Gaskin, R (on the application of) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council & Anor

Gaskin, R (on the application of) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council & Anor

The Council was not entitled to require information about occupiers in section 3.1 of the renewal application form for an HMO licence, as the relevant regulations do not mandate such information for renewals. Refusal to process the application for failure to supply this information was unlawful. The fee charged was not unlawful under domestic law, and the section 16 notice was lawfully served for enforcement purposes.

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
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declaratory relief granted on ground 2; grounds 1 and 3 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, HMO Licensing, Local Authority Powers, Fee Regulation, Information Disclosure
Administrative Law Housing Law Judicial Review HMO Licensing Local Authority Powers Fee Regulation Information Disclosure

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of requiring information about occupiers in HMO licence renewal applications
  2. 2 Lawfulness of the fee charged for HMO licence renewal
  3. 3 Lawfulness of section 16 notice under Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was not entitled to require information about occupiers in section 3.1 of the renewal application form for an HMO licence, as the relevant regulations do not mandate such information for renewals. Refusal to process the application for failure to supply this information was unlawful. The fee charged was not unlawful under domestic law, and the section 16 notice was lawfully served for enforcement purposes.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declaratory relief granted on ground 2; grounds 1 and 3 dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Council was not entitled to require information about occupiers as a condition for licence renewal; refusal to process the application for failure to supply such information was unlawful.
  • Time for applying for permission to appeal extended to 11 January 2018; further extension possible if EU law issue pursued.