Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "11/12/2014 - 16:50":

Dear John

No judgement was every going to challenge the "terms of the Act". The Courts cannot change Acts of Parliament.

The Judge could see that the blatantly contrived link between private tenants and ASB is false and unfairly "demonised tenants" and attempted to criminalise landlords.

I am sure that like you, the Cabinet and senior officers of Enfield proclaimed that their self serving scheme was necessary and would "help" tenants. The Judge clearly was less that convinced and now calls for their resignation.

Your consultation propaganda with its data mining and unsubstantiated assertions is unfair and probably illegal. Just check out your online consultation form with no option to state that "most private tenants behave well" and "most landlords look after their rental properties".

By trying to look at the minutiae of this ruling and ignoring the clear and loud message, you again reveal yourself to be as delusion and extreme as Enver Hoxha.

Reply to the comment left by "Roanch 21" at "11/12/2014 - 16:42":

Enfield same as Southwark. They wanted both additional licensing and selective licensing.

In the "copy my neighbouring labour council's policies" game that Southwark and the East London councils have been playing they want all the licensing schemes they can lay their greedy hands onto.

More Schemes = more money = more lucrative consultancy work = more power and job security

All paid for by private landlords (whom they hate anyway) and poorer tenants who they believe should be grateful for the council's intrusion into their lives and homes.

It is truly sickening.

Reply to the comment left by "Philipp Brunstrop" at "11/12/2014 - 16:32":

I particularly enjoyed reading these words from Mr Regas ....

"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.”
.

To give Mr. Daley a little break here, the council employees have to carry out the directions of the elected officials.

It is the councillors who are really the ones driving this licensing thing, often against the wishes of many of the council employees engaged in housing, especially those who have to try to work with landlords say to try to get them on board to, for example, let to people with few housing options.

I spoke at a meeting of (mostly London and SE England) councils housing staff two years ago (AHAS -the association of housing advisory services) and at a vote on how to regulate the private rented sector, there was only 5% who supported the Newham approach of all borough licensing.

Central government has to bear some responsibility though for the rather pathetic maximum penalties that courts can impose on criminals masquerading as landlords - and the fact that council cannot keep 100% of the fines imposed. This needs fixing too. If it were, it would help defeat a key argument for licensing.

David Lawrenson
LettingFocus.com Consultancy

from Con's blog just now,

The High Court has today quashed (cancelled) Enfield Council's additional and selective licensing schemes, which would have required all private rented property in the borough to be licensed from 1 April 2015.

In his handed down judgment, His Honour Judge McKenna said that "the implementation and operation of an unlawful designation is a continuing unlawful act". He found that Enfield Council had failed to consult the persons who should have been consulted (including in the 6 surrounding boroughs) and did not consult for the required time. At the end of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, HHJ McKenna refused permission for Enfield to appeal against the decision.

Constantinos Regas is the landlord of just one property, which is in the borough. He brought the case against the council after repeatedly speaking against the proposals at council meetings. Most recently he spoke at the Council's cabinet meeting of 12 November, where he warned the council's cabinet that a judge had already found that part of the scheme was "arguably unlawful" and that they should not go ahead with it.

Speaking after the judgment was handed down, Constantinos 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 antisocial and have sought to criminalise landlords for tenants' behaviour. The Council have now been found 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."

Constantinos initially represented himself. At the final trial he was represented by Jonathan Manning and Justin Bates, both of Arden Chambers.

Constantinos also said: "I want to thank everyone for their financial and practical support. I also want to thank our barristers for their advocacy and our local MPs, David Burrowes and Nick de Bois for their assistance. I want to encourage landlords to improve housing standards in the borough, without a licensing scheme. That includes the biggest landlord in the borough - the council itself - which was exempt from the scheme. I will make a further announcement in due course."

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "11/12/2014 - 18:56":

Mr Daley has made it clear that he personally supports the Scheme that he has be so involved in writing.

