Error on local authority website led to temporary lack of licence
An error by a local authority resulted in a couple being without the correct licence for their rented property – which meant their tenants were perfectly within their rights to submit a Rent Repayment Order for £20,700.
Although the local authority admitted the licensing information on its website was incorrect, breaches are strict liability criminal offences. This means that the landlord is liable as soon as the breach occurs, regardless of the circumstances that led to it.
Strict liability offences are normally reserved for criminal offences such as speeding or drug trafficking. But all the legislation that comes under the Housing Act 2004, including licensing for privately rented property, carries the same condition.
The error came to light when the property owners decided to sell the property, which had been managed by an agent. When notice was served on the tenants, they objected to leaving their home and contacted a no-win, no-fee company to act on their behalf.
The company’s investigations discovered that an Additional Licensing scheme had been introduced and was applicable to the property, despite the local authority website stating otherwise. As a result, the tenants were able to hit the owners with a bill for all the rent they’d paid during the period the property was incorrectly unlicensed.
The tenants had been so happy in their home they didn’t want to leave – but they were still perfectly within their rights to claim back over £20,000 in rent.
Selling the property had been a last resort for the owners, and they sympathised with their tenants’ situation. So they were horrified to not only receive the demand to refund the rent, but also discover they had no legal right to dispute it.
When Landlord Licensing & Defence negotiated with the claims company on behalf of the owners, they were able to reduce the amount they returned by £4,700 – around 23 percent of the amount demanded by their former tenants.
They were still left with a hefty bill, despite the local authority admitting the discrepancy in the information it had shared. However, with no valid defence in law, not having a licence could have resulted in a criminal record, a public tribunal hearing, and negative publicity with public reputational damage. This case illustrates the draconian nature of many aspects of housing legislation, and shows how it’s intended to penalise landlords rather than protect tenants. This has been confirmed by judges in case law that has reached the tribunals, and who were left with no alternative but to reluctantly allow spurious claims against well-meaning property owners.
CS1576
