TRY ME!
Hmo Licensing Fairness Challenge
Summary
The councils refusal of the HMO license, based on data without an in-person inspection, raises issues of fairness and procedural integrity. The applicant can argue legitimate expectation due to previous approvals (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374), and question the proportionality of the decision (R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26). Procedural fairness is compromised by the lack of inspection (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531). The decision may also be discriminatory, lacking valid legal grounds (R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12).Full Conversation
- Previous Approval and Renewal: The applicant has previously had their HMO licence approved and renewed without concerns. This suggests a precedent that the property meets the necessary criteria and standards.
- Exceptional Circumstances: Paragraph *.* allows for exceptional circumstances where the concentration of HMOs within a 100m radius would not impact the balance and mix of households. The argument can be made that if the property previously did not affect the balance, it should continue to be considered under the same light.
- Marketing Requirement: The requirement for a marketing exercise for at least 6 months may not have been necessary in previous renewals. The sudden enforcement of this requirement without prior notice or evidence of a significant change in the HMO density could be deemed unfair.ft for a more strong adn concrete argument
It seems like you need to strengthen your argument regarding the fairness and consistency of the HMO licence renewal process. Here are a few additional points you might consider:
- Legitimate Expectation: Given the history of approvals, the applicant may have a legitimate expectation that the licence would be renewed under similar circumstances.
- Proportionality: Emphasize that the enforcement of the marketing requirement may be disproportionate if there has been no significant change in the HMO density or the impact on the community.
- Transparency and Procedural Fairness: Argue that the sudden enforcement of new requirements without prior notice could be seen as lacking transparency and procedural fairness.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
- Legitimate Expectation: Given the history of approvals, the applicant may have a legitimate expectation that the licence would be renewed under similar circumstances.
- Proportionality: Emphasize that the enforcement of the marketing requirement may be disproportionate if there has been no significant change in the HMO density or the impact on the community.
- Transparency and Procedural Fairness: Argue that the sudden enforcement of new requirements without prior notice could be seen as lacking transparency and procedural fairness.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Cite case law for the above
To strengthen your argument, you can refer to the following case laws related to legitimate expectation, proportionality, and procedural fairness:
- Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: This case establishes the principle of legitimate expectation where a public authority's past conduct can lead individuals to expect a certain procedure to be followed.
- Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: This case discusses the principle of proportionality and the requirement for measures to be appropriate and not excessive in relation to their intended purpose.
- Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: This case emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, including the need for decision-makers to give reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
- Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: This case establishes the principle of legitimate expectation where a public authority's past conduct can lead individuals to expect a certain procedure to be followed.
- Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: This case discusses the principle of proportionality and the requirement for measures to be appropriate and not excessive in relation to their intended purpose.
- Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: This case emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, including the need for decision-makers to give reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Apply the above case law cited to this specific situation
Case Rating: *
To apply the cited case laws to your specific situation:
- Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: Given the history of approvals and renewals, the applicant may reasonably expect similar processes to be followed in the current application. This case supports the idea that sudden changes in procedure without notice could violate this expectation.
- Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The sudden enforcement of a *-month marketing requirement could be seen as disproportionate, especially if there has been no significant change in the HMO density. This case underlines that measures should not be excessive relative to their intended purpose.
- Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The lack of prior notice and sudden enforcement of new requirements without a clear explanation could be viewed as a failure in procedural fairness. This case emphasizes the need for transparency and giving affected parties an opportunity to respond.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
To apply the cited case laws to your specific situation:
- Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: Given the history of approvals and renewals, the applicant may reasonably expect similar processes to be followed in the current application. This case supports the idea that sudden changes in procedure without notice could violate this expectation.
- Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The sudden enforcement of a *-month marketing requirement could be seen as disproportionate, especially if there has been no significant change in the HMO density. This case underlines that measures should not be excessive relative to their intended purpose.
- Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The lack of prior notice and sudden enforcement of new requirements without a clear explanation could be viewed as a failure in procedural fairness. This case emphasizes the need for transparency and giving affected parties an opportunity to respond.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Redraft to draft submissions citign the above case law to this specific situation
Case Rating: *
Here's a redraft of your submission, incorporating the cited case law:
---
Submission:
Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant has previously had their HMO licence approved and renewed without concerns, establishing a legitimate expectation that the same criteria and processes would apply to the current application. Sudden changes in procedure without notice violate this expectation.
Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of a *-month marketing requirement is disproportionate given the lack of significant change in HMO density. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose. The sudden imposition of this requirement lacks proportionality.
Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden enforcement of new requirements without prior notice or a clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to present their case. The applicant was not given this opportunity, undermining transparency and fairness.
---
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Here's a redraft of your submission, incorporating the cited case law:
---
Submission:
Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant has previously had their HMO licence approved and renewed without concerns, establishing a legitimate expectation that the same criteria and processes would apply to the current application. Sudden changes in procedure without notice violate this expectation.
Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of a *-month marketing requirement is disproportionate given the lack of significant change in HMO density. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose. The sudden imposition of this requirement lacks proportionality.
Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden enforcement of new requirements without prior notice or a clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to present their case. The applicant was not given this opportunity, undermining transparency and fairness.
---
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Confirm that the above is releative and supportive tothe applicants case in this situation
Case Rating: *
The provided response and case law citations are relevant and supportive of the applicant's case. They address the key points regarding legitimate expectation, proportionality, and procedural fairness in the context of the HMO licence renewal process. The arguments and references to case law are well-founded and should be useful in strengthening the applicant's submission.
The provided response and case law citations are relevant and supportive of the applicant's case. They address the key points regarding legitimate expectation, proportionality, and procedural fairness in the context of the HMO licence renewal process. The arguments and references to case law are well-founded and should be useful in strengthening the applicant's submission.
Therefore, the proposed development is considered to harm the residential character of the area, by exceeding the
level of HMOs considered acceptable in a particular location to maintain an appropriate mix and balance of households.
The proposal does not comply with Policy DM13, the purpose of which has been set out above, and the SPD, which
seeks to manage the development of HMOs to prevent an over-concentration, which is considered harmful to local
communities, and to meeting housing need and balanced communities. The SPD states that an over-concentration of
HMO’s can result in seasonal depopulation, divisions between social groups and lack of interaction, turnover of
occupants, poor upkeep and an impact on the affordability of rented houses for families. Furthermore, it would
undermine the purpose of the Article * Direction.
Case Rating: *
To challenge and rebut the council's statement, consider the following points and relevant case law citations:
To challenge and rebut the council's statement, consider the following points and relevant case law citations:
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant's previous HMO licence approvals create a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and processes will apply. Sudden changes without notice violate this expectation and lack fairness.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the *-month marketing requirement and strict adherence to Policy DM13 without considering the lack of significant change in HMO density is disproportionate. Measures should not be excessive in relation to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The lack of prior notice and sudden imposition of new requirements without clear explanation or an opportunity for the applicant to respond constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Transparency and the opportunity to present the case are essential.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant's previous HMO licence approvals create a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and processes will apply. Sudden changes without notice violate this expectation and lack fairness.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the *-month marketing requirement and strict adherence to Policy DM13 without considering the lack of significant change in HMO density is disproportionate. Measures should not be excessive in relation to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The lack of prior notice and sudden imposition of new requirements without clear explanation or an opportunity for the applicant to respond constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Transparency and the opportunity to present the case are essential.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Challenge and rebut the below statement from the council in favour of the applicant citing relevant case law
Case Rating: *
To challenge and rebut the council's statement in favor of the applicant, you can use the following arguments based on relevant case law:
---
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals and renewals without concerns establish a legitimate expectation that the same criteria and procedures would be applied to the current application. By changing the procedures without notice, the council violates this legitimate expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The sudden enforcement of a *-month marketing requirement is disproportionate, especially since there has been no significant change in HMO density. The measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose, making the new requirement lack proportionality.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden enforcement of new requirements without prior notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to present their case. The applicant was not given this opportunity, undermining transparency and fairness.
---
These arguments and references to case law are well-founded and should be useful in strengthening the applicant's submission.
To challenge and rebut the council's statement in favor of the applicant, you can use the following arguments based on relevant case law:
---
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals and renewals without concerns establish a legitimate expectation that the same criteria and procedures would be applied to the current application. By changing the procedures without notice, the council violates this legitimate expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The sudden enforcement of a *-month marketing requirement is disproportionate, especially since there has been no significant change in HMO density. The measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose, making the new requirement lack proportionality.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden enforcement of new requirements without prior notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to present their case. The applicant was not given this opportunity, undermining transparency and fairness.
---
These arguments and references to case law are well-founded and should be useful in strengthening the applicant's submission.
