Luke Roxberg

Registered with
Sunday 13th November 2016

Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 7

Luke Roxberg

13:13 PM, 28th February 2020, About 2 years ago

Government reject Brent Council application to extend licensing scheme

Government might finally be starting to apply the law as the 2004 Housing Act was intended. The selective licencing was meant to be for troubled streets, not the whole borough.
It was also intended to be used as a last resort after all other alternatives had been tried. When you ask the council for what the alternatives are they have tried, you get blank looks - so obviously using it as a tool of first implementation.
Schemes are meant to be based upon factual evidence. Whenever you pick through this 'evidence' that has been presented, most of it is unsubstantiated opinion. It has no statistical methodology and wholes in its assessment the size of football fields.
That is a major reason why liverpool council was rejected as the basic facts upon which the scheme relied upon were nonsense - ie the whole of Liverpool is a deprived area.
With regards to renewing like Croydon, other problems come up. By what measure has a scheme been successful, what are the metrics? If the scheme has been successful and rooted out bad landlords, why does it need to continue?
If the scheme has been unsuccessful, why continue with something that doesn't work? Why are alternatives not being considered which should have been in the first place?
Croydon called an emergency council meeting to push the scheme through days before the 2015 Deregulation Act ment proper consideration had to be given to the matter. The whole justification at the meeting was they were a locally elected body and wouldn't be told by central government what they could and couldn't do - facts be damned.

It has been a cashcow. For Croydon, it has raised in excess of £16m over 5 years - don't know a single landlord that has been inspected by council. Councils are addicted to the revenue, and financial penalities going to the council create a huge incentive to have the schemes in place.
In the case of Lewisham Council 'consulting' on the matter, they have been advertisting for enforcement officers to administer the selective licensing scheme before the consultation even closed. It is obvious the outcomes are predetermined.
If you pick apart Lewisham council 'evidence', it is supposition with no supported facts. Even when you look at the data presented, it actually shows the vast majority of the problems are caused by owner-occupiers, not tenants (but never lets facts get in the way of a good cash-cow).
What is really needed is a judicial review to end these brough wide schemes. They are an abuse of the legislation and its intent, the consultations are farcical and don't meet the parameters as laid out in the 2004 Housing Act. Yet they keep coming.... Read More

Luke Roxberg

9:32 AM, 19th March 2019, About 3 years ago

RLA welcome Zoopla 'No DSS' ban

Is the RLA trying to lose members? Makes me wonder if it has been taken over by Shelter. This is utterly false. Please tell me what protected category under the anti-discrimination legislation this falls under. You won't be able to because it there isn't one. It isn't discrimination.

It is assessing if someone has the ability to pay, as any prudent business does. with 90% of UC recipients in arrears, it is pretty clear that the landlord is guaranteed to be behind and offering free overdraft facilities (this ontop of the rest of the PRS having payment 1 month in advance, while UC is payment 1 month in arrears on a lunar calendar).... Read More

Luke Roxberg

20:13 PM, 1st March 2019, About 3 years ago

Luke Roxberg

18:03 PM, 23rd November 2018, About 3 years ago

Is Shelter liable for criminal activities?

Would Shelter not have a duty of care to all parties if it is offering advice? Maybe a freedom of request could be made for the contract between Shelter and the government. A legal eye could be cast over it to see descripencies between what the goals of the contract are and what is occurring. If they are found, the government would have to take it seriously as could it not be viewed as "fraudlent" if Shelter are receiving public funds and not providing services as required.
Given the language and factual inaccuracies in Shelters operations, and the vitrial language used, are they not discriminating against landlords as a group, and hence be pursued under antidiscriminatory legislation? While the public perception of landlords that has been created is negative, that does absolve Shelter from it, actually would be evidence against them. If you replaced 'landlord' with any other group in some of their statements, they would be seriously questioned and their would be outcry. Why is it ok to do it to landlords, could it not be construed as "hate speech"?... Read More