Licensing Consultation in Southwark

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 ?

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/11/2014 - 17:38":

Thanks Mark for sharing this with us !

I would gladly join an association of landlords in Southwark, should any one think of starting one !

And why not the Southwark Landlords' Party !

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "12/11/2014 - 17:18":

'If we look at this another way there is evidence that between 70 and 80% of PRS Tenants are happy with the services they receive. I think London probably has a lower satisfaction than this but the data doesn’t allow me to drill down and prove that because it is not regionalised.
If we say that 30 % of Southwark tenants are not happy'

That is simply not true.

84% of private sector tenants were satisfied with their housing and only 10% either slightly or very dissatisfied according to official data released in the 2012-13 English Housing Survey;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335751/EHS_Households_Report_2012-13.pdf

Essential reading for anyone remotely involved in making decisions on this.

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.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "13/11/2014 - 15:05":

Sorry to be pedantic Chris but it isn't even 16% that weren't happy, it was only 10%.

- The remainder were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

From the same report.

77% of local authority* tenants were satisfied with 17% dissatisfied. (The remainder were neither).

*Excluding housing associations, which still fare worse than private landlords.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "30/10/2014 - 17:51":

"Rogues landlords in Southwark eh who’d thought it possible?

Christiana Okwara, Brian Davis, and Johanna Ashley..."

Revenge eviction rears it's ugly head yet again.... Except it's mostly some harassed small private landlord who's tried and tried to please an unreasonably demanding tenant, but has just reached the end of their tether... Not council housing staff unlawfully conspiring to ruin and evict a good man who's been unlucky enough to fall on hard times, despite giving back to the community... I've said "council staff" and not "council" not knowing the full circumstances, but given they are apparently still employed by Southwark...

Hi Mark,

I have seen the Milton Keynes report but perhaps predictably my view is that the market in MK is different to that is London.

Aylesbury Vale have successfully introduced licensing, is that an argument the other way ?

Each LA need to assess whether licensing will have the effects it intends when making a proposal. I don't think it is an answer for every LA and in a number of areas is not a suitable response.

However where the market is sufficiently unbalanced by demand outstripping supply I think it can be a good way to improve standards and take some role in restraining the worst features of the market where it is very loaded in favour of the supply side.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "18/11/2014 - 17:01":

Forgive me if this is a naive question but how does reducing or restricting supply, when demand is already at boiling point, improve the problem of anti social behaviour which is the only basis of legislation giving you the opportunity to consider licencing?
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "18/11/2014 - 17:39":

Hi Mark,

I don't think licensing will reduce supply in a measurable way. I accept there will be some rooms that fall below the standard for HMO's, but I don't think it will be very many. On balance one of our key objectives is to put a firm lower limit on room sizes in shared accomodation.

The number of conversions of flats and houses to increase the number of bedrooms is staggering, there is a real reduction in the number of single family dwellings as they are replaced by HMOs. Our other SE London neighboring boroughs are starting to see this as well as cost rises radiate out from the centre of London

All the evidence and anecdotal story is that the market in this area is still incredibly firm. I have not yet seen any evidence that licensing contracts supply, so far its probably too early to measure any effects like this.

Even if that was an effect of licensing then surely the increase in price would then increase supply as the market seeks to take advantage of the increased income.

I think the bigger picture of the property market drives supply and these interventions will have a negligible effect.