Licensing Consultation in Southwark

In terms of my suggestions of landlords holding Southwark Council in contempt ... I rest my case!
.

I've had an email from Croydon's research partners about a consultation on some alternatives to borough wide licensing - please see the thread on Croydon landlord licensing: http://www.property118.com/croydon-yet-another-area-introduce-selective-licensing/66774/comment-page-15/#comment-48733

Here is more "hearsay" about landlord licensing, AKA #TenantTax - this demonstrates what Chris Wright has been saying all along - this isn't purely about cost, onerous though it is: http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/landlord-licensing/#comment-385332

No more houseguests if you're a tenant, unless you want your landlord to register the premises as an HMO...

There is an area in which I have some sympathy for Southwark and indeed all councils set on this licensing path.

And that is the facts are that whilst the councils can know where a problem property is, they have a heck of a time tracking down the owner, who being criminals full time, will apparently be listed under aliases. Or the owner at the land registry is a long since dissolved company. So tracking the owner down is very expensive and time consuming.

Then the preparation work for a court case against a rogue operator is monstrously complex affair.

Finally, when all that is done, the criminal walks away with a ludicrously light fine.

So, in some desperation instead the south and east London councils have come up with this licensing system because it sort of countermands the other failures in the system - and in particular the ludicrously light sentences being dribbled out by the courts.

As we know it does this by imposing a new regime in which if you don't have a license the fine is £20,000.

It is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the nut of the failures of the existing system. "The existing system does not work, long live the new system"

Of course, the sensible solution would be to make the sentences and fines for offences under the existing system far heavier. We suggest min £20K, (the same as proposed for not having a license) and let the councils keep all the cash raised to pay fort their research on offenders, the cost of bringing them to book and working with the police/immigration dept/ utility companies etc.

If that were in place there would be no need for these cumbersome resource-heavy sledgehammer licensing approaches.

But that would need central government to change the law and to alter sentencing guidelines. That would need some common sense and we don't see that from leading politicians at present.

And so the likes of Southwark, to some extent understandably frustrated, bring in the hated licensing schemes in which we all suffer.

David Lawrenson
LettingFocus Private Rent Consultancy

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "22/11/2014 - 10:02":

Hi David

If that's the real motivation, why not make the licences free?

By the way, there are several no trace no fee companies out there.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "22/11/2014 - 10:22":

Hi Mark,

An officer we know at Lewisham (Ben Reeve Lewis who you may know) in a conversation yesterday, gave me the impression that tracking these guys down (who are always hardened criminals and make themselves hard to find on purpose) is far harder than the usual tracing agent cases.

So what the councils seem to be saying is that they need the licensing cash from everyone else to pay for the cost of going after the few rogues.

What I am saying here is make the fines dished out to the rogues that much harsher than it is currently. And let the councils keep all the cash from the fines raised.
Do that and then you won't need licensing of all landlords.

Of course, licensing is supposed to be a tool to deal with areas of low housing demand / antisocial behaviour, and NOT to be used as a tool to bring criminals to book for a variety of offences, only one of which may be housing offences.

In that much, licensing as a tool, seems to us to be being wholly misused by some councils and we would like to see a legal challenge bought under that basis.

David Lawrenson
LettingFocus
Private Rent Consultancy

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "22/11/2014 - 10:37":

Hi David

I do indeed know Ben, very well.

Here's a great pic we got of him from about three years ago when he kindly accepted our invitation to join us for a day in Norwich.

Don't mess with Ben!

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "22/11/2014 - 10:42":

He's a loveable guy, as we all know, but if I saw this and I was a rogue criminal masquerading as a landlord, I'd run a mile!

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "20/11/2014 - 17:19":

Hi Mandy,

I can't comment on other LA's proposals but we have tried to make our charges reasonable, fair and easy to pay.

We are collecting what we think we will need to run the scheme, based on a per bed rate, payable yearly.

I agree that there will always LL who move but I don't think licensing will be a prime motivational factor.

I also think licensing will be adopted by more London Boroughs, and not just Labour administrations. At present 22 out of 32 boroughs have or are introducing licensing and most of the rest are thinking about how to regulate better.

I don't know if that is reasonable or not because I don't know much about most of the rest of the boroughs but I assume the problems are the same therefore the thinking is that licensing is one of the solutions.

Reply to the comment left by "Philipp Brunstrop" at "20/11/2014 - 18:56":

Hi Phillip,

The EHCS data shows that 43% of tenants are very satisfied and 41% are fairly satisfied. The sample is under 3900 tenancies and is not regionalised.

I said that I think the level of dissatisfaction is much higher in London. It's my opinion, challenge it if you like, but it being my opinion is just what it is and nothing more.

Please expain how you think anyone can measure the effects of licensing on the PRS market. Particularly when far larger econonomic factors are in play. Is anyone making the measurements you mention ?

In terms of selective licensing, what I have said several times is that, where property related ASB, noise, fly tipping of domestic rubbish and rowdy behaviour is at it's highest incidence in Southwark, in a number of locations there is a correlation with the highest density of lower rent PRS property. It is therefore reasonable to make a link between these.

I have quite clearly stated that we have looked at the other options for regulation and improvement and they are not effective because they are voluntary, not withinn the current laws or powers available to an LA or in the case of issuing notices and prosecution not providing any real deterrent effect.

Personally I would like all views to be recorded on our eform or by letter to the consultation email. I undertook this to try and explain why we were proposing to extend licensing and explain the various terms of the proposal.

In terms of balance, I think the proposal is balanced from the point of view of all the stakeholders. I accept that landlords will not occupy the center ground and I have seen comments in the consultation that accuse us of not going nearly far enough.

Next time you see a licensing consultation that is for LA wide selective and additional at a substantially greater fee rate then will we be more reasonable then or is any scheme unacceptable.