Liverpool Licensing and the Surveillance Comissioner

I agree with Mark.
MP has summed it up superbly .Thank you for for explaining it to our readers.
To Tony. There is no requirement for a reference in Primary legislation. The legislation states that a reference must be demanded. It does not say obtained. This is the crucial point.
Returning to the brilliant synopsis by MP, there is another point. The authority state that applicants must attend meetings with the Police ,Council when requested.
The applicant has complied when he/she attends. By attending one has complied and one can sit in silence and play candy crush on the phone, such is the stupidity of the conditions drafted by this rubbish Local authority. What is the view of the Co Regulators.?

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "11/09/2016 - 17:22":

But the primary legislation does say (I paraphrase) that the Authority may add other requirements.
They have chosen to add the requirement that references be obtained,

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "11/09/2016 - 21:54":

Hi.

Assuming your refering to Liverpool, where do they require we "obtain".

Regards

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "11/09/2016 - 21:54":

Demand is a firm request, obtain is to become in possession of.

In my previous incarnation many moons ago I had much amusement with the use of May or Will in bond derivative contracts.

The difference between demand and obtain is less subtle.

Am not suggesting people refuse to follow the process on this question. All I request is clarity from the Authority. I want to know what business practise we need to adopt.

I don't wish to be prosecuted because I demand a reference from a foreign masters student who has just landed at John Lennon airport but as a result of living at home with his parents in Rome can't produce one. What happens when said Italian hosts noisy pizza parties in his back yard in Aigburth.

To be safe do we have to adopt a blanket policy of not renting to said groups.

Now do we forbid access to foreign students or any migrant on the basis none of us can provide accommodation.

Equally what about first time renters, those just leaving home, those moving from an owner occupier home to a rental in another part of the country.

Are those that have a negative reference to be permanently refused accommodation in Liverpool.

And anyway what's the point of it. What are they going to do with a reference. Is it a breach if we rent to someone with a negative reference.

Equally I want to know how broad is "references".

Asking these questions is due diligence if this your business.

Reply to the comment left by "M P" at "12/09/2016 - 07:32":

I was replying to Larry Sweeney's post where he wrote " There is no requirement for a reference in Primary legislation. The legislation states that a reference must be demanded. It does not say obtained. This is the crucial point.".
I assumed that he was correct in his assertion that a reference must be obtained, but I have not verified this.

Michael,
For the avoidance of doubt, I never said that a reference must be obtained. A landlord has complied with the HA when he DEMANDS a reference. It is up to the landlord to decide if he/she wishes to proceed, if no reference is forthcoming.
To Liverpool landlords please note I have had written clarification from the Council on this point. Once a reference has been demanded ,one has complied with the law.
To Landlords in Croydon, Durham etc , the Local Authorities have overstepped the mark by attempting to subvert the legislation. To adhere to their conditions one would have to refuse the following groups. Students leaving home, Immigrants (be prepared for discrimination suits) Careers who never had outside accommodation, ex offenders just released from prison, Those evicted from their homes because of repossessions etc. Once again this proves my point, that these schemes are ill thought out revenue raising scams to keep Council Honchos in jobs and further burden the PRS.

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "12/09/2016 - 11:55":

I was a little lax in my wording. I should have written "I assumed that he was correct in his assertion that the licence requires that a reference must be obtained"

Otherwise, you are just plain wrong.
There is no requirement in the Act for landlords to demand references.
There is a requirement for the terms of a licence to include a requirement that a landlord demands references.
The Act allows additional terms to be added to licences. Durham et al have chosen to add the requirement to obtain references (but they have failed to require acceptable references, which is a little strange, but perhaps they could not define 'acceptable').

I do not see why, for example, you would have to refuse, e.g., students and immigrants. If you are referring to the Durham 5-year housing history, then everyone has such a history, even if it is 'living with mum and dad', 'living in Bhutan' or 'living on the streets'.
Once again, there is no requirement in the licence for the 5-year housing history to be 'acceptable'.

As an aside, I did note that in the Durham case, the LA representative referred to 'acceptable' references which appears to be wrong under the terms of the licence.

There is a requirement in the Act (Schedule 4) that landlords "demand" references. If the tenant refuses or fails to supply one, would the landlord be acting responsibly in granting the tenancy without some very good reason?

Reply to the comment left by "Tony McVey" at "12/09/2016 - 12:59":

1. The requirement in the Act is for the Licence to include "Conditions requiring the licence holder to supply to the occupiers of the house a written statement of the terms on which they occupy it.", not a requirement for Landlords to demand references. A subtle but important difference.

2. Were does the requirement for a Landlord to 'act responsibly' come from?

Personally, 'no references' = 'no tenancy', but if one were to be happy to 'send the boys round', then why bother with references?

Not according to Schedule 4 of the Act