Leeds Landlord Lobby Group is a grassroots organisation formed by landlords in Leeds who are directly affected by the city’s newly proposed Selective Licensing Scheme.
Our members include small and medium-sized private landlords who care about the quality of housing in Leeds, but who strongly believe that policies affecting the rental sector must be fair, lawful, and evidence-based.
The Selective Licensing Scheme introduced by Leeds City Council will require private landlords in large parts of the city to obtain licences for rented properties and comply with a range of conditions and regulatory requirements. Whilst we support good standards in housing, we have serious concerns about how this new scheme has been developed and implemented — particularly in terms of transparency, proportionality, and fairness.
The Gaskin Case Is Real
For many years, councils across England increasingly treated selective and HMO licensing as an administrative process they could design largely as they wished.
In practice, this often meant:
-
Lengthy and complex application forms
-
Highly technical questions with no guidance
-
No clear distinction between essential and optional information
-
Application systems that forced landlords to provide answers even where they were unsure
-
Up-front fees that included work councils were not legally entitled to charge for
Landlords were placed in an impossible position:
either guess and risk committing an offence, or abandon the application and face enforcement action.
This is the situation that led to the Gaskin case
What Gaskin Changed
In R (Gaskin) v Richmond upon Thames LBC (2017), the High Court drew a clear legal line.
The court confirmed that:
-
Licensing fees must be split into Part A and Part B
-
Part A may only cover the costs of processing an application as permitted by law
-
Councils may ask additional questions, but
-
They must make clear that those questions are optional
-
Landlords cannot be penalised for declining to provide non-mandatory information
-
-
Councils cannot charge for processing information they are not legally entitled to require.
Why this matters
A landlord must be able to complete an application accurately and safely, without being compelled to provide information beyond what the law requires.
If the system does not allow that, the problem lies with the system — not the landlord.
A licensing system must allow a landlord to make a lawful application without being forced to provide unlawful or optional information.
And It Changed Again!
R (Gaskin) v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2018] EWHC 1996 (Admin)
The second decision deals with licensing fees.
What the court decided
The High Court confirmed that:
-
Licensing is a “service” for legal purposes
-
Councils may not charge upfront for enforcement or scheme-wide costs
-
Fees must be split into:
-
Part A — costs of processing the application
-
Part B — costs of enforcement and compliance after a licence is granted
-
Only Part A may be charged at the application stage, and only to the extent that the costs are lawfully recoverable.
Why this matters
A council cannot:
-
Inflate application fees by including enforcement or monitoring costs
-
Require payment for work it is not legally entitled to charge for
-
Justify excessive fees by pointing to administrative convenience
What is the concern ?
Leeds City Council’s current selective licence application process raises concerns that are directly relevant to the Gaskin decision.
Landlords are reporting that the system:
-
Treats optional information as mandatory
-
Forces answers to technical compliance questions without guidance
-
Does not allow “not sure” responses
-
Prevents certain lawful applicants (such as joint owners) from completing applications
-
Creates circumstances where paper applications attract higher fees, even when the online system cannot be lawfully completed
Under Gaskin, a landlord cannot be required to complete an application in a way that exposes them to legal risk or includes information the council is not entitled to demand.
This is not about avoiding licensing.
It is about ensuring that licensing is carried out lawfully, fairly, and in accordance with established case law.
What Council Must Do ?
Following Gaskin, councils are expected to ensure that:
-
Application forms clearly distinguish between mandatory and optional information
-
Landlords are not forced to guess answers to technical questions
-
“Don’t know” or equivalent options are available where appropriate
-
Licensing fees reflect only lawful Part A costs at the application stage
-
Online systems are fit for purpose and do not prevent lawful completion
Where a system fails to meet those standards, the legal risk does not fall on the landlord.
What This Means To You
Where an application system:
-
Cannot be completed lawfully, or
-
Requires information beyond what legislation permits
A landlord is entitled to:
-
Pause or stop the application at that point
-
Record the issue formally (for example, via a corporate complaint)
-
Protect their legal position while the issue is resolved
This approach reflects the principles confirmed in Gaskin and does not place a landlord outside the law.
The Practical Effect
Where an application system:
-
Cannot be completed lawfully, or
-
Requires information beyond what legislation permits
A landlord is entitled to:
-
Pause or stop the application at that point
-
Record the issue formally (for example, via a corporate complaint)
-
Protect their legal position while the issue is resolved
This approach reflects the principles confirmed in Gaskin and does not place a landlord outside the law.
How You Can Help
We are not asking landlords to refuse licensing, avoid compliance, or act unlawfully.
We are asking landlords to engage with the Selective Licensing application process in good faith, and to proceed as far as the system reasonably allows.
In practical terms, this means:
1. Start the online Selective Licence application
Complete the form as you normally would, providing information you are confident is accurate and lawfully required.
2. Continue until you reach a genuine barrier
This may be a point where the system:
-
Requires information you do not know and cannot reasonably be expected to know
-
Treats optional information as mandatory
-
Does not allow the application to be completed lawfully (for example, joint ownership issues)
3. Pause at that point
Where the system prevents lawful completion, it is reasonable to stop rather than risk providing inaccurate or speculative information.
4. Record the issue formally
We recommend submitting a Corporate Complaint so the issue is logged with a reference number and a clear audit trail.
5. Let us know (confidentially)
By telling us you encountered a barrier, you help build evidence showing whether the system works as it should in ordinary circumstances.
What You Can Do Next
We have created the letter templates fo you to use on your “Gaskin Claim”.
