Thurrock gives landlords until end of month to apply under selective licensing scheme

The local authority is pressing ahead with implementation of the scheme even though the claimants are pursuing an oral renewal hearing seeking permission for their challenge.

Under the scheme, private landlords operating within designated areas are required to obtain a licence to let their properties, excluding Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) that are already covered by existing mandatory or additional licensing schemes.

Cllr Lynda Heath, Cabinet member for Public Protection, Constitutional and Civic Affairs, said: “We welcome the Court’s decision, and are pleased that we can continue with implementing the Selective Licensing Scheme. The scheme provides a fair and proportionate framework that supports responsible landlords while raising standards and protecting our residents in the private rented sector. 

“I urge all eligible landlords to act fast and apply by the deadline as there is a fine of up to £30k if we find out that landlords have been operating without this licence. We are offering support with applications and want to work with landlords to avoid this.” 

Junaid Ishfaq, partner at letting agent Rentigo who is helping co-ordinate the judicial review claim with other landlords, told Local Government Lawyer that an application for an oral renewal hearing had been made, but no hearing had yet been scheduled. 

He claimed that “they [the council] cannot send such communications to landlords while the legal matter is still pending”.

A spokesperson for Thurrock said: “The council is entitled to continue with the selective licensing scheme. Permission for judicial review has been refused and the application for an interim injunction dismissed. The claimant has renewed the application for permission for judicial review and requested it is heard orally, however there has not been any decision made by the court regarding this request and the council is not prohibited from continuing with the scheme in the meantime. 

“As explained in the reasons provided by the Court ‘that [interim injunction] order lapses in light of this order’ and “as Norton J’s order has now lapsed, and the Defendant is permitted to continue with this scheme”.