Suspected unlicensed HMO - advice please

Ratkin007

If a property is required to be licensed and is not licensed a rent repayment order can be applied for. The council would not need to be involved, however they could confirm whether a licence was required and when an application was submitted. It would be the tribunal that makes the decision and how much, it would not be about negotiating with the landlord.  As the property is a HMO with 4 persons, it is more likely to fall under an additional HMO scheme, not selective.  (Though I could be wrong) Does your Authority have an Additional scheme and when did that begin? Also selective and additional schemes last no longer than 5 years so the 2016 scheme would have ended.  Was a new scheme applied for? It sounds like you may have been provided with a copy of the licence if you have been given conditions, which would specify when the condition would need to be complied with. If you are receiving notification now, it is possible the landlord put an application in some time ago and it is only just being processed. It can take Authorities a number of years before processing applications and whilst at application stage it would not show on a public register. That said, I'm surprised sockets in a bedroom are a licence condition.

sheramber

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

ThorOdinson said:

Give the OP a break. The LL is clearly not doing the right thing here, and aside from anything else if there are no consequences they will carry on breaking the rules....

Are you saying the landlord now applying for the HMO licence isn't "doing the right thing"?

If a landlord is somehow punished when they realise their mistake and apply for the licence then that would act as a disincentive to them regularising the situation.  In various LA enforcement processes there is usually an opportunity for the 'offender' to put the situation right without facing a punitive sanction.  It is better to have the wrongdoer start doing things the right way, rather than have fear of punishment cause them to carry on doing it the wrong way in the hope nobody will ever find out.

The landlord is (apparently) applying for a licence, that is about as clear an indication they don't intend to "carry on breaking the rules" as you can get.

Absolutely.

And, I can offer an actual example.

A friend has (had) a house in Southwark that they rented out for a couple of decades. The rent was noticeably - significantly - below similar rates in the area, the house kept in good order, any issues addressed promptly, and the tenants were given a lot of leeway to do things their preferred way, such as finding and vetting replacement tenants, decorating to their own tastes, and stuff like that. In short, happy tenants, low turnover + instant replacements, and a happy LL too.

Then the owner had to sell so they could move away from the area. Tenants were genuinely disappointed at the loss, and some even sent letters acknowledging their 'luck' and 'thanks' over the past while.

Except one, from the most privileged professional background (unfortunately, both parents in 'law'), who saw fit to threaten to sue for a year's rent, because the LA had, around a year previously, reduced the tenant number that constituted 'HMO' from 5 to 4, gave no notice to LLs (unless you sought it out yourself), and introduced this change one ward at a time, and - you've guessed it - Southwark was the first, with other wards lagging behind by at least a year.

In other words, this change by the LA had absolutely zero bearing on the tenants, and as soon as the LL realised the change, he made the required application to declare it a 'HMO'. Nope, the ex-tenant is still threatening to sue.

Why? For no other reason than a sense of 'entitlement', and money. Because they think they can.

It's what such folk do.

The fact that they are  threatening to sue doesn't prove anything.

They haven't sued and they haven't got a judgement against the landlord.

Just as the OP wants to 'bargain' with thier landlord.

ThisIsWeird

sheramber said:

The fact that they are  threatening to sue doesn't prove anything.
They haven't sued and they haven't got a judgement against the landlord.
Just as the OP wants to 'bargain' with thier landlord.

I beg to differ. It proves a lot.

What is there to 'bargain' over? What is the actual loss to the tenant?

artyboy

BarelySentientAI said:

artyboy said:

Section62 said:

ThorOdinson said:

Give the OP a break. The LL is clearly not doing the right thing here, and aside from anything else if there are no consequences they will carry on breaking the rules....

Are you saying the landlord now applying for the HMO licence isn't "doing the right thing"?

If a landlord is somehow punished when they realise their mistake and apply for the licence then that would act as a disincentive to them regularising the situation.  In various LA enforcement processes there is usually an opportunity for the 'offender' to put the situation right without facing a punitive sanction.  It is better to have the wrongdoer start doing things the right way, rather than have fear of punishment cause them to carry on doing it the wrong way in the hope nobody will ever find out.

The landlord is (apparently) applying for a licence, that is about as clear an indication they don't intend to "carry on breaking the rules" as you can get.

There are no shortage of threads where tenants are egged on to pursue the LL for being late in protecting their deposit. It seems that the goodwill towards 'giving them a break' when they rectify a mistake applies selectively around here...

There's a big difference between "apply for the statutory penalty that the law determines is suitable for the error" and "blackmail the landlord into repaying you nine month's rent".

