Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Reply to the comment left by “David Lawrenson” at “22/11/2014 – 10:02“:

Hi Mark,

All your points are sensible but we are left with the law as it stands. We could all sit down and make a sensible series of proposals to improve regulation but this all depends on collecting the political will to push legislation through and this will be weakened or over powered by political viewpoints.

How about licensing fees are free (Marks suggestion) and councils finance it by fining the criminal rogue landlords. Apparently there are shed loads of these criminal rogue landlords so this will earn you a mint..

If they are really that hard to find then do what everyone else does in civil actions and get the court to put a charge on the property or ultimately seize the property and sell it.

OR do it up and run it yourselves as housing because you sound confident you can do a much better safer job.

Doh! Scrap that last idea – Southwark council can’t get a licence because of their criminal convictions. And they’d just end up suing themselves anyway which can’t really be called self financing.

Reply to the comment left by “Steve Gracey” at “26/11/2014 – 12:55“:

Please see my comment under Selective Licensing Consultations: https://www.property118.com/selective-licensing-consultations/70528/comment-page-2/#comment-49014

Reply to the comment left by “Jim Parsler” at “02/10/2014 – 13:27“:

We have four flats in Cliftonville. Selective Licencing has not made a single improvement to the area or the quality of tenants.It is almost impossible to get tenants who are employed, and the value of the properties, which fell by about 50% in 2008 have not recovered to any great extent.
The licence fee has simply been a tax on private landlords, benefitted no-one and made it ever harder to provide the good quality housing that we set out to do.

Reply to the comment left by “Frances Watts” at “26/11/2014 – 19:59“:

Hi Frances,

Matters also not helped on the Isle of Thanet by closure of Pfizer and that monstrous shopping centre they built outside, which has to go down as one of the dumbest mass shopping parks ever built. It has utterly sucked the life out of Ramsgate and Margate and significantly reduced the chances of the local high streets developing or thriving.

I have properties in Deal and we feel the impact even there.

David Lawrenson
LettingFocus.com

councils like Southwark are all on hold pending the outcome of Regas v Enfield

Still its true to say (given the lack of written undertaking from southwark) that their 3 rogue council officers are at full liberty to apply for PRS licenses, should the scheme ever come into being, such wonderful standards they set. Still at least we all now know the current southwark benchmark for being a rogue landlord and being classed as unfit, those applying have to be worse LL’s than those who carry out illegal evictions & destroy tenants property.

Enfield landlord licensing scheme QUASHED today, Mr Constantinos Regas in total victory at the high court.

well this is a bit of a bind for you in Southwark John, still you’re the experts so no doubt the legal team have been planning for this outcome, i look forward to seeing what changes Southwark make to their consultation – thats if you don’t scrap it altogether.

The judgement following on from the consultation process carried out by the council goes to show that the council didn’t follow the law and from what we understand it would seem quite likely that (at least) Newham Council who ran the same consultation process will face having to scrap their scheme and repay their license fees as a direct result of this case.

Happy Xmas LL’s, justice prevails thanks to Mr Regas.

Thank God this Country still has Judges with intelligence and integrity.

John Daley’s / Southwark’s scheme is a similar disgrace and I pray that it too is struck down and exposed for the self serving, money raising, shafting of landlords that it truly is. To impose unwarranted costs on landlords in full knowledge that this will be passed on to the Borough’s poorest tenants is truly sick and demonstrates the utter contempt and disregard that people like John Daley and Richard Livingstone hold for the poorest in our community.

I am sure no Southwark Councillor will have to suffer paying higher rents for the privilege of having a council worker poke their uninvited beak into their private homes. All persons involved in promoting this twisted scheme should be utterly ashamed of their disrespect for other people’s lives and property.

From Enfield Independent newspaper report of today:

Issuing judgement today, Judge McKenna found that Enfield Council had failed to consult the people who should have been consulted and did not consult for the required time.

At the end of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, he refused permission for Enfield Council to appeal against the decision.

Mr Regas said: “I have always maintained my view that good housing standards are a human right. But Enfield Council have not gone about this the right way. They have accused tenants of being anti-social and have sought to criminalise landlords for tenants’ behaviour. The council have now been found to have been acting unlawfully.

“The council’s cabinet and senior officers have demonised tenants, defiled democracy and disgraced themselves. They threw good money after bad in defending this case, despite me putting them on notice in June that they were not acting properly. The citizens of Enfield should welcome the resignations of the entire cabinet and senior officers.”

Reply to the comment left by “Philipp Brunstrop” at “11/12/2014 – 16:32“:

I may have missed something. If not can anyone summarise the case in Enfield? Did they want to licence all types of let property? Thank you

Reply to the comment left by “Philipp Brunstrop” at “11/12/2014 – 16:32“:

The initial reports on the judgement against Enfield seems to have two elements.

It was found that their consultation did not last for the time suggested in the guidance,

And that they did not consult in neighbouring boroughs. That is important because their proposal specifically identified the possibility that licensing would cause the problem landlords to move away from the scheme are.

The judgement did not challenge licensing or the terms of the Housing Act but found that Enfield were not following the correct procedure.

So perhaps the conclusions being drawn here are not really accurate. When we all see the judgement in full then we’ll be able to see what it means in it’s entirety.