Former tenants had attempted to claim back all the rent they’d paid
Two tenants attempted to claim a refund of all the rent they’d paid for their flat when they were informed of a licensing discrepancy AFTER they’d left the property.
The tenants lived in the flat for less than a year, and neither they nor their landlord were aware that Additional Licensing had been introduced by the local authority until after they’d moved out.
In an increasingly common scenario, they only discovered the property had become subject to Additional Licensing during their tenancy after being contacted by a ‘no win, no fee’ claims company.
One of the three former tenants chose not to submit a claim. But despite not being affected in any way by the change in licensing requirements, two tenants were swayed by the offer of ‘free money’ and decided to submit a Rent Repayment Order for the full amount of rent they’d paid – a total of £9,800.
When Landlord Licensing & Defence mediated the claim on behalf of the landlord, the tenants were persuaded to reduce their demands by 56 percent – saving the landlord over £5,500.
Despite the significant saving, the landlord was still saddled with a bill of over £4,000 for what amounted to a minor administrative error. However, as there is no legal defence to any breaches of housing regulations, the alternative would have been a tribunal case, additional costs, negative publicity and reputational damage for the landlord.
And, as all breaches of legislation enacted by the Housing Act of 2004 are classed as criminal offences, he could have received a criminal record if the local authority chose to prosecute.
Local authorities can designate specific areas as requiring Selective Licensing or Additional Licensing at their discretion. This has the effect of making a property liable for a licence seemingly overnight. And, as councils (deliberately or not) don’t publicise the changes widely, it often happens without the landlord or managing agent’s knowledge.
But ignorance is not a defence in law, and Housing Act legislation designates all breaches as strict liability criminal offences. This means that as soon as the illegal act has occurred, the person is guilty of a crime regardless of the circumstances – a classification usually reserved for crimes such as speeding or drug trafficking.
Applying the same logic to a temporary lapse in licensing for an otherwise perfectly maintained rented property is a draconian punishment. Encouraging tenants to claim back rent when they were never at risk – and usually unaware of the breach – serves no benefit other than to punish well-meaning landlords and force many into financial ruin.
CS1621
