Updating post from Reddit.
If a landlord cannot renew their HMO license, because the apartment block objects to it, will the landlord have grounds to terminate lease pursuant to the proposed Renters bill?
Yes. Renters rights have grounds that allow that.
Which of the statutory grounds are you thinking?
6B
> where a landlord wishes to demolished or substantial reconstruct or redevelop the building.
That could apply, but doesn't necessarily apply?
Ground 6b is something expected to be effective with RRB, or it is telling the landlord to throw all their hmo tenants onto the street.
It’s a ground for not being able to comply with property licensing such as a HMO.
Perhaps it’s no longer 6B but 6A maybe look at the latest version of the legislation.
No. The landlord has to keep letting to the existing tenants until they leave or are evicted by some other valid route, and will then owe the last 12 months of rent back via a rent repayment order for not having a valid HMO license.
There are still lots of valid eviction routes though, so I suggest using one.
No the landlord must evict using the appropriate eviction route based on the reason why the HMO is no longer licensed. If that due to tenants anti-social behaviour that is backed by neighbours complaint/evidence then it’s quite straight forward.
Landlord will be able to evict because the property is no longer licensable as an HMO the notice period is four months.
The landlord cannot used "expired HMO licence" as grounds for eviction. They must use section 21 notice or another valid existing route under section 8.
It is significant WHY the block is objecting and if they can legally do this.
It is significant if the council ACTUALLY block the renewal because at the end of the day they make the decision, not the block owner.
The proposed renters bill has no impact until it becomes a valid ACT and is law. Currently, it makes no difference.