Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Reply to the comment left by "Steve Gracey" at "24/10/2014 - 15:33":

During the 18 years we have dealt with Southwark Council we have at times met some excellent officers who have been a pleasure to deal with and have common sense on issues, but they are often contractors, similar perhaps to John Daley, who are brought in for specific "projects". When they then leave their role is often handed out to the regular staff who do not have the same approach and apply their own twist to the instructions they are following without thinking about why those rules are in place and the logic behind them. These we struggle with, and hence my question to John Daley above on how the scheme will be run once in place and whether the same team who implemented it will remain to administer it.

Steve (with my tongue firmly in my cheek) let me guess that the council perspective is that the rotten apples you've highlighted in Southwark story are rare/it's a one off and they have 99.99% good or better rating with the housing service they provide (see our recent independent survey undertaken by CGA strategy, Savilles, Knight Frank, KMPG, Joseph Rowntree, Shelter et al) and lessons have been learnt, we apologised to the man in question - all key staff involved have been retrained and or moved to new duties - this will never happen again. There is no need give them criminal records or sack them they were simply unable to follow procedures correctly and having now been reprimanded lets not make a meal of it, we have paid money to the victim so please lets move on and look forward on so don't bring up the past again as i wasn't in housing when it happened, i don’t know these people, it was before my time.....etc.....etc.

Yvette - you've expressed more of your genuine concerns highlighting the problems business owner’s face with a moveable feast that is selective licensing, the issues with staff coming and going and the interpretation of woolly worded codes. As you've realised it's crucial you get it down in writing and 100% correct otherwise criminal record and fines beckon or a slow financial death from running unprofitable rental units.
Southwark have clear issues in answering certain questions on here and they are really only on here looking for landlords who are all "hail fellow well met" and happy to doff caps and tug forelocks by engaging with the partial facts on offer and accept their vague but warm verbal assurances that it’ll be alright.
Clearly it’s an issue for Southwark when businessmen and women post questions daring to ask for more facts or increased clarity as that doesn't match the script they had in mind by coming onto 118 to engage with you all, they expect deferential treatment and if they don’t see enough of it they’ll threaten to walk away and never speak to you ever again.

There is no reason to be doffing caps or tugging forelocks to anyone who threatens your entire business, so fight or get walked over.

Reply to the comment left by "Yvette Newbury " at "23/10/2014 - 18:03":

Hi Yvette,

You have asked a difficult question. We have set out our reasons for the proposal and the very broad basis of our scheme. However I can't deny that as there are a fair number of people involved in PRS regulation in Southwark it is inevitable that there will be some variation in approach from officer to officer. I think we would all expect that to be the case, its just a reflection of human nature.

Having said that and worked with the officers for a while I do not detect a hang em high culture or any real desire to be anything other than the agent of change and improvement.

I have to say I don't know who will manage the scheme but the people who are in charge now would far rather landlords were compliant than not.

Reply to the comment left by "Victoria Morris" at "24/10/2014 - 12:11":

Hi Victoria,

Perhaps I have been less than clear myself.

Our consultation papers are now in the public domain and will remain so until the end of the consultation on the 19th December. We can't chamge any of the current papers because that would compromise the process and we could then be challenged.

When consultation closes we collect all the responses and sort this into a format where all the views can be represented clearly and fairly. Then a report will be written analysing the responses and drawing conclusions on what we learned. This will then be circulated and made available to the public.

Meanwhile we will write a paper for the Council to decide if they wish take the proposals forward, or not. There could be a change in the scheme, not an issue if it is minor, but a major change would probaly require a second consultation.

So everone's comments will go into the report and every narrative observation will be read and thought about. The final terms of the proposal ( the scheme terms)are yet to be written and if we get a comment on any part of the proposal we will incorporate it or not depending on the weight it is given.

So if lots of respondents say we don't think Sec XX is well written or obscure we would probably take that into account and revise the proposal, if we one got one comment on Sec XX we might decide that was not sufficient to make a change.

Which is why it's really important that everyone who has a view shares it with us. And if the Eform isn't really useful then send in a letter or email to the address on the consultation to explain your views more clearly in a narrative response.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "24/10/2014 - 12:59":

Hi Monty,

Our proposal is based on being compliant with Hemming V Westminster. So the fee income from licensing can only be used for defined purposes within PRS licensing.

So provided that the fees continue to cover the costs I can't see why we would increase them beyond any amount more than a cost of living increase.

If we markedly increased licensing fees without giving good reason then it would appear that we might be using the money in way that was not compliant with Hemming, a position I think that an LA would be averse to.