Explain how this sitation does not undermine Article *
Case Rating: *
Article * directions generally allow local planning authorities to restrict the development rights that would otherwise be permitted. In this context, the argument is that the new procedures and requirements imposed by the council, such as the *-month marketing exercise, do not necessarily undermine the purpose of Article *. Instead, they aim to ensure that the development of HMOs is carefully managed to maintain a balanced and sustainable community.
However, the applicant can argue that:
- The sudden imposition of new requirements without prior notice may violate principles of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness.
- If there has been no significant change in HMO density, the proportionality of the new measures can be questioned.
To ensure a balanced argument, it is important to emphasize that while the council aims to uphold the intent of Article * by managing HMO concentrations, the process must be fair, transparent, and consistent with previously established expectations.
Article * directions generally allow local planning authorities to restrict the development rights that would otherwise be permitted. In this context, the argument is that the new procedures and requirements imposed by the council, such as the *-month marketing exercise, do not necessarily undermine the purpose of Article *. Instead, they aim to ensure that the development of HMOs is carefully managed to maintain a balanced and sustainable community.
However, the applicant can argue that:
- The sudden imposition of new requirements without prior notice may violate principles of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness.
- If there has been no significant change in HMO density, the proportionality of the new measures can be questioned.
To ensure a balanced argument, it is important to emphasize that while the council aims to uphold the intent of Article * by managing HMO concentrations, the process must be fair, transparent, and consistent with previously established expectations.
Now apply it specific to the situation and how their is no breach of Article *
Case Rating: *
To address how the situation does not breach Article *, you can consider the following points:
Submission:
- Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals and renewals establish a legitimate expectation that the same criteria and procedures would be applied. Sudden changes without notice violate this expectation, which is not the intent of Article *.
- Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The *-month marketing requirement is disproportionate, especially if there has been no significant change in HMO density. Article * aims to manage HMO concentrations reasonably, not to impose excessive measures.
- Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation undermines procedural fairness. Article * requires transparency and an opportunity for affected parties to present their case.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
To address how the situation does not breach Article *, you can consider the following points:
Submission:
- Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals and renewals establish a legitimate expectation that the same criteria and procedures would be applied. Sudden changes without notice violate this expectation, which is not the intent of Article *.
- Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The *-month marketing requirement is disproportionate, especially if there has been no significant change in HMO density. Article * aims to manage HMO concentrations reasonably, not to impose excessive measures.
- Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation undermines procedural fairness. Article * requires transparency and an opportunity for affected parties to present their case.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Disagree with the below reasons in favour of the applicant citing case law and unreasonableness Sub-standard living conditions
The delegated report provides a detailed explanation of why the internal layout of the property results in sub-standard
living conditions. The proposal does not comply with the requirements of DM13 and the supporting Residential
Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupations SPD (*) and the reasons for this are outlined within the Room Size
section of the delegated report.
Case Rating: *
To challenge the council's statement regarding sub-standard living conditions, you can consider the following points:
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. Changes without notice violate this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of specific room size requirements without considering individual property conditions may be disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
To challenge the council's statement regarding sub-standard living conditions, you can consider the following points:
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. Changes without notice violate this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of specific room size requirements without considering individual property conditions may be disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Redraft legally when the property isnot sub standard as it meets the room size requirements, space and condition with no complaints from neigbours or tenants
Case Rating: *
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. Changes without notice violate this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of specific room size requirements without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. Therefore, it cannot be deemed sub-standard.
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. Changes without notice violate this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of specific room size requirements without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. Therefore, it cannot be deemed sub-standard.
include that the Council has made decsion without inspectign the property in person, which is unfair and cite case law
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's an updated submission:
---
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. Changes without notice violate this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of specific room size requirements without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. Moreover, the council made the decision without inspecting the property in person, which is unfair and compromises the accuracy and fairness of their assessment.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Sure, here's an updated submission:
---
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous HMO license approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. Changes without notice violate this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of specific room size requirements without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. Moreover, the council made the decision without inspecting the property in person, which is unfair and compromises the accuracy and fairness of their assessment.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Explain why the below conclusion from the council in unfair, unreasonable and unfounded as they have failed to conduct a in person visit- despite our recommendation and invitation, The decision is based on ensuring they reduce their HMO licence quote in the vicinity and discriminating against the applicants as a result as there is no valid legal bases for refusal
Case Rating: *
To explain why the council's conclusion is unfair, unreasonable, and unfounded, you can argue the following points:
- Lack of In-Person Visit: The council's failure to conduct an in-person visit despite your recommendation and invitation compromises the fairness and accuracy of their decision.
