chris wright

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?... Read More

That might be correct bear in mind you can remove anyone who doesnt have a tenancy - adult children living at home springs to mind, had a few cases of those over the years - the homeowner couldnt get eviction as there was no tenancy, which seems to be what the govt are saying - refusal of right to remain will be fatal to a tenancy agreement and it ceases to exist - repudiation by default, you then politely ask them to go and of course they leave ! In reality you'll be calling the cops.... Read More

Jail is the last sanction agreed but lets face it the criminal record alone will muck up your business and personal life and probably end your BTL portfolio. Once again the govt are going to make the little guy or gal carry the can for their failure to enfoce laws they already have and can't be bothered to enforce.... Read More

Mandy nice to hear from you again and pleasing to see Croydon have a JR in the offing i understand Con is giving them a steer on what to do - hope you are keeping well. If you get the update on the 4th can you post it up? Regards Chris... Read More

Yes not surprised all right minded people should be very concerned with the attempts to introduce a criminal code by the back door, John was a part timer sent to preach "all is well you have nothing to fear" still he's pretty quiet now and Enfield are quietly trying to explain away the £500,000 they spent breaking the law to the local taxpayers (no-one resigned note!), if i was a lawyer i would be helping a hundred people in Newham to get their convictions overturned as they were made under a scheme the Regas judgement covers. As i recall the RLA et al were all a bit too much "hail fellow well met" with the various councils and as you've seen it doesn't work when the people you are sitting down with don't have your best interests at heart, there is a major effort in Croydon to kick it out now - i think the Southwark LL's are for the most part not in any structured opposition if they are they are very quiet about it - track down Con Regas he's aware of most of the fighting groups. his looseminute blog is a good place. Regards.... Read More

the judgement was too tight imho but you can find Con Regas very easliy and ask him yourself - Southwark et al are sleepwalking their taxpayers into some huge liabilities.... Read More

Yep they were going for a few streets only (they can impose borough wide at a later date mind you), the Regas v Enfield case has caused them and other councils some major problems/headaches so they mostly had to run off hide and lick their wounds. To be honest its not the £20k fine that should keep you awake its the criminal record you get with it, that would scupper your career (and most peoples). So are you prepared to run a risk to your entire wellbeing for what ? - most BTL are netting under £1000pa? Stark choice - either lease the house to the police fire nhs or a university (statutory bodies are exempt from licensing, see what they did there?) and take less money but get in return 100% security you wont ever get prosecuted,.... or run a major risk and stump up the fee..... or sell up the London flat and buy a rural property and rent that out - most rural areas won't ever be touched by selective licensing. Remember letting through an agent wont indemnify you either you'll still be on the hook only leasing to stat bodies covers you. Oh and dont forget they can change the conditions of the license anytime they like mid-term etc. The overseas investors in London havent got a clue what they've bought into if their investment is under SL, still the long trip from China or Russia to the Thames Magistrates Court will give them enough time to reflect on the glossy sales brochures Knight Frank Savils Hamptons et al had shown them all those years ago.... Read More

Yvette, the "interest" here was purely in the outcome of the recent Constantinous Regas judicial review, they realised they were acting unlawfully in light of the Judgement and have finally taken to consulting with their neighbouring boroughs and this will take extra time, as it was reported elsewhere, the borough of Croydon made an announcement disclosing the real reasons but Southwark have taken to making up reasons - a little honesty is just too much for some people.... Read More

Lets get one thing clear 80% of the people who responded amounts to a tiny amount of the population of Enfield , probably not even statistically relevent - lets not kid ourseleves this group were misled too during the consultation carried out by the council.

Constantinos is bang on calling for resignations they were acting unlawfully, they could have stopped when it was pointed out to them but they couldn't lose face and this is carrying on as they have now taken to slating the judgement of Judge McKenna - what more does it take for people to do the right thing?

At the least, unless the Southwark scheme has consulted in the surrounding boroughs, they'll be on the hook too for making the same error in law.... Read More

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.... Read More

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.... Read More

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.... Read More

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."... Read More

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.... Read More

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.... Read More

Why would any investor put their head on the block and risk criminal conviction for £1pw when they could avoid it. The drop in Newham numbers was on their own website - first press release i think said 100 properties were taken out of the game by refusing them a licenses, nothing criminal mind you, apparently they were classified or labelled as 3 notorious landlords! Still maybe they were 3 ex council staff guilty of doing what the 3 in southwark did, so will Southwark follow suit and make a statement of tackling rogues or is it a very very wide gap in saying n doing.... Read More

16% is a bit different from John's 30% thats for sure anyone would think he was trying to paint a bleak picture to encourage support for the scheme, i wonder how many people in southwark he's told its 30%? Still i'm not sure he'll be back after the MK info and realising his employer Southwark still employs 3 rogue property managers that they wouldn't dream of licensing under a PRS licensing scheme. One rule for them etc.... Read More

You'll find licensing can have the opposite effect as some current LL's with smaller HMO's will lose out as the rooms (kids b/room in 3 bed house or flat) will fall under the min size m2 so you'll have to chuck tenants out. Also the self contained flats converted before 1991 may have to be licensed as SHMO and have lots of costly changes to the building.... Read More

So licensing is mostly about taking unhappy tenants and making them happy by forcing their landlords and letting agents to improve the housing condtions, seems very confused thinking unless you're telling us unhappy tentants cause the ASB (Southwark's stated lawful reason to invoke licensing) as a protest or having been brutalised by their landlords after moving in go off the rails and take it out on the local community - I'd love to see the evidence of that link. I suppose the ex-southwark council tentant who got chucked out had his possessions destroyed and lived rough for a year was counted in your stats for ASB / agressive begging ?... Read More

Hi, can anyone point me to the ASB data MK used or was reying upon?
Thanks... Read More