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

Letting and managing private residential accommodation for profit constitutes a 'service' under the Services Directive. The Council's HMO licence renewal fee was unlawful as it was not limited to the costs of the authorisation procedures, infringing Article 13(2) of the Directive and Regulation 18(4) of the Services Regulations.

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
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed
Legal Topics
Services Directive, Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation, Authorisation Schemes, Judicial Review, Local Authority Powers
Administrative Law EU Law Housing Law Services Directive Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation Authorisation Schemes Judicial Review Local Authority Powers

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letting and managing private residential accommodation for profit constitutes a 'service' under Directive 2006/123/EC (Services Directive)
  2. 2 Whether the Council's fee for HMO licence renewal was lawful under the Services Directive and implementing regulations

Ratio Decidendi

Letting and managing private residential accommodation for profit constitutes a 'service' under the Services Directive. The Council's HMO licence renewal fee was unlawful as it was not limited to the costs of the authorisation procedures, infringing Article 13(2) of the Directive and Regulation 18(4) of the Services Regulations.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant is engaging in a service activity for the purposes of the EU Services Directive and the Provision of Services Regulations 2009.
  • Declaration that the licensing provisions of Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 are an authorisation scheme for the purposes of the Directive and Regulations.