Judge refuses permission on papers for judicial review of selective licensing policy in Thurrock
- Details
A High Court judge has refused on the papers permission for a judicial review challenge over Thurrock Council’s selective licensing policy.
Speaking at a Cabinet meeting last week (18 February), Thurrock’s Leader, Cllr Lynn Worrall, said the judge had also decided that the local authority could also recommence its implementation of the scheme.
Saying that the council will be in contact with landlords soon about when this would take place and any new deadlines, Cllr Worrall added: “We were confident that the High Court would agree with the council’s legal position and we are just sorry that the claim has led unnecessarily to a lengthy period of uncertainty for landlords and tenants.
“We are pleased to be able to move forward with this important scheme that will make a real difference to tenants, encourage good landlords, and improve the lives of people living close to private rented properties.”
In a further statement, Thurrock Council acknowledged the claimant has a right to apply for reconsideration of the judge’s decision, but added that this request does not affect the court’s decision to refuse permission. “As a result, any restriction on the council’s ability to implement the scheme is lifted.”
It said the claimant’s application that the council was in contempt of a previous injunction was also dismissed.
Thurrock added: “We understand the disruption this claim has brought to landlords and we will bear this in mind when implementation is restarted.”
Junaid Ishfaq, partner at letting agent Rentigo who helped co-ordinate the legal claim with other landlords, told Local Government Lawyer that he has taken the formal procedural step of requesting an oral renewal of permission. A hearing date is awaited.
He added: "The group’s position is straightforward: the legality of the scheme remains contested, the court process is ongoing, and the next step is an oral hearing before a judge. Until that takes place, it would be incorrect to characterise the case as concluded."






