Liverpool Landlord Licensing is deeper in the mire

Larry
With the Council keen to collect its money in the next week what protection from their threats do we have if we are questioning their process. I would question every line of the form but we open ourselves to their aggressive behaviour.

Reply to the comment left by "M P" at "15/08/2016 - 12:21":

Simply ask them to return the original form which gave them authority to conduct blanket police checks. This form has been deemed by the ICO to be in breach of the DPA. Furthermore their amended version is also in breach. WE are all being threatened , but I would ignore their threats. You are not a rogue landlord hiding in the shadows. You are a law abiding landlord who has come forward and registered. The council have failed you however, by not providing application forms which are legally compliant. Provided you have made a valid application you are not in breach of the housing act 2004.Email the council and demand they alter their conditions also, which clearly are impossible to sign up to without breaching the DPA ourselves. Unlike the rotten authority who breach the DPA with impunity, we will not get involved with any law breaking schemes dreamed up by this rogue authority

Liverpool landlords should note the recent advice concerning
Selective Licensing on the news section of the North West Property Owners Association website: http://www.nwpoa.co.uk

Tony,
I have never suggested that the scheme was illegal. Despite lies peddled by the useless council , the scheme was introduced and is legal. That said the implementation of the scheme is Illegal. You are aware of my previous posts. Let me give you an example. I highlighted the Anti social behaviour clause which Liverpool changed because it was illegal. There are 4 aspects to the scheme which are currently under investigation by the ICO. Finally Tony your body is owned by the RLA which is a facilitator of This sham Licensing so Unfortunately a co regulator is not neutral, and cannot give impartial advise. I can give advise because I obtained the ICO ruling and I pointed out the illegal anti social behaviour clause and it was also I that lodged 4 new complaints which the ICO are currently reviewing. I seek no reward from anybody, simply that the useless authority comply with the law ,as us landlords. must.

Larry,

the advice on the NWPOA website is impartial and was posted without any reference to
the RLA . The NWPOA is not owned by the RLA, it is affiliated to it, as it was affiliated to the
BPF for many years. The NWPOA is the oldest association of its kind in the country. Rest assured
that its advice is wholly independent and has one objective only: to help and guide its members.
Non-members are welcome to visit the website and to benefit from the advice contained therein.
The association spent two years in dialogue with LCC ( ably assisted by the RLA) and succeeded
in averting several of the less agreeable conditions of licensing prior to its implementation. Your
subsequent efforts to continue this are welcome and the recent advice on the NWPOA website
was intended to warn Liverpool landlords that they must license all rented properties. There are
some who are less than certain on this point.

Good Evening Tony,
A landlord has complied with the law ie the 2004 Housing act when he/she makes a valid application. The problem in this case is that the Council are invalidating applications by their own illegality. Surely you must agree that they are in breach of the act by not issuing licenses in a timely manner.
Surely you agree that their anti social behaviour clause was illegal and that their application form was in breach of the DPA.
Tony their revised form is still in breach, as are three of their conditions.
Let us await the new ICO investigation, however one must wonder why I have to keep discovering these breaches.
What about the Co regulators who happily co regulated this nonsense. Why If the co regulators were acting in Landlords interests did they not take the council to task.
One cannot sit on both sides of the fence. What is the view of the co regulators on the latest ICO investigation. What must happen to this scheme for the co regulators to disown this absolute mess. The reality is that the co regulators cannot afford to back peddle and must try to keep "selling the pup" ,otherwise they may face legal action from landlords who joined their scheme. Finally Tony The NLA made it clear to me that they would have no truck what so ever with a scheme which they opposed from day one. Let every landlord give full credit to Property 118 for the part they have played in exposing this licensing horror story. I will in conjunction with property 118, over the next few weeks alert landlords to further flaws and illegality of this Hapless local authority.

The only concern of the North West Property Owners Association is to advise members ( and non-members)to abide by the law, whatever we might think of it. Your comments concerning the NLA are surprising since they were represented at every meeting of the consultation process which preceded the implementation of selective licensing. They made a valuable contribution to this. You appear to be critical of co-regulation which saves landlords approximately £150 per letting unit on the cost of licensing fees.

Hi Tony,
I am absolutely critical of the co Regulators for the following reasons.

1/ They are supposed to represent landlords .This cannot be done by getting in to bed with the council.

2/The Co Regulators failed or could not be bothered spotting the Council data breach, forcing landlords to submit to illegal checks.

3/The co Regulators failed to spot the illegal anti social behaviour clause indeed the RLA policy director defended the clause until it became clear that it was indefensible.

4./The saving you allude to can only be achieved by submitting to a flawed process, and believe me the process is still flawed.

Having said all of that Tony ,Perhaps the co regulators would like to review the scheme and point out further errors and alert landlords ,that is if they really represent landlords.

Apparently you see no virtue in a landlord saving money. What should a landlord do - pay the full fee for a licence which we all agree is a useless stealth tax? If only you had been present at the numerous meetings which we attended then perhaps the licensing conditions which you now criticise would have been amended along with the even more onerous conditions which the NWPOA, the RLA and the NLA did spot and deal with.

Tony,
I was present at St Georges hall when the original consultation took Place. In fact we met there. I spoke for half an hour to the hall and pointed out that the consultation was a sham and the scheme was being forced on us irrespective of our concerns. I was not a party to direct talks with the council and could not participate as the council would not allow my participation as a single landlord. I do not understand why you are even revisiting this .It is Pointless.
Tony there is an opportunity for associations to redeem themselves. I having studied the process have found further flaws.
Please come out here on this site and alert all landlords to further flaws in the scheme.
I certainly intend to do so, but to be absolutely fair to you I will keep my council for now.
We await your advise on further flaws illegalities in this rubbish scheme. If you cannot dissect and scrutinise as well as alerting us to flaws, Please do not be counter productive .Help us all and alert us to further flaws in the scheme. Saving £150 on a "scam" which fails to meet legal criteria is no saving at all. Lets get the legalities right first. Over to you Tony . List the flaws still in this Licensing nonsense or indeed if you think it is now fully compliant say so .