Gaskin, R (on the application of) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council & Anor [2017] EWHC 3234 (Admin) (11 December 2017)

Gaskin, R (on the application of) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council & Anor [2017] EWHC 3234 (Admin) (11 December 2017)

The Council acted unlawfully in refusing to process the claimant's HMO licence renewal application for failure to provide occupier information not required by the 2012 Regulations, but acted lawfully in requiring the renewal fee and in issuing the section 16 notice for enforcement purposes.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3234 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Gaskin; First Defendant: Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council; Second Defendant: Lavender Hill & Wimbledon Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment and Order After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Partially allowed; declaratory relief granted on ground 2; grounds 1 (domestic law) and 3 dismissed; ground 4 discontinued.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Houses in Multiple Occupation (hmo) Licensing, Local Authority Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Fees and Charges, Provision of Information, Section 16 Notices, EU Law (services Directive)
Administrative Law Housing Law Judicial Review Houses in Multiple Occupation (hmo) Licensing Local Authority Powers Statutory Interpretation Fees and Charges Provision of Information +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Gaskin

Claimant

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council

First Defendant

Lavender Hill & Wimbledon Magistrates' Court

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment and Order After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council lawfully required the claimant to provide occupier information as a condition of HMO licence renewal
  2. 2 Whether the Council lawfully required payment of the full renewal fee of £1,799
  3. 3 Whether the section 16 notice under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Council acted unlawfully in refusing to process the claimant's HMO licence renewal application for failure to provide occupier information not required by the 2012 Regulations, but acted lawfully in requiring the renewal fee and in issuing the section 16 notice for enforcement purposes.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; declaratory relief granted on ground 2; grounds 1 (domestic law) and 3 dismissed; ground 4 discontinued.

Orders

  • Declaration that the First Defendant was not entitled, as a condition of granting a renewed HMO licence, to require the claimant to provide occupier information sought at section 3.1 of the renewal application form; refusal to process the application for failure to supply such information was unlawful.
  • Ground 1 (domestic law) and ground 3 dismissed.