Licensing Consultation in Southwark

I am posting this here for further reference on this topic for interested parties:

http://www.landlords.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/victory-landlords-councils-powers-license-further-diluted-housing-minister

So I have just spent the afternoon at work reading through all the 20 pages.... Having 1 flat in Southwark I am confused now:

-> Does the comment from YL Newbury + recent publishing of final HMO licensing by the Southwark council mean that they received government approval for it?

If so, and the government has indeed passed this so easily (what clearly appears as a ridiculous idea) then why would they pass such a requirement in the first place, ie in April?

All in all, I have a job in the City + only 1 flat which I kept as an insurance policy against losing my job income, but I cannot risk £5k after tax annual profit over fire doors opening outwards, instead of inwards...

Reply to the comment left by "LondonProperty1 L" at "29/07/2015 - 17:02":

I might have been a little more precise... I noticed the new legislation relates to Selective Licensing. I assume the new Additional Licensing + Selective Licensing that affects only some areas of Southwark is probably within the regulation. Not sure if my interpretation is correct though.

Here is the link to the Southwark's final Additional HMO publication (2nd heading): http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200077/private_rented_housing/973/homes_of_multiple_occupancy

Yep they were going for a few streets only (they can impose borough wide at a later date mind you), the Regas v Enfield case has caused them and other councils some major problems/headaches so they mostly had to run off hide and lick their wounds. To be honest its not the £20k fine that should keep you awake its the criminal record you get with it, that would scupper your career (and most peoples). So are you prepared to run a risk to your entire wellbeing for what ? - most BTL are netting under £1000pa? Stark choice - either lease the house to the police fire nhs or a university (statutory bodies are exempt from licensing, see what they did there?) and take less money but get in return 100% security you wont ever get prosecuted,.... or run a major risk and stump up the fee..... or sell up the London flat and buy a rural property and rent that out - most rural areas won't ever be touched by selective licensing. Remember letting through an agent wont indemnify you either you'll still be on the hook only leasing to stat bodies covers you. Oh and dont forget they can change the conditions of the license anytime they like mid-term etc. The overseas investors in London havent got a clue what they've bought into if their investment is under SL, still the long trip from China or Russia to the Thames Magistrates Court will give them enough time to reflect on the glossy sales brochures Knight Frank Savils Hamptons et al had shown them all those years ago.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "30/07/2015 - 10:40":

Thanks Chris. I see you are mentioning the Regas case - but now they seemed to be smart enough to extend the consultation period and push through their scheme (scam?). So in this case Regas may not be able to be used as a precedent, and a new precedent would have to be created.

They also avoided the rules around Selective Licensing by largely including fewer streets.

Finally, I completely agree with you about the "criminal record". I think the fine is ok, but I cannot run a risk of seeing a letter "your doors open inwards and the kitchen one has no glass - you are running illegal HMO with no fire safety precautions". I mean, I lived myself in the property for a few years (and shared it also!) and I don't find it that it is any high risk (maybe I am biased). I just FEAR an incompetent bureaucrat who will come in and inform me that my room is 0.1sqm too small, my doors open the wrong way, even though inside the property will be 10x nicer than the one he lives in himself (as I lived there I did it up very nicely!).

the judgement was too tight imho but you can find Con Regas very easliy and ask him yourself - Southwark et al are sleepwalking their taxpayers into some huge liabilities.

Reply to the comment left by "chris wright" at "30/07/2015 - 11:29":

Quite frankly as far as I am concerned they can sleepwalk themselves into bankruptcy. It is none of my concern to be honest and I think people like John Daley should be indeed prosecuted for causing public distress. The function of bureaucrats like John has been more popular in the Soviet Union and former Communist countries (I know because I was raised there), where a public clerk felt s/he had all the powers, and the simple public had to just stay quiet, and simply shut up and listen.

Reading some of his comments simply doesn't add up and boils my blood. On one hand he is saying "the loss of accommodation will be minimal" and in the same message he is saying how "MANY private landlords have been illegally cutting the size of the rooms".

Guess what John? If those rooms are to be brought back to their original state then these MANY landlords, will not lead to a MINIMAL loss of additional accommodation. In fact, the loss will be more significant.

Of course, he doesn't care about it.

Anyway, rant over (sort of). Chris, I am determined to bring this licensing scheme to some public light (just because I hate such bureaucrats as John and I have some free time). Is there any organised campaign/group against this, is RLA doing anything about this in Southwark/Newham, or are the individual landlords really left on their own (along with the new budget, sic!)?

Reply to the comment left by "LondonProperty1 L" at "30/07/2015 - 11:43":

And just to add to my rant, I would be a bit more cautious in offering any respect to John for his presence on this forum. The only reason why he did that (based on the comments I have read) is to find about any legal loopholes he might have not given notice to in the first place, when he launched the consultation. He never intended to have a constructive discussion about the merits of the licensing scam (let's not call this scheme) itself.

Yes not surprised all right minded people should be very concerned with the attempts to introduce a criminal code by the back door, John was a part timer sent to preach "all is well you have nothing to fear" still he's pretty quiet now and Enfield are quietly trying to explain away the £500,000 they spent breaking the law to the local taxpayers (no-one resigned note!), if i was a lawyer i would be helping a hundred people in Newham to get their convictions overturned as they were made under a scheme the Regas judgement covers. As i recall the RLA et al were all a bit too much "hail fellow well met" with the various councils and as you've seen it doesn't work when the people you are sitting down with don't have your best interests at heart, there is a major effort in Croydon to kick it out now - i think the Southwark LL's are for the most part not in any structured opposition if they are they are very quiet about it - track down Con Regas he's aware of most of the fighting groups. his looseminute blog is a good place. Regards.

The Croydon landlord licensing scheme has been dubbed "TenanTax" on social media. However, everyone just thinks it's about the money, and once you've registered and paid that's it, end of.

IMHO, #ProtectionRacket would make a more accurate tag.

BTW the permission hearing to determine if Croydon Property Forum Ltd has valid grounds for a judicial review hearing is on Tuesday morning, 4 August at Royal Courts of Justice, with the actual hearing following on that same day if permission is granted.