By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Solicitor renews attack on “unfair” landlord licensing by councils

A legal firm has renewed its criticism of local authority licensing schemes, accusing them of “persecuting” landlords.

David Kirwan, managing partner at Kirwans law firm, has singled out Liverpool city council’s decision to hold a public consultation into renewing its landlord licensing scheme for a further five years.

Kirwan says if it goes ahead, the extended scheme will result in more landlords being unfairly prosecuted .


He argues that the “heavy-handed nature of the penalties” meant inexperienced or first-time landlords who do not realise the importance of applying for licences could find themselves in court, forced to pay back 12 months’ worth of rent, or banned from operating properties in the area.

The council’s landlord licensing scheme was introduced under the government’s selective licensing laws and landlords must sign up to it. Selective licensing initiatives apply to a designated area for a period of five years and landlords have to apply for a licence for each home affected.

They are then awarded a licence to operate a property only after an assessment which must deem them to be ‘fit and proper’. In addition, stipulations around the management and funding of the property and health and safety considerations must also be satisfied.

But Kirwan and other opponents of the initiative claim it can prove confusing for landlords, who are often unaware that their property even lies in a selective licensing area.

He adds that for those operating numerous properties across different areas, the situation can be more bewildering, as each council can create its own set of rules for each scheme.

At the end of last month, the scheme was reported to have resulted in more than 2,000 legal notices being issued, with 89 fixed penalty notices and 154 landlords successfully prosecuted.

But Kirwan insists that some of those hauled before the courts are well-meaning landlords who have simply made an error.

“Under selective licensing legislation introduced by part three of the Housing Act 2004, in areas affected by poor-quality rental properties, irresponsible landlords and anti-social behaviour, local authorities are able to introduce penalties that go well beyond the mandatory government landlord licensing rules for those failing to obtain a licence" he says.

“This can result in criminal records, rent repayment or a ban from renting out property. Even if local authorities opt to avoid the courts, civil penalty fines of up to £30,000 can be imposed.

“However, rather than pursue these harshest of punishments, LAs also have the option of working with those failing to comply to offer advice and support, educating them about their duties and responsibilities and helping to create a reliable pool of landlords within the city.

“I have been extremely disappointed to learn then, that rather than choosing the option that, in some cases, would be eminently more sensible, councils such as Liverpool are all too often pursuing the harshest of punishments.

“The outcome is such that well-meaning men and women who have ventured into property letting in a bid to provide a pension or extra income are finding themselves in a truly terrifying situation simply for what is often a simple administration process failure.

“Meanwhile, the real rogue landlords may simply choose to avoid the licensed areas, moving their poor practices to areas where such schemes are not currently in place.”

He says landlords should take extra care when buying a property in the Merseyside area.

“Liverpool City Council’s practice of punishing landlords who fall foul of the rules in the harshest possible way means that landlords must be extremely wary of buying in an area affected by selective licensing rules.

“Those that choose to do so must make sure that they have the necessary licences in place and ensure they comply with every obligation the scheme makes of them – or face what can be heart-breaking consequences.”

  • icon

    We are entering an era where administrative errors are punished more harshly than deliberate criminal acts. Is this the sort of climate which encourages entrepreneurs?

  • icon

    Its a disgusting abuse of powers and all about getting extra money from landlords

    Now bedfordshire Council are now looking at
    Q.3: A Rent Repayment Order means that a Landlord can be taken to tribunal, where up to 12 months’ rent can be reclaimed. We are proposing to offer a (non-mandatory) service to tenants to assist with the process of applying for a rent repayment order. The service would be offered on a no win, no fee basis and if the tenant I able to recover rent, 10% of the amount recovered would be payable to Council cover the cost of this service. The RLA strongly agrees with this proposal, as it shows that the council has accurately read the legislation concerning Rent Repayment Orders.

    Another Income stream for council?? Are they now the new ambulance chasers competing with the No WIn no Fee solicitors

    Who do the RLA represent??

    Then look at Karen Bucks bill
    The first item is damp and mould , condensation mainly caused by tenants but now its the landlords
    fault. So if a tenant gets a house in great condition free from Damp and mould then it appears with
    this tenant how can the Landlord be blamed?

    The reason this is No1 is because it will be hard for a landlord to defend and all the No win No fee solicitors are rubbing their hands. Didnt a No win No fee solicitor write it??


    Good grief!!!

    I'm not a member of the RLA but if I was it wouldn't be for long after reading that.

  • S l
    • S l
    • 15 February 2019 12:05 PM

    end of the day, it looks like the LA are letting the power gets into their head and instead of making it more affordable for both landlord to operate and tenants to rent, it is the opposite.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Its good to see David Kirwan coming out with concerns and supporting Landlords. I wonder if he shares concerns about the potential ( and it will happen ) abuse of the Fitness for Habitation Act. ?

    or will his firm be ' taking the Queens shilling ' in legal aid to represent the bad tenants who want to raise spurious defences against Possession claims. ?

  • S l
    • S l
    • 25 February 2019 20:23 PM

    Hi Dave Kirwan, have a look at Southwark council. they are now consulting a silver star and gold star for prs standard of housing. When is it going to stop? What can we do to stop this harrassment on prs

  • icon

    The extension of the selective licensing HMO arrangement by Southwark Council is fundamentally flawed as the scheme that has been in place since 2005 should have resulted in all landlords complying with the standard required you HMO licences. So either this scheme has been a total failure or there is a belief that existing landlords will stop complying to the HMO regulations (most of regulations require improved infrastructure to properties and it would simply be stupid for any landlord to remove these changes) or vast numbers of new landlords are entering the market, thus justifying continuation of this scheme (The fact is that various tax changes and other regulation have given rise to a substantial reduction in the number of landlords and rented properties in the market).

    Not only can there be no justification for the extension of the selective licencing arrangement, but the biggest irritation with this scheme is that none of the standard being applied to the private sector “HMO” are applied to the Public sector housing. The fact is that it is the public sector housing that has caused the greatest number of deaths and is the sector is the biggest contributor to poor housing standards
    One of the key lessons we need to learn from the recent corona virus pandemic is that we can no longer continue with schemes that service little purpose and yield no tangible benefit. The HMO regulation and merely represents a tax on landlords to fund local authorities gross wastage and inefficiency

    Local authorities can no longer have the luxury of deploring these pointless schemes and must start to realise that they need to undertake a fundamental “rethink” as to how they operate and what their real priorities are.

    I would suggest that they should focus on ensuring that we do not have another Grenfell Tower disaster, after all, if that building had been in compliance with the HMO regulations (specifically the need for electrical certificates, which would have required RCD to be installed thorough out the Tower) then this fire would never have started in the first instance!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up