Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

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

69 replies

hummusexual · 20/04/2019 15:39

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!

OP posts:

lyralalala · 21/04/2019 17:00

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.

KnobJockey · 21/04/2019 17:00

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 · 21/04/2019 17:04

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

Oblomov19 · 21/04/2019 17:31

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

Passthecherrycoke · 21/04/2019 17:37

It’s the rent the LL illegally charged them Oblomov

lyralalala · 21/04/2019 17:37

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.

Perihelion · 21/04/2019 17:43

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.

Perihelion · 21/04/2019 17:48

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.

Andromeida59 · 21/04/2019 17:50

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?

Oblomov19 · 21/04/2019 18:02

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.

lyralalala · 21/04/2019 18:10

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.

lyralalala · 21/04/2019 18:11

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.

Passthecherrycoke · 21/04/2019 18:18

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 · 21/04/2019 18:25

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.

NoBaggyPants · 21/04/2019 18:27

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.

ImJustTiredOk · 21/04/2019 18:47

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?

donquixotedelamancha · 21/04/2019 19:00

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 · 21/04/2019 19:24

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 🤔

BoneyBackJefferson · 21/04/2019 20:01

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?

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread