In connection witgh the first floor bathroom of 63 canwick road.
This statement is made in connection with your recent request to alter the configuration of the first-floor bathroom at 63 Canwick Road. The following sets out our formal position regarding this request and provides the factual, legal, and historical context demonstrating why such a requirement is both unreasonable and unsupported.
No national legislation or statutory regulations governing HMO bathroom layout changed between 2019 and 2025, especially in Lincoln. The Housing Act 2004, the 2018 Prescribed Description Order, and Lincoln City Council’s amenity standards (adopted August 2018) have remained the applicable framework.
No explicit council-wide policy updates on bathroom configuration or layout requirements for licensed HMOs in Lincoln have been published since the 2020 licence for 63 canwick road.
Therefore, a new requirement to reconfigure the bathroom sounds unjustified by changed legislation or policy.
NO Requirement Changes
- Lincoln Council’s HMO amenity standards (August 2018 version) remain in force, with no change since the licence issue in 2020
- National HMO licensing regime, including the removal of the three‑storey requirement (October 2018) and the existing minimum room size rules, remain exactly as before
It is important to stress that the first-floor bathroom, in its present configuration, has been in continuous use for several decades—estimated at over 40 years—without raising any concern from either the occupants or the local authority. The City of Lincoln Council inspected the property multiple times between 2018 and 2020, and at no point was the configuration of this bathroom questioned or raised any concerns. Indeed, the Council subsequently issued a valid HMO licence for the property while it retained this exact bathroom layout.
It is therefore very clear—and must be recognised—that the bathroom in its current configuration has never, at any point in time, been the subject of enforcement concern, nor has it ever been deemed non-compliant. It has passed historical inspections without objection, and no material alteration has been made since those inspections.
Given this history, and in the absence of any legislative changes—either nationally or locally—it is evident that the new request by the Council to reconfigure the bathroom is entirely subjective. It is not based on any objective standard, statutory amendment, or health and safety directive. Instead, it appears to be the result of a change in internal opinion—an approach that is fundamentally problematic.
Subjective enforcement that varies depending on which officer (management) is currently employed, and what their personal interpretation or preference may be, is not only unlawful in principle, but also unsustainable in practice. It erodes confidence in the licensing and regulatory system and discourages long-term property investment. Landlords and responsible licence holders must be able to rely on the consistency and continuity of determinations made by the Council, especially where no legal framework has changed.
For regulation to be fair and lawful, Council officers must be bound by two principles:
- Respect for previous determinations, especially where no material facts or laws have changed.
- Adherence strictly to hard legislation and enforceable standards—not subjective opinion, personal preference, or internal policy drift.
Investment into licensed HMOs involves substantial financial risk, planning, and long-term maintenance. It cannot be governed by the whims of individual officers, nor by non-binding internal preferences that shift without legislative backing.
In addition to all of the above, it is important to note that we can produce multiple witness statements confirming that the current configuration of the first-floor bathroom has been in continuous use over several years without any issues being raised by occupants, contractors, or previous inspections. These statements reflect consistent real-world use of the bathroom in its present form, without hazard or complaint.
Furthermore, we are also in possession of a professional report issued by chartered engineers, affirming that there are no safety, usability, or structural concerns whatsoever with the current configuration. This expert assessment provides independent, technical confirmation that the bathroom remains compliant with all relevant safety and functionality standards.
Therefore, the position is reinforced by:
- The Council’s own prior approval via the 2020 HMO licence,
- Multiple consistent witness accounts spanning several years, and
- A formal evaluation by qualified engineering professionals.
Should the Council impose, as a condition of the new HMO licence, a requirement to reconfigure or alter the layout of the first-floor bathroom, we wish to make it explicitly clear that such a condition will be formally challenged. It is highly likely that such a requirement would be successfully overturned if brought before the courts, as it is plainly irrational, inconsistent with prior determinations, and unsupported by any change in legislation.
This condition would stand in direct contradiction to the Council’s own historical approvals, and to basic principles of natural justice, reasonableness, and legitimate expectation. It is further undermined by the subjective nature of the opinions now being expressed, which depart from previous assessments without cause or explanation.
Moreover, we are aware—and are in the process of gathering formal documentation—that under the current management, there has been a concerning pattern of improperly applied licensing decisions, several of which have already been successfully appealed by licence holders. There appears to be an increasing number of instances in which the Council has overreached its remit, imposed arbitrary conditions, or otherwise failed to apply the law consistently. These issues are not isolated, and we are aware of other landlords who have raised formal concerns over the conduct and procedural irregularities arising from the present licensing administration.
The case at 63 Canwick Road will, if necessary, be added to this growing body of evidence. We are now in the process of compiling supporting documentation related to these prior enforcement missteps, which will form part of any formal complaint or legal response, should the Council proceed with this unwarranted demand. This ongoing scrutiny and investigation into a historically compliant HMO is not only disproportionate but may also reflect institutional inconsistency in enforcement under the current leadership.
If the Council insists on imposing this requirement, we will not only present the formal reports from chartered engineers attesting to the safety, usability, and compliance of the existing bathroom layout, but we will also submit multiple witness statements from individuals who have used the bathroom over many years without encountering a single issue.
These witness statements will confirm that the bathroom, in its current configuration, has been:
- Consistently safe to use,
- Fully functional for its intended purpose, and
- Has not presented any hazards or accessibility concerns whatsoever to the many occupants who have used it over time.
This body of evidence alone—expert opinion combined with lived experience—would, in all likelihood, be sufficient to overturn any unreasonable or unsupported licensing condition relating to this bathroom. In addition, the Council’s own past decisions, including the explicit approval of this layout under the 2020 licence, provide further compelling evidence that the current enforcement stance is not only disproportionate, but procedurally indefensible.
Finally, we remind the Council that the bathroom has existed in this configuration for far too many years—spanning multiple decades—for any sudden objection to be reasonably sustained without a clear and objective basis. The longevity of this configuration, combined with professional validation and lived evidence, will form a robust defence in any challenge brought forward.
Together, these elements provide overwhelming and objective evidence that the configuration is not only lawful, but also safe and effective. The current request to alter it, lacking any change in law or hazard identification, cannot be justified on any legal, factual, or rational basis.
If these unreasonable requests continue, they risk undermining the Council’s own established judgments and decisions. Not only do they place unnecessary financial burdens on landlords, but they also force the Council to expend additional resources responding to subjective and inconsistent demands from individual officers. We respectfully ask that this practice be brought to an end.
To illustrate the point, our position regarding the first-floor bathroom was made clear in 2024, supported by a formal document submitted to the Council. No response or rebuttal was ever issued to that document, further highlighting the subjective nature of the current request.
Furthermore, during the warrant-based inspection in February 2025, the bathroom’s configuration was not raised — again showing inconsistency in how this issue is treated. Sometimes it’s raised, sometimes ignored, and when challenged, no response is given. This approach is neither logical nor defensible.
The requirement should be withdrawn, and the property licensed on the basis of its long-standing, previously approved configuration.