Croydon yet another area to introduce Selective Licensing

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "31/07/2014 - 12:16":

OK - we want to engage with your local authority scheme proposals so please post up links / details for all the LL's on 118 to help engage with the development. I can see no reason to keep it a secret if you truely wish to engage with LL's - all cards face up.

To be clear the SL Campaign doesn't oppose schemes, it opposes unfair conditions and consultations.

Thanks for highlighting the Hyndburn cases Chris, excellent news.

IMO this is a game changer, LA's can't just make up the rules as they go along.

It also helps expose these schemes as being no more than a register for administering good landlords, removing the pretence they are actually doing something for the money.

As Scotland can run a landlord register for £55 + £11 per property then it will be hard for LA's to justify their own outrageous fees.

No money, no empire.

Once the cash cow incentive is reduced, LA's will have less stomach for licensing.

The proposed SL cost will be £1000 in Croydon Monty.

Monty Re Rules: - they can make them up its part of the power they've been given. What most LA's know, all too well, is LL's lack the resources to hold their feet in the fire so will continue in a similar vein in the full knowledge local taxpayers will be covering them when challenges arise - its a very different dynamic when its your own cash you're fronting up. It's heartening hear from John D that his employer/LA desire closer partnerships with property owners to help develop schemes / best practice etc. So seeing as the LL's can only consult and have zero approval will LA's be paying their day rate for the consultation or is this day out another net loss to the small landlord, these are small businesses afterall operating on small margins. I doubt other council invitees like PWC/ E&Y et al would do consultations for free. One sure way of grinding down small businessmen and women, who are already operating at the margins, is to expect them to give their time up for free too.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "31/07/2014 - 12:16":

John

As the Private Sector Housing Licensing Manager for the London Borough of Southwark, IMHO you are not doing a very good job of representing Selective Licensing and convincing landlords that it's a good thing.

Landlord bodies are not opposed to education and accreditation for landlords, and encouraging professional standards within the industry, as well as stamping out bad practice amongst lazy and criminal landlords - that is in fact why they exist. They are NOT there to support ANY landlords - only the good ones. Why then, would they be opposing selective licensing if it was likely to achieve their aims?

You say that you want to work WITH landlords, but statements you've made in previous comments to this post do not support that; for example: (with reference to rental tribunals over ruling several ill conceived SL conditions) "Its normally the case that if the law changes after you have fallen foul of it well that’s hard luck."

You also try to defend woeful, appalling conceived selective licensing schemes: "The LA may not have set the right conditions but they were not intended to be unfair” In other words, their heart was in the right place, so that's all right then, isn't it? However, this isn't like being given a parking ticket when you shouldn't have received one. Anyone who would fall foul of these conditions could be fined and/or criminalised - but as you say, "that's hard luck".

"There is no direct link between the data sets as recorded and everyone knows it. This is simply because the ASB data does not have any property tenure fields so an absolute connection is impossible

However that is not the same as saying there is no link between areas of high PRS density and high ASB incidence, I think that conclusion can be drawn from comparing the data sets in some areas, well it can from the data I have been working with. I am less confident that this conclusion is OK for a LA wide proposal."

You admit that there isn't very good evidence for private tenants engaging in ASB, but again, you're just going to steam ahead with it, regardless, as you want SL and that's the only way you'll get it. There are plenty of areas (especially in London) where you have several different types of property, and a wide cross section of people from all backgrounds, both council and private tenants (as well as owner occupiers). Most of those private tenants will have had to satisfy rigorous tenant checks to prove they are NOT likely to commit ASB, whereas the council tenants don't. I know of such a road; almost all the trouble was caused by council tenants.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "30/07/2014 - 12:03":

"I find these constant references to a draconian conspiracy against landlords in particular difficult to understand. Empire building, profiteering, grinding down landlords because they hate the private sector. Can anyone actually produce any evidence of any of this."