I do agree that penalties on criminal landlords should be increased. This is something most landlords and tenant and councils would support and should and could be lobbying and arguing for.

It does not follow, however, that Councils should try to circumvent Parliament and the criminal justice system by introducing hugely expensive and burdensome licensing schemes on false premises.

Tackle the problems and the failures directly. But don't try to hijack these problems to justify politically motivated, mass licensing of good landlords.

The idea of a consultation is to listen and take on board the various views, as Constantinious Regas showed in Enfield that didn't happen, they even when as far as shouting him down in public hearings, i could be forgiven for thinking Southwark wouldn't have treated what he had to say any differently, they are of a mind to push this through and make the shoe fit just like Enfield. If not then i've done them a disservice but the only way to prove that is to hold off from going ahead read the judgement carefully, speak with Mr Regas and apply the law to their case or history will be repeating itself.

Having met Mr Regas on many occassions i can tell you he is not some huge bruiser or giant brash sharp-elbowed city-slicker of a man, he is a quite, thoughtful, intelligent, well mannered, fair minded civil member of society, the executives of Southwark would be very well advised in speaking with him and avoid costly mistakes and great expense to the public purse. They'll lose no face by meeting and speaking with the leading expert on selective licensing.

killer stuff from the judge -

"Enfield, by contrast, asserts that the 9 April 2014 decision followed a two-part consultation exercise. Although phase one was described as a "Listening and Engagement" exercise and not as part of the "formal consultation" it is the substance of the exercise which is relevant to whether Enfield complied with its obligations to consult fairly. The substance of the first phase of the consultation is described in the executive summary of the report on the exercise produced by ORS in December 2013 at paragraphs 2.2-2.4 (internal page 6) and respondents to that phase were specifically asked about licensing and alternatives as appears from paragraph 2.20-2.25 inclusive (internal page 8).

In all the circumstances, argues Enfield, its consultation, taken as a whole, was faithful to the principles set out in Moseley. Thus it is said phase one made clear that the proposals were at a formative stage and made it plain that licensing was being considered and it was not necessary at that early stage to identify the detail of the scheme or the conditions which would attach to the licence.

Superficially attractive though Enfield's argument is, in my judgment it is flawed. As McCombe J, as he then was, put it in Peat at paragraph 50 the statutory consultation requirement cannot be satisfied by a general engagement and listening exercise but requires a draft proposal which would require some precision in the identification of what is to be designated and its consequences so that the extent of the effect on the people can be appreciated. In addition, it is hard to see how adequate steps could be taken to consult with the persons affected unless they knew the likely licence conditions that would be imposed. That level of detail was conspicuously lacking in the first phase undertaken by Enfield and, in the circumstances, Enfield's argument cannot prevail, falling foul as it does, of the second of the Sedley principles.

In my judgment the period of consultation, properly so called, began on 2 January 2014 and ended on 28 February 2014 and lasted much less than the ten week period required to satisfy the conditions set out in the General Approval. Moreover it is plain from Ms McTernan's witness statement that not all those who should have been consulted within the borough, never mind outside the borough, were consulted for the whole of that period. On the second consultation issue therefore I conclude that, subject to the issue of permission to amend, the 12 November 2014 decision is also vitiated on the second consultation ground.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "15/12/2014 - 11:28":

I have an idea Chris, why don't you approach the same barrister and suggest we all work together (Property118 and our partners at Cotswold Barristers included) to take on Newham?

Strike at the heart.

We then have exposure to landlords Countrywide to roll this out to.

As I see it, we have an opportunity not only to defeat licensing but to crush the enemy.

I understand that the judge in the Enfield case called for resignations?

I see no reason to show any mercy to Local Authorities who have sought to treat landlords as cash cows, do you?
.

Constantinos called for resignations, there is a good route via tribunal services, but those applicants needs to sing from the same song sheet to be effective, i will have a chat with him later on.