A council has fined a landlord £17,500 for failing to license two of his properties in the area.
However, the identify of the landlord is not known because anonymity was a condition of them accepting the penalty.
The properties are in Sutton, in Ashfield council’s Selective Licensing Scheme which means that all landlords with any privately rented properties in the selected area will need a licence for these properties. Selective licensing was extended in place in these two areas in 2022, and has helped to bring about change and improvement to homes and the wider community.
Despite a number of attempts to secure an application from the landlord and agency, including a final warning advising of the consequences of failing to licence the two properties, the landlord still did not submit any application or paperwork required for the properties.
As part of the investigation, officers visited the two properties and identified that they were occupied and there were concerns relating to the safety of the properties, which is being dealt with separately to the licencing offences.
A council spokesperson says: “It is a criminal offence to let a privately rented property in a designated area without a Selective Licence in place. Penalties include prosecution and an unlimited fine or a financial penalty up to £30,000. Enforcement action is always a last result, we will always try to engage with, and support landlords to apply for their license first.
“Selective Licensing has brought real positive changes to the designated areas, it allows the Council to regulate the housing for the safety of both the tenants and the landlords.”
The landlord penalised this month cannot be identified as an agreed condition of them accepting the penalty. The council has not explained why this is the case.
A total of six financial penalties have been served by this council on landlords who have failed to licence their property or breached their duties totalling over £56,500 since the start of the current selective licensing scheme, with an additional 10 ongoing investigations for similar offences.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
A HMO license has expired on one of my properties & I’ve chased my council 6 times now, but they say ‘due to a back log’ it’s been delayed, it’s been months now. I personally think they should be valid for 7 years or they need to get more resources.
James, they should have more resource if they are charging additional 'Tax'. Bigger question is where is all the licensing money going?
Licensing is pointless. No one has ever been able to explain to me the value of licensing. Like almost everything the council try and impose on HMO landlords it does not stand up to rational analysis or to a cost risk benefit analysis. That is a polite way of saying it is a complete waste of time! Councils already have sufficient powers to check unsafe HMO’s. Licensing just sounds good. However, it is the monster that devours its creator in as much as it costs councils a lot more to administer licensing then they charge in fees. The administration involves valuable housing officers time in dealing with bureaucracy and the good landlords instead of helping tenants who have problems.
There was a massive outcry about reducing speed limits on the roads to 20 miles an hour which is shown to save hundred of lives yet licensing is not shown to save any lives. It just goes to show how daft our legislators are and what great contempt HMO landlords are held in yet they provide housing at a fraction of the cost of the social sector.
Jim Haliburton The HMO Daddy
The fee is supposed to be enough to cover the cost of administering the scheme. If there is a back log that would imply that the Council may have been in breach of the regulations and have used the money for other purposes!
Landlords nationally should be contacting their Council's auditors to ask that they specifically check that Fees are only being used to administer the scheme.
There have already been two Councils found to be in breach one of which I believe is Bristol.
So what?
No name and shame that landlord and the rest.
She’s off again!😂
And if he's got to pay he's no choice has he.
Sandra, I hope you have a chip on each shoulder so that you are well-balanced for once. 😂
Sandra what is tour story? are you ever going to tell us? It's not good for you being all bitter and twisted
The Positive Change it has bought it that there is nothing to rent in the area.
I think a Mandatory HMO LICENSE should be valid for 10 years, 5 years comes around much too quickly.
I have had at least 4 licensed 4 times & another 4 three times as the Schemes were applied.
The paper Applications used to take 3 months to process and issue the licence which cost £598.00 in one payment up front, now digital and sublet to meta street and cost £1’650.00 for same property but takes several months longer & have 4 applications outstanding one is 14 months and counting.
Why have I had 4 licenses per property while others only starting on their first and 5 years comes around so quickly especially when they sit on the Application for a year and then deduct the year you were waiting from license period who means its only valid for 4 years, if you complain you’ll only get a licence for 2 years.
The other thing is when you now make the Digital Application that takes several months longer they take one third of the money up front about £500,00 from your debit card & mandate themselves to take the Balance whenever they are good and ready automatically. Of Course there’s a huge amount of Documents, Certifications & Compliance all at our cost as well.
I am not given them credit for the 20 mph to save lives, that was to stop the rubbish quality Asphalt ravelling away with potholes everywhere.
The reason for less accidents and loss of life was the Pandemic, a huge reduction in traffic, people working from home are not going to be involved in a traffic accident.
Please login to comment