Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "19/11/2014 - 14:15":

In an affluent Central London borough such as Southwark, I agree, licensing won't have that great an impact on overall numbers. However, I can see it having some impact on the supply of more modest and affordable accommodation owned by less wealthy landlords and let to tenants on middle incomes who don't qualify for social housing or local housing allowance. This will still have much less impact in Southwark than in Croydon, where a very high licensing fee of £1000 per property, payable upfront, is being proposed, and Croydon is much less affluent than Southwark, with typically much more modest private housing stock owned by and rented to people of much more modest means.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "19/11/2014 - 14:15":

Of course supply will reduce, we are already seeing signs of landlords exiting Newham because of the ludicrous red tape and charges.

Lewisham on the other hand are making themselves very appealing to landlords because they know that the Council are coming down on rogue operators like a ton of bricks but not at the expense of the good landlords. In fact, they are supporting good landlords in every way possible.

Mark my words, if you introduce licencing you will have a far bigger ASB problem and a far larger homelessness problem 5 years from now.

In the meantime, you will alienate the vast majority of landlords in your area who will view you with the same levels of contempt that Newham landlords do for Sir Robin Wales.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "19/11/2014 - 18:47":

Good point about Lewisham, Mark. Just by coincidence (possibly?), someone else is saying that this is happening in Salford. As we all know, Salford on the whole is a very sought after area.... See comment from "Annoyed" 19th November, 2014 @ 17:01 http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/landlord-licensing/#comment-384444

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "19/11/2014 - 19:17":

Was it not Salford who were the first ever Council to implement Selective Licensing?

If I recall, it ran for 5 or six years, achieved none of its objectives and was scrapped.

Perhaps they need to raise funds to save peoples jobs who would otherwise be made redundant due to cutbacks or something? Or perhaps that's just the cynic in me thinking out load 😉
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "19/11/2014 - 18:47":

Hi Mark,

What is the evidence that the supply of PRS property in Newham is reducing ?

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "20/11/2014 - 14:55":

Hearsay evidence and posts on this forum.

I don't have budgets or resources to commission auditable results but by keeping my ear to the ground I get a very good sense of the reality of what's going on.

No doubt, in years to come, some government funded quango will get funding to to the necessary research to prove or disprove what I am saying today. That will only happen though when things get so bad that public opinion leaves them with no choice other than to fund the necessary post-mortem.

In answer to your question therefore, it's just my considered opinion.
.

Hi Mark,

I think there is a very very wide gap between what people say on forums and what they actually do in real life.

Perhaps I am different to the norm but as property investor the idea of spending tens of thousands of pounds relocating my investments to avoid a regulatory scheme that costs me £1 a week is simply not rational. I just don't think that it is going to have an effect.

I do think that anyone who does bail on Newham or Southwark will have three investors prepared to buy in to the capital and rental returns in this area and that these are only likely to increase in the long term.

If the average weekly rent for a room is approaching £200 then the costs of licensing are simply marginal.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "20/11/2014 - 16:58":

The thing is John, a landlord simply might not HAVE a spare £1000 (x number of rental properties in borough) sitting in their bank account, that they can afford to pay out all at once for a scheme that isn't going to benefit them, and could even be detrimental to their interest and the interest of all decent landlords in the borough.

However, if that landlord sells, then replaces that property with another in a borough that is highly unlikely to consider licensing (in practice, a borough that is a conservative or liberal democrat stronghold), although he will be paying conveyancing costs and possibly moving costs or costs to find new tenants, these will be a one off, and mostly only payable on completion, therefore taken from the equity of the property sold, not directly from the landlord's available funds.

I appreciate this isn't a solution that everyone can follow, as they may not have much equity, property elsewhere could be more expensive than they can afford, capital gains tax could apply, etc. However, this won't apply to all landlords, and certainly, if a landlord is toying with the idea of selling for another reason, licensing could then be the deciding factor.

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.

John - so much of what you say is clearly made up and exaggerated that I am wondering if the purpose of this forum thread is just to wind up landlords and cause them to vent their frustrations and expend their energies on here, rather than challenging your pet Scheme in the Courts or in the media.

There is no evidence that 30% of Southwark tenants are unhappy (at least not in the PRS, maybe in your paymaster's social housing estates). There is evidence that circa 80% of PRS tenants are satisfied.

There is no evidence that a "staggering" number of flats and houses and being turned into bedsits. You just made that up and the word "staggering" is meaningless in this context anyway.

You say the cost will be minimal, but then you say that the cost will push up prices and attract more landlords to Southwark's PRS. This is contradictory.

You say the cost and burden will not have a measurable impact on reducing supply. This shows no knowledge of, or more likely a deliberate disregard of, basic economics. Marginal cost increases do alter supply and yes that is measurable.

You say that the PRS is casually linked to incidence of ABS, but never bother proving it (because you can't).

You then disregard the ABS issue to focus on "standards" and how to balance a market that is "rigged to the supply side". This shows that your Scheme as no empirically based rationale. You just want it and will use any number of made up claims and twisted statistics to justify it.

You claim your proposals are "balanced"!! Maybe you were just being humorous with that statement?

You dismiss all other options for improving housing without any consideration.

The bottom line is this proposed huge licensing scheme is wholly political. It is only about Southwark taking control over landlords and securing themselves revenue and jobs.

You are Southwark's paid propagandist. This consultation is bogus and rigged.