Tribunal accuses London borough of showing “unwelcome disrespect” in selective licensing case

The First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber has criticised the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham for showing it a lack of respect.

Tribunal members said the council failed to engage with it in a dispute over licensing a house rented out to tenants by a landlord.

The applicant told the tribunal she had a licence issued in June 2023 but only for 12 months from 10 May 2023 until 2024, and which stated the licence was only annual as the property had been rented without a valid licence.

The applicant complained that she had previously had a licence for the premises issued in 2018 which she believed to be valid for five years.

But in February 2023, she had a letter from the council requesting submission of a selective licence application and an appointment was made for a compliance visit but this was not kept by the council.

She argued the council should have carried over her old five-year licence and was using one-year licences as a money-making scheme because the fees were higher.

The tribunal found for the applicant and said: “There was no opportunity for any input from the [council] about this because they chose to not engage with the tribunal or attend the hearing.

“It is regrettable that an authority conducts itself in this way and it illustrates a level of disrespect to the tribunal that is unwelcome.”

Tribunal Judge Shepherd, with panel members Alison Flynn, Patricia Tueje, said in their decision the applicant told them she had not received the licence sent in 2018 and had thought this was for the normal five years.

She made a subject access request for the 2018 licence and provided a copy to the tribunal.

It turned out the 2018 licence was in fact only issued for 12 months and the applicant said that she was surprised by this as she had assumed it was for five years, as were most licences issued at the time.

The tribunal said: “The fact that she had to make a subject access request supports her argument that she did not have the 2018 license and therefore did not know its terms.”

It added: “She did not seek to hide the terms of the 2018 licence in fact she volunteered the information about its limited term.”

Based on information before the panel it was “unchallenged that she is entitled to a longer licence”, which it set at three years because “some measure of care needs to be taken when we have only heard from the applicant”.

Mark Smulian