to think this is brilliant - tenants took their landlord to court and won £15k!

[hummusexual]

Just a reminder to all landlords that if you run a HMO (rent to 5 or more people who share communal facilities and pay rent) that you need a licence!

www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/745ea8b2-2ef2-46ee-89ac-3e596b0efeb1

Well done chaps and chappesses!

[BoneyBackJefferson]

donquixotedelamancha

The issue is how heavy the sanction should be and whether it is appropriate for the tenants to benefit financially.

The LL has broken the contract (even so far as voided the contract). why should he benefit by keeping the money?

[ImJustTiredOk]

Donquix I don’t think that is up for debate. It’s what the government decided was an appropriate penalty - it applies whether the house is a good standard or not - it’s not fair but it’s the penalty to make sure people get licensed. Did the tenant act reasonably in this case? Probably not, but they couldn’t have taken the action if UK law hadn’t been changed to allow it to happen 🤔

[donquixotedelamancha]

Why on Earth are people siding with the LL?

Has anyone? Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any post as suggesting that the LL was correct and should not be penalised.

The issue is how heavy the sanction should be and whether it is appropriate for the tenants to benefit financially.

[ImJustTiredOk]

Knob jockey - well I found out through not only my managing agent, but also the landlord association I sign up to, free of charge. It’s my responsibility as a landlord to be aware of changes......if ones wants to make money from housing why shouldn’t it be properly licensed as the law says it should be?

[NoBaggyPants]

A licence for a 6 person HMO in Leeds is £675. If a landlord can't be bothered to pay that, then it's either neglect or greed.

An illegal let is an illegal let. The amount is irrelevant here, it's the principle that matters.

[lyralalala]

It's so weird - usually on here LL's are the lowest of the low. Yet this one, who was breaching his legal obligation that was brought in for safety reasons, is somehow the poor hard done by victim.

[Passthecherrycoke]

It’s not a form obolmov it's a license. He was running an unlicensed HMO. It doesn’t matter how lovely it was, it’s not just a form.

Honestly, you’d think after Grenfell people would be a bit more aware of things that can go wrong

[lyralalala]

Also they only lived there from May, when the HO spoke to them, until July knowing about the lack of license. That is weeks (at the end of uni term) not months.

The eight months were what had already passed before they discovered (and not from the LL) that the property was being illegally rented to them.

[lyralalala]

The point is that it "seemed" safe. He didn't bother completing the processes to make sure it was safe. there's no way of knowing that the fire safety, for example, was up to standard.

And it was the housing officer that suggested that they go to court - probably because the HO knew that a LL that hadn't bothered his arse to get licensed probably wouldn't again. Losing the rent money probably means next time he'll get licensed and not cut corners as it's not cost effective any more.

[Oblomov19]

Yes of course he should have had the correct forms, insurance etc.

But it was a nice house, they lived there happily. "Spacious, no mould".

If there was anything wrong when they first moved in they would've told the landlord : there's a problem with the electricity or the gas..... there are no smoke alarms ......

They didn't do any of these things which implies that the property did have smoke alarms or seemed safe?

and they lived there quite happily for eight months and and continued to live there whilst suing him, it says.

Do not do dangerous they had to threaten to leave, then?

then they later found out that he didn't have a certain form?


but if there been any problems how come they lived there happily for eight months?

something just doesn't add up here.

[Andromeida59]

I'm surprised at the number of people siding with the LL. The LL had plenty of opportunities to rectify these issues but chose to ignore them and to peruse profit.
If you are a LL there are websites you can sign up to that update you with any legal changes. There are no excuses for breaking the law as a LL.

Why on Earth are people siding with the LL?

[Perihelion]

I remember a fire in the early 2000's, in a basement flat in Glasgow, where 2 students died. That couldn't escape, as there were bars on the windows.