If you wish to challenge the Selective Licence Application process, then you need to register yourself at
complaints.leedslandlordlobbygroup.org
and decide which of the template letters are relevant to your circumstances. The excplanation below should help you with your decision.
Once you have registered and verified your user registration details, you will be able to log in and complete the letter template form, download your letter and send it to Leeds Council, it’s that simple.
Selective Licence Complaint Explanation (Single Landlord / Sole Applicant)
Why use this letter
This letter should be used by a landlord who has submitted (or attempted to submit) a Selective Licence application to Leeds City Council as an individual and believes the process or fee is unlawful. It is specifically designed for landlords who are applying in their own name (not jointly with another owner), required to pay the £675 application fee, or forced to complete mandatory fields that are not legally required.
What this letter challenges
- The excessive application fee, which appears to include costs not lawfully chargeable at the application stage
- The council’s practice of making non-statutory information fields mandatory, preventing lawful submission
- The council’s failure to comply with the Housing Act 2004 and associated regulations, as clarified by the Gaskin case law
When to choose this option
- You are a sole owner or sole licence holder
- You have paid (or been required to pay) the £675 fee to proceed
- You want to formally complain and reserve your right to reclaim unlawful fees or escalate the matter
Selective Licence – Joint Application Complaint Explanation (Married Couples / Joint Owners)
Why use this letter
This letter is for landlords who own property jointly, particularly married couples, and are unable to submit a lawful licence application because the Leeds City Council system does not properly support joint applicants. It is designed for situations where two individuals jointly own and manage the property, the online system forces selection of a single licence holder, or joint ownership is not reasonably accommodated without extra cost or dishonesty.
What this letter challenges
- The council’s failure to provide a lawful and practical application route for joint owners
- The unfair pressure placed on couples to pay extra fees, submit inaccurate information, or accept legal and financial risks if one partner is named alone
- The same unlawful fee structure and mandatory fields issues raised in the single-applicant complaint
When to choose this option
- The property is owned by joint landlords
- You are blocked from completing an honest application
- You want to formally assert that you have a lawful excuse for non-submission until the council corrects the process
Selective Licence Representation Explanation (After "Notice of Intent" to Grant a Licence)
Why use this letter
This document is not a complaint about the application process — it is a formal legal response to a “Notice of Intent” issued by Leeds City Council before a licence is granted. It should be used when the council has indicated it intends to grant a licence, additional fees are demanded upfront before grant, or a long list of licence conditions has been imposed.
What this letter challenges
- The requirement to pay additional fees before it is lawful to do so
- The imposition of non-mandatory or blanket licence conditions
- Conditions that duplicate existing legal duties, exceed the council’s statutory powers, or are disproportionate or not property-specific
When to choose this option
- You have received a Notice of Intent
- You want to challenge fees or conditions before the licence is granted
- You want to preserve your right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
This letter is about protecting your position before the licence becomes final.
A Note on Reassurance
The Gaskin decision exists precisely to prevent landlords being forced into an unfair or unsafe position.
It does not remove councils’ licensing powers.
It does not allow landlords to ignore licensing altogether.
What it does do is ensure that:
-
Councils follow the law
-
Fees are properly calculated
-
Application systems work as they should
-
Landlords are treated fairly and consistently
That is the position Leeds landlords are entitled to expect.
Am I breaking the law by stopping an application part way through?
No. Where a system prevents lawful completion or requires information the council is not entitled to demand, pausing the application is reasonable and lawful.
Am I deliberately trying to break the application system?
No. You are engaging with the process in good faith and documenting where the system prevents lawful completion. That distinction matters legally.
Can the council prosecute me while an application or complaint is ongoing?
No. A live application or appeal protects you from prosecution for not holding a licence during that period.
Can the council recover legal costs from me if this goes to tribunal?
No. In the First-tier Tribunal, each party bears its own costs in almost all cases.
What if I lose at tribunal?
If an appeal ultimately fails, you pay the difference and receive a licence for the remaining scheme period. There is no additional penalty.
Why does it matter if more landlords do this?
Because tribunals and courts look at patterns, not anecdotes.
Thirty or forty landlords encountering the same barriers is evidence of a system-wide failure, not individual error.
Final Reassurance
The Gaskin decisions exist to prevent landlords being placed in an unfair or unsafe position.
They do not remove councils’ licensing powers.
They do ensure that those powers are exercised lawfully, proportionately, and fairly.
That is the standard Leeds landlords are entitled to expect.
GO FUND ME PAGE
Support the Campaign
Challenging public policy through proper legal channels is neither simple nor inexpensive. Our pursuit of a judicial review is being undertaken carefully, responsibly, and in the wider public interest — but it can only continue with the support of those who believe in fairness, transparency, and lawful decision-making.
Every contribution helps us meet the costs associated with legal advice, expert input, and the procedural steps required to properly challenge the way the Selective Licensing Scheme has been introduced.
If you believe that housing policy should be evidence-based, proportionate, and subject to proper scrutiny, we invite you to support our campaign by donating via our GoFundMe page.
Together, we can ensure that important decisions affecting landlords and tenants alike are properly examined and held to account.
Have You Heard Of The Gaskin Case? For More Information Click Here
The way Leeds City Council is implementing Selective Licensing may expose landlords to unlawful fees and discriminatory processes.
This has already been challenged successfully elsewhere.
One voice can be ignored. Collective action cannot.
See why your participation matters.
-
Private landlords in Leeds
-
Property owners affected by selective licensing
-
Professionals working within the private rented sector
-
Supporters of fair housing policy
We would really like you to get in touch to join our campaign
Address
PO Box 31, Leeds, LS24 9XZ
Subscribe to our updates