A major landlords’ association in the East Midlands has failed in a challenge to Nottingham city council’s decision to designate a number of areas of the city as subject to additional licensing in relation to houses of multiple occupation.
Wilkie J ruled that East Midlands Property Owners – the largest landlords’ association in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester – had failed to bring its claim promptly, and refused to extend time on the basis that none of its grounds of challenge were arguable.
He upheld the council’s decision to exercise its powers under section 56 of the Housing Act 2004 and make the designation, which came into force on 1 January 2014 and has been operating ever since. It will run for up to five years.
Section 56 provides that a local housing authority may designate either the area of their district, or an area in their district as subject to additional licensing in relation to a description of HMOs specified in the designation, with s56(2) stating: “The authority must consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs of that description in the area are being managed sufficiently ineffectively as to give rise, or be likely to give rise, to one or more particular problems either for those occupying the HMOs or for members of the public.”
EMPO took the view that the designation was prejudicial to its members and the wider Nottingham landlord community.
The judge also rejected a claim that the calculation of the licence fee is unlawful. EMPO had argued that it included expenditure other than for the processing and monitoring of the additional licensing scheme.
EMPO claimed that the council erred in law by using an “inappropriate formula” to reach the conclusion that s56(2) was satisfied.
But the judge said that, as part of the process, the council had identified the non-mandatory licensed HMOs in respect of which one or more complaints between the years 2008 and 2012 had been made to the Environmental Health Department or the Police. Categories of complaints considered included bins on the street; noise complaints; housing disrepair and overcrowding; refuse accumulations; and land or buildings detrimental to the amenity.
He said that there was nothing irrational about the approach taken, the consultation carried out of the period of designation.
The Queen on the application of East Midlands Property Owners Limited v Nottingham City Council Administrative (Wilkie J) 20 March 2015
Andrew Lane (instructed by Bury and Walkers LLP) for the claimant
Iain Colville (instructed by Nottingham city council) for the defendant
