Humber Landlords Association lose High Court battle

Reply to the comment left by Dave Richmond at 14/03/2019 - 10:23
Thanks Dave, much appreciated. Due to the amount of detail provided I will read and digest in slow time and would recommend others to do likewise.

Reply to the comment left by Dave Richmond at 14/03/2019 - 10:23
OMG Dave, after reading Peakers diatribe, its even worse than I'd thought.
I didn't realise you were not just going to charge for visits, but you are actually trying to legally Blackmail landlords in Hull to join the Councils accreditation scheme.
Um, Let me see, strategy adopted successfully by some L.A's - ' Landlords, come work with us and we'll help you with any tenant issues, because after all, you are providing much needed accommodation in our area. ' OR, Hull's effectively ;

look here now you scumbag landlords, if a tenant complains to us, their always right because we've heard that all Landlords are rogues [ we read and believe everything Shelter and Gen R. publish ] so the only way we're ever going to cut you some slack and not 'fine' you, is if you 'join our Accredited Landlord scheme' !
Rather nice photo on the legal blackmail article published here on 21/2/19 that aptly describes what your doing.
By the way, I'm actually starting a business with a partner in Hull to accommodate vulnerable teenagers. This will now be outside of the authorities juristiction, as Hull's welcome is, well - unwelcoming. - in fact down right bullying and threatening.

My understanding is that Hull LLs were specifically bothered by formal notice on Cat. 2 hazards. We all know Cat. 1s need to be dealt with immediately and that’s fair enough. But virtually anything else falls into Cat. 2 no matter how small.

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 14/03/2019 - 10:46
Thank you Rob, that is all we would ask. This is a detailed issue and we would ask landlords to consider carefully what we are proposing not jump to conclusions based on misrepresentations of what we are saying. I would like to point out that despite the way the council is being portrayed on this forum, that we recognise there are many excellent landlords here in Hull, and that on the whole we have a good working relationship with the HLA and especially Danny. You may be surprised to know that in fact at my request, Danny joined a working group to look at how we could modernise council housing in the city and played an important part in a number of changes we made and we are grateful for his help.

Reply to the comment left by Dave Richmond at 14/03/2019 - 12:22Hi Dave, in the interest of retaining landlords, why not find a compromise position - meet LL's and agree an amicable way forward with regard to the Cat 2 issue?

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 16/03/2019 - 10:51
Because they, like all other council’s, have a superiority complex. THEY are the Sheriff in this town…not you rogue LL scum. Local authorities, particularly in poor northern towns, don’t have the greatest pool of people to select their employees from. They are often those that cannot build a business for themselves, nor have the skills to move for employment to a better area. Often they will be in rented accommodation themselves and have the typical hatred of LLs and like to use what little powers they’ve been given to show us who’s boss. What they forget is that we have businesses to sustain and can’t ‘roll over’ just because. We must challenge that which we deem unreasonable. If not, we go bust. There is a presumption that we will both always be there and will always rent our houses. If the rules are too onerous too often, the business becomes unviable and LLs will exit. There is a belief that exiting LLs will sell to OOs on a one-for-one basis, but we all know it won’t and doesn’t work like that.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 16/03/2019 - 11:03
Well said Luke, its just a bullying. discriminatory cash extraction strategy by the L.A.

Reply to the comment left by Dave Richmond at 14/03/2019 - 12:22
Hi Dave
I will never invest in your part of the world nor do I operate at the lower income sector so this is not my fight. But I am intrigued : how on earth did your gratitude to Danny's help result in a policy that he took you to court over ?

I am also intrigued by the anguish and mistrust of so many LLs on this forum towards LAs - not just Hull. Might be useful for people in the corridors of power to stop and ponder why. People with big boots should be careful where they tread. We all know government policies will influence market behaviour - at least in the short term. But the market will always win - eventually. Why alienate people who have an acknowledged useful role in our society ? Why punish the entire class for a few bad apple ? Because you can ? You may not feel your policy response is unjust or unreasonable but you can see the pulpable anguish here for yourself. The best way to get things done is not always the most expedient. An 'I can punish you' solution is unlikely ever to be a win-win solution.

Reply to the comment left by sam at 16/03/2019 - 22:29
Its Not 'ALL' L.A's Dave, there are some good examples, but a lot of bad ones too.
Why doesn't Hull speak to Tonbridge & Sevenoaks in Kent.
I'm sure other Landlord could name some good examples of L.A's ( unfortunately, I don't think Hull would be amongst them - maybe time for a little reflection ? )

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 16/03/2019 - 22:42
Norwich is pretty good.