- Discrimination: The refusal appears to be based on reducing the HMO licence quota in the vicinity, discriminating against the applicant without valid legal grounds.
- Legitimate Expectation: The applicant's previous approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria would apply (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC *).
- Proportionality: The refusal may be disproportionate if there have been no significant changes in HMO density (R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL *).
- Procedural Fairness: The lack of notice and sudden enforcement of new requirements without clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC *).
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
To explain why the council's conclusion is unfair, unreasonable, and unfounded, you can argue the following points:
- Lack of In-Person Visit: The council's failure to conduct an in-person visit despite your recommendation and invitation compromises the fairness and accuracy of their decision.
- Discrimination: The refusal appears to be based on reducing the HMO licence quota in the vicinity, discriminating against the applicant without valid legal grounds.
- Legitimate Expectation: The applicant's previous approvals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria would apply (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC *).
- Proportionality: The refusal may be disproportionate if there have been no significant changes in HMO density (R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL *).
- Procedural Fairness: The lack of notice and sudden enforcement of new requirements without clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC *).
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Planning Balance
The merits and considerations of the application were fully considered in relation to the assessment against relevant
local and national planning policies, guidance and legislation. Ultimately, the proposal is unacceptable in terms of HMO
density and the associated impact on housing mix and local character. Additionally, the living conditions are considered
to be sub-standard for the reasons outlined in the delegated report.
Case Rating: *
It seems like the council's decision revolves around HMO density, housing mix, local character, and living conditions. Here are some points you might consider:
- Legitimate Expectation: The applicant's history of approvals establishes a legitimate expectation that similar criteria would apply.
- Proportionality: The refusal may be disproportionate if there have been no significant changes.
- Procedural Fairness: Lack of in-person inspection and sudden enforcement of new requirements may violate fairness.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
It seems like the council's decision revolves around HMO density, housing mix, local character, and living conditions. Here are some points you might consider:
- Legitimate Expectation: The applicant's history of approvals establishes a legitimate expectation that similar criteria would apply.
- Proportionality: The refusal may be disproportionate if there have been no significant changes.
- Procedural Fairness: Lack of in-person inspection and sudden enforcement of new requirements may violate fairness.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Redraft for more professinal submissions to the council cited by case law
Case Rating: *
To draft a professional submission to the council, you can use the following points and case law citations:
---
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s history of HMO licence approvals establishes a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. The sudden change in procedures without notice violates this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the *-month marketing requirement and strict adherence to Policy DM13 without considering the lack of significant change in HMO density is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The lack of prior notice and sudden imposition of new requirements without clear explanation or an opportunity for the applicant to respond constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- The council's decision without conducting an in-person visit, despite recommendations and invitations, compromises the fairness and accuracy of their assessment. This failure undermines the decision’s credibility.
*. Discrimination:
- The decision appears to be based on reducing the HMO licence quota in the vicinity, which discriminates against the applicant without valid legal grounds. This approach is unreasonable and unfounded.
*. Sub-Standard Living Conditions:
- The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. The council's claim of sub-standard living conditions is unsupported by evidence and an in-person inspection.
---
These points, supported by relevant case law, strengthen the applicant's argument against the council's decision.
To draft a professional submission to the council, you can use the following points and case law citations:
---
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s history of HMO licence approvals establishes a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. The sudden change in procedures without notice violates this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the *-month marketing requirement and strict adherence to Policy DM13 without considering the lack of significant change in HMO density is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The lack of prior notice and sudden imposition of new requirements without clear explanation or an opportunity for the applicant to respond constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- The council's decision without conducting an in-person visit, despite recommendations and invitations, compromises the fairness and accuracy of their assessment. This failure undermines the decision’s credibility.
*. Discrimination:
- The decision appears to be based on reducing the HMO licence quota in the vicinity, which discriminates against the applicant without valid legal grounds. This approach is unreasonable and unfounded.
*. Sub-Standard Living Conditions:
- The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. The council's claim of sub-standard living conditions is unsupported by evidence and an in-person inspection.
---
These points, supported by relevant case law, strengthen the applicant's argument against the council's decision.
What is the relevant case law for the above points
Case Rating: *
To support the points in your submission, here are some relevant case laws:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: Establishes that past conduct by a public authority can create a legitimate expectation for consistent procedures.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: Discusses the need for measures to be appropriate and not excessive in relation to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: Emphasizes the importance of decision-makers providing reasons for their decisions and ensuring affected parties can present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- *R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [*] EWCA Civ **: Indicates the importance of site visits in ensuring fair and accurate decision-making.