How about these council minutes as an indication of a LA's attitude towards the PRS (my bold);

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s39298/Private%20Rented%20Sector.pdf

The most recent census, published by the Office for National Statistics, shows the number of private renters in England and Wales increased by 88% between 2001 and 2011. In addition the ability to discharge the council’s homelessness duty through private sector accommodation, new energy efficiency responsibilities in the energy bill, and changes to the single room rate (which is a driver for the demand in homes of multiple occupancies (HMO’s)) are all conspiring to increase the significance of the sector for local authorities.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire

con·spire verb kən-ˈspī(-ə)r
: to secretly plan with someone to do something that is harmful or illegal
: to happen in a way that produces bad or unpleasant results

Interestingly from the same link (my bold);

This paper sets out background information about Landlord Accreditation and selective licensing schemes which the Leader has stated he is committed to implementing in Southwark

Committed to implementing selective licensing in Southwark before the consultations, research, evidence, detailed data collection and analysis.

Why would that be then?

The 'case studies' to demonize landlords, are also amusing (in this context).
Does anyone seriously believe any of those, so called landlords, would be deterred by landlord licensing?
- or even bother applying.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "31/07/2014 - 15:52":

Hello Chris,

You're right, I should have qualified that statement.
How about;

Power crazy LA’s can no longer just make up their own unfair rules without fear of being challenged.

I find it ironic that some councils make such a complete mess of managing their own housing stock, yet have the audacity to preach to good landlords how they should be doing it. And after putting the boot in, they then have the brass neck to ask good landlords to work with them to help sort out their housing shortage.

The point you make about resources was highlighted in the Hyndburn case where the council tried the tactic of getting the case adjourned, with costs, purely for procedural reasons.
-Not quite cricket that when you are supposed to be acting in the public interest.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "31/07/2014 - 17:27":

"I find it ironic that some councils make such a complete mess of managing their own housing stock, yet have the audacity to preach to good landlords how they should be doing it. " Hear, hear!

I used to know someone who lived in a publicly rented flat in a London Borough. It had damp, cracks all over the plaster, decaying window frames, tired old and kitchen and bathroom, poor flooring, and plenty of ASB caused by the immediate neighbours in the block (NOT the private tenants and owner occupiers over the road). I'm sure if that had been let out by a private landlord the council would have placed the property under a management order!

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "30/07/2014 - 12:03":

Which reminds me;

"I don’t have any problem with a challenge at the tribunal, that is what they are for after all."

I don't think you would have John. By coming on here, stating your case openly, honestly and in your own name is admirable but councils don't behave like that.

Hyndburn council clearly had a problem with a challenge, which is why they wanted to argue on procedure rather than the issues they were ultimately found wrong about.

It is about politics and power, not right and wrong.

Southwarks housing policy got a large write-up in Private Eye this week, they're reported as being prepared to drop affordable housing element for Heygate developer Lend-Lease to ....err.... 0%. One ex-resident i read took the council to a tribunal and won because they wouldn't hand over the viability assessment data - Lend Lease helpfully paid the legal bills @£40k. I suppose thats an example of LA's working with landlords - not what i had in mind but it is what it is.

Hi Chris,

The deal at Heygate is an enormous regeneration project. I don't really think there is LL angle here, not from a PRS viewpoint anyway. I do think it's a little bit harsh to search though everything ever written by a Borough to try and wrongfoot me.

I am on this site in a private capacity, so far the views have been my own. I have concealed nothing. Mandy is clearly aware that I am not a Council Staffer and I have no vested interest in defending any particular group.

I am however,quite passionate about providing some real quality and information to the debate, quite a lot of which has been predjudiced and ill informed so far. It's taken quite a lot of work to get to this point and I think the quality needs to improve.

When the proposals are approved and out on the public domain I'll be happy to debate and discuss the propasal in detail. We have discussed this with the NLA and we're about to engage more formally with other groups.

Monty I think the reference to conspiring is not in the usual meaning but that there are a lot of factors in play forcing actions. The Council is committed to this, that is why they are making a proposal, read the proposal and then decide what you think.