[Perihelion]

I'm staggered that people are on the side of the landlord in this case.
Properties which house several unrelated individuals pose a greater fire risk, which is the main reason for HMO licensing. If the LL didn't want to bother with licensing and any associated improvements and costs, they should have rented to a family..... except that wouldn't have been as profitable.

[lyralalala]

I'm staggered they were awarded £15k back! On what basis?

On the basis that the landlord had no legal right to charge rent for an unlicensed property.

The only leech was the landlord who was dodging his legal responsibilities, but happily collecting rent.

[Passthecherrycoke]

It’s the rent the LL illegally charged them Oblomov

[Oblomov19]

I'm staggered they were awarded £15k back! On what basis? Leeches!!

[lyralalala]

@knobjockey It's all of England that that change was for, not a local decision. It's been in the pipeline for donkeys.

[KnobJockey]

I don't know if it's the case in all LA areas or just mine, but HMO licensing rules changed in October in my LA. It used to be that a license was needed if it was over 5 people of desperate households with communal areas, and 3 floors or over. The ruling was changed to say any amount of floors. However they didn't announce this anywhere prominent, or tell current HMO landlords about it.

[lyralalala]

This was a paperwork issue.

So is getting your car MOT'd if you know it's all fine, but you still have to do it.

Landlords (I am one so I'm not anti LL) have to follow the law and if they don't then they deserve every sanction they get.

Especially if you take the extra money that often comes from a HMO - you shouldn't be taking the extra profits if you aren't prepared to go through the extra hoops.

It can't be remotely acceptable for landlords to cut corners. Especially not on the basis that "the place wasn't even mouldy". Plus it's quite clear that the council housing offficer suggested to the tenants they take this action, which combined with the fact it was the second time the LL breached the rules suggests they weren't actually a poor hard done by LL who made an error, but just another LL who didn't bother jumping through the proper hoops because they couldn't be arsed.

[OurChristmasMiracle]

The local authority in my case had written and spoken to the letting agents multiple times and advised them they needed a license but they chose to ignore this. They were eventually threatened with legal action and got a license. However when the local authority came to do an inspection to check the property they found a number of violations of the license, which even given a time frame to rectify did not get done.

The icing on the cake for me was after they moved a new tenant in who had all night parties, sold drugs and had knives for “protection” scattered around the flat ie behind the front door or on the bottom step. Followed by me being sexually assaulted in the communal kitchen by one of their “guests” and the letting agents sharing this information with the tenant when I explicitly stated I didn’t want it shared. I just wanted to move out as a matter of urgency.

Unfortunately we weren’t able to go to court because the new powers hadn’t come into effect at the time otherwise yes I would absolutely have taken it to court. financial loss would have been the only thing the letting agents would have taken any notice of (who subsequently appear to be very dodgy and have changed their names multiple times and director- it would appear just a different member becomes director with the name change and the former director becomes head of whatever)

Those saying “should have moved out” we were placed there as homeless with no rent in advance or deposit so it wasn’t as simple as that. They often rent to housing benefit claimants. Myself and one flatmate managed to get the money together to rent a 2 bed flat and we now flat share.

[Passthecherrycoke]

I doubt it. No compliant landlords are prosecuted every day. No big deal

[Cbatothinkofaname]

the upshot is likely to be fewer LL HMO properties and rise in rental prices. Great work chaps

[Purpletigers]

The landlord should pay the fine . He sounds like he saw the chance to make a few pounds .
Good luck to him getting another property. When or if future landlords google him at least they know what kind of tenant he is.

[ImJustTiredOk]

Thing is, the law was specifically changed a couple of years back to allow this kind of action. The tenants or the local authority can claim up to a years rent if the LL is not operating properly. LL might not like it, but I think it’s been done to ensure that there are harsher penalties for landlords who decide to completely ignore the law - whether its a decent property or not if it needs a licence it should have one. It’s quite clear.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

" ... we all share similar political beliefs and don’t think housing should be commodified"

Ah yes, one of those