMOs at all. They usually consist of a small group of sharers, typically 3 or 4 people, sharing and living as a family would. This does not represent an increased risk of fire, or anything else. So just why are some councils so hungry for licensing schemes? One Council officer I deal with admitted that they only really have HMO issues in certain parts of the borough, probably less than 50% of the borough in total, and therefore did not know why his masters had deemed it necessary to expand the additional licensing scheme to the whole of the borough.