From another viewpoint the community does not want licensing to be a burden on the taxpayer.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "28/10/2014 - 16:13":

Hallo John, and thanks for the answer.

I remain confused though on my direct question: MUST the ‘local manager’ be also the licensee, or not.

From your earlier replies I understood that this is NOT a mandatory requirement. Based on my understanding of what you said, I proposed to the Council a CLARIFICATION to be include in the final documents.

" The ‘landlord’ for the purpose of licensing may choose if absent for a long period of time to delegate the practical control of the property, collecting rent and arranging repairs etc, to a ‘local manager’. In this case it will be the ‘landlord’ who will be held responsible for the discharge of all the duties that are imposed by licensing and be responsible for any penalties of failure to comply with the terms of the scheme, and not the ‘local manager’. "

Most recently you commented here that my proposed clarification (above) does not exactly reflect your answer to this issue.

I would very much like to ask again, what in my proposed clarification does not reflect what you said here ? If I misunderstood you, what is then your view to the said question ?

many thanks again

Reply to the comment left by "Victoria Morris" at "28/10/2014 - 21:09":

Hi Victoria,

The licensee should be the person with the most direct control over the property.

It is not for us to direct who should hold the licence. This must be agreed between the parties who control the property. Section 88 & 89 of the HA2005 refer. So we might refer an application where the proposed landlord was not fit and proper or where it became clear that a licensee was not actually in control of the property.

But if the holder of the the licence has little practical control of the management of the property then they are putting themselves at risk if the actual managers operate in way that is not compliant with the licensing conditions.

Does that clarify the question ?

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "29/10/2014 - 12:40":

Hallo John

According to the extract below from HA2004, Section 88 (3)(b):
......... the proposed manager of the house is either—
(i)the person having control of the house, or
(ii)a person who is an agent or employee of the person having control of the house;

It is clear from the above that the licensee MAY choose to exercise control over the house via an agent (subject to certain conditions of course). This is the point I have suggested to be made clear in the final licensing conditions when adopted.

However, you are saying: "The licensee should be the person with the most direct control over the property."

I suggest your formulation should be supplemented by adding 'control over the property may be exercised via an agent' ?

many thanks

There is no statistically significant correlation establish in the consultation document between private sector lettings and anti-social behaviour incidence. The only "link" Southwark have data mined is between housing density and ASB incidence I.e. more people (some of whom receive housing benefit) in an area then more ASB incidence.

The idea that this data shows statistical causality between the PRS and ASB incidence is totally bogus. The proposed selective licensing is arbitrary. Your street may get stigmatised. The street next to your might escape.

As for additional licensing has anyone seen the data? Total notices served on the PRS in 2013/14 amount to less than 1% of privately rented homes. Furthermore the data shows that regulatory notices issued on the Borough's PRS and on Southwark's HMOs have been declining steadily over the last 3 years, whilst compliance with these notices has been significantly increasing. So Southwark has overwhelming decent HMOs that are getting better. So why does he entire Borough need additional licensing?

The consultation document blatantly tries to rig this same regulatory activity data by creating statistically meaningless big percentage increases generated by exploiting the affect of an extremely low base year of regulatory activity in 2010/11.

There is simply no valid statistical case in the consultation for selective or additional licensing.

The Scheme is unnecessary, disproportionate and probably illegal. The cost of it (fees and admin burden) will push up rents and reduce housing options for Southwark's poorer residents. Some single people will be pushed into homelessness.

The Council already has tremendous powers to tackle substandard homes and "rogue" landlords. The Housing Act 2004 gives them extra powers to tackle ASB in the PRS (interim management control orders).

The truth is Southwark does not want to focus on using their existing powers effectively and do the real work of identifying and dealing with illegal and dangerous dwelling. Instead they want to collect fat annual fees from lawful landlords and intrude and inspect thousands of decent homes lived in by decent people.

The sickening thing is that they pretend this is being down to help the "vulnerable". The only people this Scheme will help is Council Officers who are secured more jobs, bigger departments, new powers, tighter control, enhanced status. Some Councillors will no doubt be delighted to back a big scheme just so that they can declare that they "done" something about the housing crisis. And with all respect to John, who has been engaging on this forum, clearly he has benefitted from a decent consultancy fee in return for helping to write up this sham of a consultancy.

This Scheme has been cooked up and promoted by those who are invested in the process and who care little about the outcome. None of them will face higher rent, less housing choice and a loss of personal privacy.

A heinous example of bureaucratic, authoritarian overreach.

Reply to the comment left by "Victoria Morris" at "29/10/2014 - 21:07":

Hi Victoria,

There is no objection at all for the management and duty to license to be delegated to an agent. I will ensure that this is clarified in the final papers.