Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "15/10/2014 - 17:12":

Hi Monty,

Regrettably there is no power that we can assume to link a fit and proper person letting to restricting LHA/HB claims. The only power is licensing.

The LHA claimant is free to let anything they choose, the amount of benefit recieved is limited and in Southwark that means that claimants will tend to live in property at the bottom of the rental market.

Our evidence shows that the incidence of property related ASB and the density of low rent letting ( by LHA claim ) is linked. Where low rent PRS are in the majority of local tenure we also get far higher incidence of noisy neighbours, rowdy behaviour inside properties, police calls and environmental crime. I think that is proof of the link.

We have not really weighted begging for example, which is allowed as ASB under the act, because we don't believe that begging in Cathedrals ward is related to PRS management.

Whilst it is an amusing idea I don't think any rational observer could link ASB to trees because trees don't have noisy parties, assault or steal from other residents or leave their old mattresses in the front garden when they move out.

Hello John,

"The only power is licensing."

Ah right, I understand it from your position.

Seems a bit unfair though to blanket tax all landlords/tenants for the behaviour of (some) benefits tenants- although I'm far from convinced there is any clear link. As I said before, it could equally be income, education or a host of other social factors.

It is a pretty radical thing to claim.

However, at least it has been looked into, unlike the emotional, kneejerk case put up by Newham.

The split cost of £60 pa per bedroom is reasonable too- although I'm sure that will rise exponentially when it comes to review.

If it has to come in, which seems politically inevitable one way or another, then I'm pleased it's coming from someone with the guts to openly debate it.

Good luck.

The stats Southwark have provided offer nothing more than a hint of a connection - lets see the full data sets handed to experts in statistical analysis and reported on fully before holding them up as the smoking gun.

Hello John, many thanks for you response. My query on the ex-local authority flat was linked to my concern over the room sizes. I believe one of our flats has bedrooms in it that are under 8 square metres (but over 7), which is the minimum shown in the draft HMO standards for a bedroom that also has a communal lounge. However it is plenty large enough with room for a single bed, wardrobe, table and seat and overhead cupboards for more storage - in our 3-bed flat this is the most popular room when the joint tenants are choosing their room! Will the HMO standards mean that this room would no longer qualify as a bedroom? If so, a bedroom that was built by Southwark Council to house its tenants with 3 distinct bedrooms no longer becomes able to be let as 3 bedrooms, yet if we rent the flat back to the Council you will certainly use it as 3 bedrooms. Renting it privately with only 2 bedrooms then means that we would be vulnerable to sub-letting! I hope you understand our concerns and can answer this query as we are very concerned about it.

Reply to the comment left by "Yvette Newbury " at "15/10/2014 - 20:40":

Additionally we wanted to know:

Will any allowance be given to NLA accredited/London Rental Standard approved landlords?

Will smaller HMOs also have to pay all utility bills, council tax for the property, like the larger ones?

Is it compulsory to have a bath - surely in this day and age a shower cubicle is a good replacement?

We appreciate your help on this.

Reply to the comment left by "Yvette Newbury " at "15/10/2014 - 20:40":

good point Yvette - if its of any comfort you're not the only one, i spoke with an additional HMO Landlady in Haringey her rooms are also like yours under the size limit for the scheme, she is selling up her portfolio as she got only a verbal "we wont enforce that" from her local officer - clearly she cant take the risk and any variation to the condition is needed in writing if she is to be indemnified - she recognised the clear danger he'll move on and another council person will have a different view and enforce at some point in the next few years, as the resultant criminal record destroys her employment in the city where she works in financial law it's a no brainer.

Reply to the comment left by "Yvette Newbury " at "15/10/2014 - 20:47":

Great example here Yvette - the licensing manager in Southwark said

"I THINK an inspector would accept the FRA written by the contractor"

Well if that is the case then why is it not written into the conditions in clear and unambigious language - no, instead its being left to your interpretation which you and Victoria are struggling with.

This kind of statement is intended by Southwark to be a vaguely reassuring i.e. that you're not likely to face criminal prosecution for failure to meet the written fire conditions if you interpretate them differently from they way they've written them and you seem like a nice person you're not the rogue landlords we're going for - so relax sign up and get behind the scheme etc -

I can tell you from speaking with experienced prosecutors and following up on cases in the public domain it won't wash in court - you'll be the one in the dock, any dispute with any contractor over what they did or didn't do because of your various interpretations (no matter how they were conceived) is a civil dispute and any thought you can place reliance on third party commentary as a defence to your license breach simply won't work in criminal cases - you've heard the phrase ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law?

I'd be inclined to follow the conditions to the letter and not to accept any verbal or local officer concessions - even emails confirmining are dodgy ground - get the best licensing legal opinion you can afford on how to follow the conditions and don't deviate from them no matter what reassurances you get.

Regards.

it's not all roll over - you could choose to fight the scheme introduction if you can find grounds to do so, note any judicial review needs to be lodged within 90 days of the council approval - if i was you i'd start by asking for the full data sets they're relying upon as evidence of ASB in the PRS - however if Southwark are like every other council in this regard then they'll block your request to see this data on one FOI ground or another and use up your 90 day time limit for JR, they'll know you won't have enough time to refer to the ICO and get it released - anyway just remember it's nothing personal it's just the way business is conducted when one side is more powerful than the other.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "15/10/2014 - 19:00":

Hi Monty,

We have carefully worked trough the likely cost, I think the per bedroom rate is far better than set charges per property.

On a whim I rang HMRC today and it appears that Licensing fees are allowable expenses. That seems sensible as a business expense though I can't see any specific reference to licensing fees on the HMRC site, perhaps one of our accountant readers might offer advice

the licensing fees are allowable expenses but the fines aren't.