Croydon yet another area to introduce Selective Licensing

"We have discussed this with the NLA and we’re about to engage more formally with other groups"......OK so what was the pitch you made to the NLA then if nothing is in the public domain or approved - it begs the question why does one group get pre-release access to the proposals? I can see no reason to keep Southwark SL a secret if you truely wish to engage with LL’s - this is a group on here – so lets see all your cards face up.

Not sure what you mean by not being a council staffer - Mandy did state that your title was that of a Private Sector Housing Licensing Manager, if they (sothwark) didnt give you that title then just who did?

Just how do you know what the plans are if you're not an insider or council staffer?

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "01/08/2014 - 12:28":

"Mandy is clearly aware that I am not a Council Staffer and I have no vested interest in defending any particular group."

That's really odd, because when I telephoned Southwark Council a few minutes ago, I asked Switchboard to confirm John Daley's job title - I ensured I gave the correct spelling of the name. Without hesitation, the operator came straight back with, "It has him here as the Private Sector Licensing Manager" I asked her to confirm that this was in fact the CURRENT job title - "Yes, it's on the system".

Well that seems to be definitive for now - not sure if John will be back to explain the apparent confirmation of his employment by Mandy earlier today but i think the noises coming out of Southwark are best described here as confusing. The engagement with some pre-selected groups early on seems to fall very short of "cards up" dealing the public should expect from these SL consultations.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "01/08/2014 - 16:26":

...Unless he's afraid of his "Horrible Bosses":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horrible_Bosses. Either that, or he's concerned that he might not have driven wide enough off the tee... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Daly_(golfer) 🙂

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "01/08/2014 - 12:28":

"quite a lot of which has been predjudiced and ill informed"

Prejudiced? That is a bit rich given that Southwark have pre judged the PRS before the consultations, research, evidence, detailed data collection and analysis they boast of. They have already stated they are committed to implementing selective licensing.

It is not a proposal- it is a done deal, you're having it, like it or not.

How more prejudiced can you get?

As for ill informed, the posts on here have been backed with factual links, what is this ill information you claim?

And 'conspiring' has no unusual meaning, it is a clear and unambiguous word. This was a considered statement transcribed, checked and approved for the minutes. Southwark council regards the PRS situation as a bad or unpleasant result. Whether good landlords, bad or indifferent.

As I said, this is about politics.

Ok, I have tried to be upfront with everyone on this. I am engaged as a consultant with Southwark so I have no vested interest in this from an LA viewpoint. I think I have been clear on my views so trying to find some hidden agenda doesn't seem very reasonable.

Our conversation with the NLA was part of a regular routine meeting with local landlords and the NLA attended because they are the only group engaged in the local group.

This debate often contains statements that are not based in what I see as a reflection of my experience of the current situation with regard to the wider licensing issue.

I am quite happy to discuss and debate the various issues but if the ground rules here suggest or accuse that my integrity or competance is not what it should be I don't think that is ok.

For the next two weeks I will be away at Army Cadet Camp so I'll not be posting. Once I am back our proposal will be out for consultation within a few weeks. I think that the work I have done takes this forward but if you disagree that is fine.

OK John be sure to post up the links when you get back we'll look forward to seeing the details, hopefully Southwark won't be following in the steps and repeating the mistakes of Enfield and Hyndburn - time will tell.

@John Daley

"I am engaged as a consultant with Southwark so I have no vested interest in this from an LA viewpoint." A rather disingenuous statement, given that you're employed by them as a consultant AND a manager, and you were employed by them as private landlord accreditation manager in the recent past.

Whether you are/were employed by them directly as a public employee, or whether you are/were employed as a contractor is splitting hairs. As a former civil servant, I know the terms on which consultants are enaged by public bodies.

You are their employee and your job is very much dependent on selective licensing, so of course you're going to defend and promote SL, just as I am a private landlord and I am going to defend the PRS.

However, whereas I would NEVER defend or assist rogue landlords or any bad practice by private landlords - you are prepared to keep defending bad SL at a high level where this has acquired the force of law (as opposed to low level mistakes by ordinary rank and file council officers). THAT, together with a very poor attempt to hide your vested interest in SL is what has really annoyed everyone on this forum.

At LettingFocus.com we also advise organisations on the private rented sector, including local authorities, and many years ago we once worked with a group of boroughs of which Southwark is a part.

In certain areas, we think licensing can be a good thing, though I cannot imagine any area where whole borough licensing could be justified from a cost-benefit point of view.

However, as an ethical consultant, we refuse to even pitch for any tender where a local authority has already made up its mind that they will be using licensing of landlords. This was certainly the case for a tender from Waltham Forest and for other tenders we have seen.

Unfortunately, most other consultants would not take such a principled stance.

(I did not see the Southwark tender come up on my alerts, however, which is interesting).

As a final observation, the world of tender awards at the town hall is often something to raise eyebrows - and we see a definite tendency to award contracts to ex employees of the same or other town halls who have done work on housing already. It really is a bit of a "closed shop" really.

Also, as the councils have often already made its mind up they are "going to do all-borough licensing", they do not really want someone who is publicly critical/ questioning turning up as a consultant and asking the hard questions of the proposal.

There is a bit of a groupthink at councils, when what the local authorities desperately need is innovative outside thinking and challenge.

And challenge is really important for anything to do with private rent, because the level of understanding of execs and councillors of private rent is not great in most cases.

However, recently we had the pleasure of working with a council in Herts to assess a "social letting agency" in which landlords would be encouraged to let to people off the homeless register. The open-ness of their approach and their willingness to look at alternatives etc was refreshing. So, perhaps things are changing.

Sadly, in London, where the private rented sector is bigger and housing issues are more acute, the councils seem hell bent on licensing and bugger the rationale.

If Southwark (or Croydon) won't speak to me, then I suggest, Southwark at least get in touch with Ben Reeve Lewis, next door at Lewisham who is doing great things on driving out rogue landlords using all the other methods available to them, but without using licensing.

David Lawrenson

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "08/08/2014 - 10:43":

Thanks for providing this insight, David. This is interesting.

I fail to see how any consultation, where differing opinions are not considered (or where lip service is simply paid), and where consultants and other stakeholders are all from one side of the debate only and have made up their minds beforehand, can be in any way fair or objective. In fact, I can't help but draw an analogy with a kangaroo trial...