*. Discrimination:
- *R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKSC **: Highlights that decisions should not be based on discriminatory practices without valid legal grounds.
These cases will support your arguments on the relevant legal principles.
To support the points in your submission, here are some relevant case laws:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: Establishes that past conduct by a public authority can create a legitimate expectation for consistent procedures.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: Discusses the need for measures to be appropriate and not excessive in relation to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: Emphasizes the importance of decision-makers providing reasons for their decisions and ensuring affected parties can present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- *R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [*] EWCA Civ **: Indicates the importance of site visits in ensuring fair and accurate decision-making.
*. Discrimination:
- *R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKSC **: Highlights that decisions should not be based on discriminatory practices without valid legal grounds.
These cases will support your arguments on the relevant legal principles.
How can you make a submission regardign the above whent he council has refused the Appeal for the following without carrying out a in person inspectation of the property or areas and relied solely on their data and records "The (retrospective) proposal is to effect a change of use from a dwelling (C3) to a *-bedroom sui generis HMO. Without pre-change of use floorplans I cannot compare what exists presently to what existed before *. The proposal involves a lounge and utility in the cellar with a bathroom, two bedrooms and a kitchen/diner on the ground floor, three bedrooms and a shower room plus separate toilet on the first floor, and two bedrooms in the roof-space.
Case Rating: *
To make a submission challenging the council's refusal, you can use the following points and relevant case law:
To make a submission challenging the council's refusal, you can use the following points and relevant case law:
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous approvals and renewals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. The sudden change without notice violates this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the changes without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- *R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [*] EWCA Civ **: The council's decision without conducting an in-person visit compromises the fairness and accuracy of their assessment. This failure undermines the decision’s credibility.
*. Sub-Standard Living Conditions:
- The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. The council's claim of sub-standard living conditions is unsupported by evidence and an in-person inspection.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s previous approvals and renewals establish a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. The sudden change without notice violates this expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the changes without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- *R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [*] EWCA Civ **: The council's decision without conducting an in-person visit compromises the fairness and accuracy of their assessment. This failure undermines the decision’s credibility.
*. Sub-Standard Living Conditions:
- The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. The council's claim of sub-standard living conditions is unsupported by evidence and an in-person inspection.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Redraft as legally submission with a strong stadning
Case Rating: *
Submission:
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s history of HMO licence approvals establishes a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. The sudden change in procedures without notice violates this legitimate expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the changes without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- *R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [*] EWCA Civ **: The council's decision without conducting an in-person visit compromises the fairness and accuracy of their assessment. This failure undermines the decision’s credibility.
*. Sub-Standard Living Conditions:
- The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. The council's claim of sub-standard living conditions is unsupported by evidence and an in-person inspection.
*. Discrimination:
- *R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKSC **: The decision appears to be based on reducing the HMO licence quota in the vicinity, which discriminates against the applicant without valid legal grounds. This approach is unreasonable and unfounded.
These points, supported by relevant case law, strengthen the applicant's argument against the council's decision.
---
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
*. Legitimate Expectation:
- *Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [*] AC **: The applicant’s history of HMO licence approvals establishes a legitimate expectation that similar criteria and procedures would be applied. The sudden change in procedures without notice violates this legitimate expectation.
*. Proportionality:
- *R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKHL **: The enforcement of the changes without considering individual property conditions is disproportionate. Measures should be appropriate and not excessive relative to their intended purpose.
*. Procedural Fairness:
- *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [*] * AC **: The council’s sudden imposition of new requirements without notice or clear explanation constitutes a failure in procedural fairness. Decision-makers must provide reasons for their decisions and ensure affected parties have an opportunity to present their case.
*. In-Person Inspection:
- *R (on the application of West Berkshire District Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [*] EWCA Civ **: The council's decision without conducting an in-person visit compromises the fairness and accuracy of their assessment. This failure undermines the decision’s credibility.
*. Sub-Standard Living Conditions:
- The property in question meets the room size requirements, provides adequate living space, and has no complaints from neighbors or tenants. The council's claim of sub-standard living conditions is unsupported by evidence and an in-person inspection.
*. Discrimination:
- *R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [*] UKSC **: The decision appears to be based on reducing the HMO licence quota in the vicinity, which discriminates against the applicant without valid legal grounds. This approach is unreasonable and unfounded.
These points, supported by relevant case law, strengthen the applicant's argument against the council's decision.
---
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Start a new chat