Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Let's not forget Clark v Manchester City Council in which it was determined that a local authority can set a guide to room sizes, but cannot disallow a room for letting that is below that size by virtue of its size alone, other factors come into play and must be considered.

i thought the (bed)room standard was that a standard bed had to be able to be fit in 2 different directions to be classed as a bedroom and rented/priced accordingly?

Sorry to confuse - I am referring to Southwark Council's minimum bedroom size of 10m2 (or 8m2) versus the legal minimum of 6.5m2. Refer to http://nearlylegal.co.uk/2015/04/hmo-corner/ for the decision on Clark v Manchester City Council.

Reply to the comment left by "Y L Newbury " at "07/08/2015 - 10:13":

YL Newbury - you are not confusing anyone (thanks for bringing up this case). On a side note - is there a national minimum standard for a no-living room (and larger than required kitchen) option?

And just to reiterate Chris's post, I don't think London is in a position to start requiring people to have 10sqm bedrooms. If they were to do so, the current housing crisis would be even more acute. At the moment it is only certain boroughs which are going to be disadvantaged (Newham/Southwark), but once Additional licensing will be required nation-wide (which it may well be), they would be mad to impose those requirements and eliminate say 5% of the accomodation. That's a 5% that would have to be gained through additional (expensive) housing constructions. That's also the 5% of the most vulnerable people who pay lower rate for smaller space. John Daley may not care as it is not his responaibility to deal with the housing crisis - the government most certainly will consider this.

Thanks LondonProperty1 L. The minimum room size requirements are a bit confusing (for me anyway) as those specified may be used for one legal area (eg. previous bedroom tax challenges) but then be different for HMOs or even council tax purposes. So different legal challenges have succeeded, or failed, depending on the exact area that is being challenged. In the case mentioned above, the case actually involved a room that was only 5.8 m2 so in fact clearly below the minimum room size but highlighted that the local authorities must take into consideration other factors such as ease of access to the room and the overall measurements of the room in deciding whether it can be used as a bedroom. I think the main point for me that came out of that case is that Local authorities cannot decide on a policy that attempts to alter requirements laid out in law. They can have their own guides as to what they require, but they can only be used as a guide and should not be adhered too strictly if they contradict the law. The issue here is then to fathom out which "law" should be referred to as whilst there are laws on HMOs, it is likely that the Govt will bring out new legislation to tie in with their new schemes for mandatory licensing for 3 sharers or more. I always try to be ahead of the curve, hence spending the last 2 days on this to try to envisage what may be required to reduce any unpleasant surprises. We were all certainly given one of those in the Summer Budget!

Reply to the comment left by "Y L Newbury " at "07/08/2015 - 13:07":

Actually we had at least 2 surprises (interest deduct-ability + W&T allowance).

In any case, I cannot imagine a headline "In response to the housing crisis, the government is increasing the minimum bedroom size from 6.5sqm to XXsqm". My first intuition would be - have they gone mad? We need more, not less rooms/flats. Eliminating some of the existing housing stock would be irresponsible, to say the least.

Such a headline as the one above can only come out of a council, who will still argue it is the most adequate response to a housing crisis and ABS... (obviously if you manipulate the data you can come to any conclusions you like).

I bet by the end of today I can get sufficient statistical, compelling evidence to justify that John Daley should no longer hold his position as he might have just wasted thousands of taxpayers' funds (pushing through his agenda despite separate initiative from the government).

Jakub,

Please feel free to submit any evidence you like. You might also be clear about what offences I have committed with regard to PRS licensing in Southwark. Please be exact.

For everyone else I have left Southwark, entirely by agreement, when the work I was contracted to do was complete. I am very pleased to see that the proposal was approved by the Council recently

On my own behalf therefore I have to say that I think the proposal was a good one, it was widely and properly consulted and will, I think, have a positive effect over time. If other legislation overtakes it, well that is something we can't predict.

Discounting the less rational elements on this site and the comparisons to Albanian or Soviet dictators, which to be honest did cause a smile. There are a core of competent landlords we engaged with who can see what the objectives are and accept that the proposal addressed these as well as current legislation allowed.

As an example I cite the small areas included in Selective Licensing proposal. This clearly predated the rule change and was a direct result of our objectives, not political dogma or 'empire building'.

Most rational observers could see that we responded to the comments received in consultation and many of these were incorporated in the final proposal.

Quite a lot of the comments here are made by people who simply haven't read the papers or are unable to overcome their own prejudices enough to see both sides. There are more viewpoints than that of the amateur landlord.

Any landlord who can't see that this sector will become more heavily regulated is burying their head in the sand. The answer is to become engaged and steer proposals to the best possible conclusion as the NLA have done very well.

I have to say that having had close contact with all sides of the debate over the last two years, I think the future is clearer guidance for landlords to help them comply with current legislation and I am constantly amazed how many people are prepared to commit vast sums of their own money in to a business they do not understand at all.

On balance I think the market needs a more distant investment vehicle that effectively allows the average investor to be in the sector without having unreasonable costs or having to do the actual management.

Just keeping the thread updated. Southwark scheme delayed from 1st November to 1st January 2016:

http://www.londonpropertylicensing.co.uk/southwark%E2%80%99s-new-landlord-licensing-scheme-delayed

Not yet available:

Please note we are currently having technical issues with the portal. It will be available within the next few weeks. If you would like us to notify you of when the portal comes online, please email us at resi@southwark.gov.uk