A landlord has sold up his properties and left the private rental sector after a fight with his council over its contentious Selective Licensing Scheme and says his properties should not have had to be registered.

Image credit: iStock

Brian Fish the landlord from Seaham in County Durham had two Buy to Let properties that Durham County Council placed into its selective licensing scheme.

However Fish argues that not only his but other properties should not have been made to join the scheme and has asked his MP to question and find out the council’s method to achieve their decision.

Fish says: “The scheme apparently targeted the worst areas in County Durham with 30,000 houses included from a much larger initial scheme of 60,000 houses which were to be included. The scheme is forcing landlords to pay £500 per property to DCC, which … is circa £15M to be paid by private landlords and no doubt ultimately the most vulnerable.”

He does however agree that these schemes are necessary in applicable cases, saying: “The primary benchmark set by the Housing Act is that there needs to be 19 per cent or above of Private Landlords in the affected areas. There also needs to be high levels of secondary issues such as Anti-Social Behaviour, Low Housing Demand, High Levels of deprivation etc. These together may indicate that the Private Landlord Sector could be a factor and we understand that.”

He believes the Act is a necessity for many areas where the criteria exists, but Fish believes that in real life the authority has extended the licensing scheme into what he labels as “a £15m revenue scheme for Durham County Council.”

He disputes the council’s method of deciding which properties and specific areas should come under the licensing scheme.

He has been involved with extensive correspondence and Freedom of Information requests with the authority and believes that the scheme which started two years ago should not have included many areas that it has involved.

Not content with that the ex-landlord (he sold his two properties at the beginning of the year) has had numerous enquiries with local court authorities about many cases brought against landlords by Durham council using delegated powers, which he says are based on what he believes is faulty data.

He also says that the faulty data situation is similar to the sub-postmasters’ scandal where the powers that be denied there was any problem with the computer algorithm’s faulty data, he says: “Our major concern is the tenants who are the most vulnerable and are going to be the long term victims, as landlords leave the market it’s clearly causing housing availability shortages and rent increases in the areas involved.”

He has called upon his local Labour MP Grahame Morris for assistance, who has now written to the council requesting to be supplied details of the scheme.

Replying to the media, Durham County Council disagrees with various claims the ex-landlord has made and states the licensing is not in any shape or form a cash raising scheme.

It says: “This is not true – all money is ring-fenced to be spent within the scheme and the majority of spend is staffing for administering the licences and enforcement.”

The council does admit the scheme will raise £12.5m and insists it will be used to target rogue landlords whose properties are ‘not fit for purpose’ to house tenants.

The council went through all the correct legal processes for the scheme to be approved by the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities which found the criteria used to include or exclude properties to be acceptable.

The council also stated that it carried out all of the statutory requirements as it undertook a concerted advertising campaigns in newspapers and websites, some of its emails and letters included references to the introduction of the scheme.

Lynn Hall, strategic manager for housing at Durham County Council, says the creation of the scheme involved an “exhaustive and painstaking process” including changes to the original proposals as a result of the formal consultation.

She adds: “In approving the scheme and its designated areas, the government agreed that we had adhered to all legislation and guidance”.