So there are no penalties in statute that apply to running an unlicensed HMO?

And when the deposit thing crops up, that's not generally a form of blackmail to ensure (for example) the LL won't ask for any deposit deductions, whether justified or not?

Potato Potaaato apparently. 

BarelySentientAI

artyboy said:

BarelySentientAI said:

artyboy said:

Section62 said:

ThorOdinson said:

Give the OP a break. The LL is clearly not doing the right thing here, and aside from anything else if there are no consequences they will carry on breaking the rules....

Are you saying the landlord now applying for the HMO licence isn't "doing the right thing"?

If a landlord is somehow punished when they realise their mistake and apply for the licence then that would act as a disincentive to them regularising the situation.  In various LA enforcement processes there is usually an opportunity for the 'offender' to put the situation right without facing a punitive sanction.  It is better to have the wrongdoer start doing things the right way, rather than have fear of punishment cause them to carry on doing it the wrong way in the hope nobody will ever find out.

The landlord is (apparently) applying for a licence, that is about as clear an indication they don't intend to "carry on breaking the rules" as you can get.

There are no shortage of threads where tenants are egged on to pursue the LL for being late in protecting their deposit. It seems that the goodwill towards 'giving them a break' when they rectify a mistake applies selectively around here...

There's a big difference between "apply for the statutory penalty that the law determines is suitable for the error" and "blackmail the landlord into repaying you nine month's rent".

So there are no penalties in statute that apply to running an unlicensed HMO?

And when the deposit thing crops up, that's not generally a form of blackmail to ensure (for example) the LL won't ask for any deposit deductions, whether justified or not?

Potato Potaaato apparently. 

As Ratkin007 mentioned - "If a property is required to be licensed and is not licensed a rent repayment order can be applied for."

So that's what you do.  You follow the process and apply for the order.

Just like if your deposit isn't protected, you follow the process and apply for the prescribed penalty.  It's not blackmail, it's the legal process.

Suggesting that you should threaten the landlord that you'll report them unless they give you some money is pretty much the definition of blackmail, and is probably (although I am not a lawyer) illegal.

If someone said "should I threaten the landlord with applying for the deposit penalty if they make any deductions", I would give the same answer.

artyboy

BarelySentientAI said:

artyboy said:

BarelySentientAI said:

artyboy said:

Section62 said:

ThorOdinson said:

Give the OP a break. The LL is clearly not doing the right thing here, and aside from anything else if there are no consequences they will carry on breaking the rules....

Are you saying the landlord now applying for the HMO licence isn't "doing the right thing"?

If a landlord is somehow punished when they realise their mistake and apply for the licence then that would act as a disincentive to them regularising the situation.  In various LA enforcement processes there is usually an opportunity for the 'offender' to put the situation right without facing a punitive sanction.  It is better to have the wrongdoer start doing things the right way, rather than have fear of punishment cause them to carry on doing it the wrong way in the hope nobody will ever find out.

The landlord is (apparently) applying for a licence, that is about as clear an indication they don't intend to "carry on breaking the rules" as you can get.

There are no shortage of threads where tenants are egged on to pursue the LL for being late in protecting their deposit. It seems that the goodwill towards 'giving them a break' when they rectify a mistake applies selectively around here...

There's a big difference between "apply for the statutory penalty that the law determines is suitable for the error" and "blackmail the landlord into repaying you nine month's rent".

So there are no penalties in statute that apply to running an unlicensed HMO?

And when the deposit thing crops up, that's not generally a form of blackmail to ensure (for example) the LL won't ask for any deposit deductions, whether justified or not?

Potato Potaaato apparently. 

As Ratkin007 mentioned - "If a property is required to be licensed and is not licensed a rent repayment order can be applied for."

So that's what you do.  You follow the process and apply for the order.

Just like if your deposit isn't protected, you follow the process and apply for the prescribed penalty.  It's not blackmail, it's the legal process.

Suggesting that you should threaten the landlord that you'll report them unless they give you some money is pretty much the definition of blackmail, and is probably (although I am not a lawyer) illegal.

If someone said "should I threaten the landlord with applying for the deposit penalty if they make any deductions", I would give the same answer.

And yet that last paragraph - perhaps using slightly softer terms than 'threaten' - is what we see on here all the time. In fact it's more than that because posters on here actively advocate it as a strategy. Clearly there are cases where LLs try it on with spurious deductions, but there's never any suggestion of 'giving them a break' like is being advocated here.

Anyway.. I think the point has been made to the OP, so arguing this any more really isn't helpful...