A SHOWCASE piece of legislation from Thurrock Council has been put on hold as the authority has received a High Court injunction notice in the wake of sustained criticism of its new selective licensing scheme which came into force this week.

The Honourable Ms Justice Heather Norton approved an injunction submitted to the High Court of Justice King's Bench Division - and, with immediate effect, the council has been ordered not to implement or enforce the Selective Licensing scheme.

An injunction against Thurrock Council was laid down in The High Court of Justice by Her Honour Ms Justice Norton

The injunction can be read here.

The scheme, agreed by the council's cabinet last year and due to come into force last Monday (5 January), requires landlords of private rented properties in designated areas to obtain a licence to let homes. It operates in 16 wards - with Orsett, Stifford Clays, Little Thurrock Blackshots and The Homesteads omitted.

Supporters of the scheme within the council say it is designed to improve housing conditions, reduce antisocial behaviour, and ensure landlords are held accountable for the management of their properties. The standard fee for landlords is £1,034 for the five-year scheme.

However, the veracity of the process in putting the scheme together has been widely criticised by landlords, particularly those who operate and manage multiple properties.

Among the critics is Stephen Boyling, a director of Tilbury-based Montana Property Development Co. Ltd, one of the borough's biggest landlord companies.

Mr Boyling made a formal complaint against the council's implementation of the scheme last year, and he was particularly critical of the consultation process, saying it was flawed and had not reached enough people to give it any veracity.

In October, he wrote to council CEO Dr Dave Smith, saying: "Despite being one of the largest private landlords in the borough, I was totally unaware of the proposal until very recently.

"I now discover that a number of other major private landlords and letting agents, collectively representing over 3,000 tenants, were equally unaware.

"Included in their number is the largest letting agent in the area, Griffin, with over 2,000 rental properties. This raises serious concerns about the adequacy and transparency of the Council's consultation and communication processes.

16 wards were selected to have selective licencing - Orsett, Stifford Clays, Little Thurrock Blackshots and The Homesteads were omitted from the scheme.

"It is my understanding that local housing authorities are required to ensure wide and effective publicity when consulting on such schemes. Yet, of the 140,000 adult residents in Thurrock, only 207 individuals responded - just 0.15% of the population.

"Independent research confirms that consultations with less than a 5% response rate are statistically unreliable due to non-response bias. Furthermore, there appear to be inconsistencies in the survey data.

Some questions were duplicated but yielded contradictory responses, suggesting confusion among participants and further seriously undermining the consultation's credibility,"

Mr Boyling's full letter to Dr Smith can be read here.

In it, he further asserted that the scheme was an unnecessary burden on landlords who carried out their management of properties dutifully – and that the council scheme was punitive to them and would only drive up the cost of local private rent.

He damned the council for publicity that said that could not happen, describing it as a complete lie to the public.

He says: "My own properties are inspected every six months, maintained daily, and managed by a nationally accredited agent. It is unclear how the Council's licensing process would improve upon such existing high standards.

Implementation and consultation on selective licensing in Thurrock was something of a game of chance say critics.

"The Government guidance further stipulates that a designation should only proceed where it will significantly assist in achieving its stated objectives. Based on the available evidence, I strongly question whether this scheme will provide a better living environment for my tenants than that which already exists.

"The scheme will not, therefore, significantly assist in achieving the objectives and should be rejected."

He also says the council has failed in its statutory duties to push the legislation through, adding: "I can find no evidence that the required public notices have been published or that all consultees have been notified within the statutory timeframe."

Mr Boyling said he fully understand that the council implemented the scheme with the best intentions and he said he supported anything that would effectively and legitimately raise housing standards, but added: "This scheme will not do that, it is deeply flawed and it is important, therefore, that Thurrock council defers or reconsiders implementation of this scheme until:

· The consultation process has been reviewed for accuracy, fairness, and credibility.

· Appropriate concessions are introduced for compliant landlords, including multiproperty discounts. · All private landlords and tenants are formally and directly notified.

· Adequate notice is provided for landlords to prepare or adjust their portfolios.

However, his complaint to the council was not upheld and his advisory comments were ignored, he says.

In a further letter to Mr Dulal Ahmed,  the council's private sector housing regulation manager. Mr Boyling further highlighted a large number of concerns about failures within the council process and contrasted its scheme very unfavourably with similar ones introduced elsewhere.

Mr Boyling's letter can be read in full here.

Rejecting Mr Boyling's formal complaint in November, the council said it did not recognise the validity of the points he raised.

The full letter refuting his assertions can be read here.

In the weeks leading up to Christmas other landlords began to group together to complain about the introduction of the scheme and plan opposition, including an application for a judicial review.

Rentigo is a collective of more than 90 landlords in Thurrock taking coordinated legal action, specifically a potential judicial review. An initial action was the application for an injunction, which has now been granted.

Thurrock Nub News contacted the council on Tuesday (6 January), after learning of the injunction, which we believe reflects a critical consideration of Thurrock Council's actions.

We specifically asked for a response from the council's legal and monitoring officer, Dan Fenwick – whose directorate was responsible for the selective licencing scheme – or Cllr Lynda Heath, cabinet member for public protection, constitutional and civic affairs.

When a report proposing the scheme was agreed at cabinet on 17 September last year, it was presented by then social housing cabinet member Cllr Mark Hurrell. Last year, he quit his post on the cabinet, citing personal reasons. The report itself was drafted by Michael Dineen – assistant director for community protection & enforcement services. Mr Dineen's time at Thurrock has not been without controversy. Before taking up his current role, he was deputy director and head of crime operations at the the council-run NATIS service - which was scrapped, discredited and heavily criticised by the government after failing targets and costing millions of pounds.

Social housing was then redrafted into the portfolio of adult social care cabinet member Mark Hooper - but it appears the directorate responsibility moved to Cllr Heath.

On Tuesday Mr Fenwick said: "Any response will come from the Corporate Comms team and we are liaising with them."

Today (Thursday, 8 January) the council issued the following statement:

"No ruling or determination of any kind has been made on either the issue of permission or the proposed claim. Judicial Reviews are a two-stage process: claimants must first get permission to pursue the claim before any argument is made about whether or not a decision is lawful.

"The order related to an application for interim relief to pause implementation of the Selective Licensing Scheme pending the outcome of the claim. The council has 21 days to respond to this claim, after which the courts will decide if permission to pursue a Judicial Review should be granted.

The council added:

• The two letters of complaint and the council's response are in no way linked to the judicial review process, these two entirely separate processes should not be conflated.
• The effect of the injunction is to delay the implementation of the scheme pending the outcome of the case. It makes no determination on the merits of the claim, nor does it give any indication as to whether a Judicial Review will go ahead. As such it is not critical in any way of the council, or communication, around the implementation of Selective Licensing in Thurrock, as you suggest.