Landlords threaten borough council with legal action over selective licensing scheme

Great Yarmouth’s Cabinet approved the designation of the scheme on 2 December 2025. It covers Nelson Ward, Central and Northgate Ward, Southdown and Cobholm Ward and eight streets in Yarmouth North Ward (“the Wards”).

According to the pre-action protocol letter, members of Eastern Landlords Association own and let out more than 200 properties and up to 1,000 properties in the affected areas.

The letter raises eight grounds of challenge:

1. In relation to subsection 81(4)(a) of the Housing Act 2004, the council has not considered properly whether there are any other courses of action available to it (of whatever nature) that might provide an effective method of achieving the objective or objectives that selective licensing in the Wards would be intended to achieve.
2. It was a clear error of law for the council to list the objectives in paragraph 5.1 and list the activities in paragraph 5.2 of the report to Cabinet without analysing how the activities significantly assisted the council in achieving its objectives in the light of its previous experience in Nelson Ward of the objectives not being achieved. Nelson Ward had completed a five-year selective licensing scheme for poor housing conditions, “which had  not, in the Council’s own view, improved housing conditions”.
3. The decision to make the designation was irrational and/or perverse and/or it was Wednesbury unreasonable of the council to proceed with the scheme in the face of such high levels of opposition in the consultation from all consultees. “It appears to be the case that the Council has simply ignored the results of the consultation.”
4. Information contained in the report to Cabinet was based on data in a BRE report that was “out of date and unreliable and cannot support the conclusion of ‘poor conditions’ in paragraph 3.6”.
5. The council has “unlawfully elided alleged poor housing conditions in the Wards with deprivation in the Wards and not assessed whether there is a high level of deprivation in the Wards affecting a significant number of properties in the private rented sector, which is the statutory test under Article 6(1)(a)”.
6. The council has failed to explain how the designation will, when combined with other measures taken by the council in the Wards, contribute to a reduction in the level of deprivation in the Wards. The council had failed to understand the statutory test in Article 6(1)(b).
7. “Likewise with the statutory test in Article 4(c). There is no analysis or explanation as to how selective licensing, when combined with other measures taken in the Wards by the Council and other persons together with the Council, will contribute to an improvement in general housing conditions in the Wards.”
8. In relation to the report to Cabinet’s statements on the imposition of fees to ensure that the costs of regulation are borne by the sector rather than the general council taxpayer, it appeared to be the council’s wish to impose selective licensing on the Wards “so as to shift the ‘costs of regulation’ into a scheme that is funded by landlords (and potentially their tenants because of consequential increases in rent) and away from the Council’s general funds. This is an impermissible and unlawful purpose for a selective licensing scheme.”

The pre-action letter calls on Great Yarmouth to withdraw the designation and confirm that it will not come into force on 1 April 2026, or at all.

The letter adds: “If the Council is not prepared to do that, at this stage, ELA requests that the Council delay the coming into force of the Designation for a further minimum period of 6 months, whilst this claim is resolved including (if necessary) through litigation.”

A Great Yarmouth Borough Council spokesperson said: ‘’The council has received a letter before claim from the Eastern landlords Association as part of the pre-action protocol for a judicial review. We are currently reviewing the content of the letter and will be replying accordingly.’’