Was Nottingham CC Selective Licensing consultation really in favour?

21% was in Mick's comment.

If he did not believe it, then he should not have used it, or he should have countered it with appropriate argument.

By quoting it, it sounds like he agrees with it's accuracy.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 03/09/2018 - 19:11Not sure who u replying to there Michael if they've deleted their comment.
21%, I was referring to the council's own figures that they found faults in 21% of houses they inspected.
So I am being VERY generous and favourable to the council's own figures there.
So we can presume the % of bad Landlords is much lower. As one Landlord may have owned several houses.
And the faults may have been minor minor, but it looks good for the Council, as any fault goes in their little bad Landlords book.

My point is, if there is 21% bad Landlords, why charge the other majority 79% good Landlords with no faults no problems to get back at these minority 21%?

Some of our 79% good Landlords houses ain't gonna be as good now, cause we have spent our repairs funds to help the Council go after the bad ones.
Oh and the 21 % bad ones, some of them could have been tenants damage as they never get the blame for damage.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 04/09/2018 - 06:59I was replying to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 29/08/2018 - 04:11

Which was in reply to my comment that 1 in 5 'bad' landlords is a lot, if it is true.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 05/09/2018 - 01:01
The 21% figure could most generously be described as 'a guess'.
Put out in the hope people will seize on it and say;

"1 in 5 landlords are bad therefore selective licensing an entire city is justified."

Using the same methodology, every single rental property in the country should also be charged £780.
(no doubt the anti-all landlords brigade think that is a good idea too!)

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 24/08/2018 - 08:55
Larry, a heavily biased "consultation" is going on in Leeds. I am trying to organise some form of resistance (lonely pursuit I know, but we are getting landlords aboard). This involves the council advertising that THEY are going to improve homes. Though FOI shows they are not funding any home improvements, as to date, have no plans to make extra ASB/Flytipping funds available.

Any help or advice would be recieved with gratituade.

Reply to the comment left by Tnetik at 06/09/2018 - 10:31
Tnetik,

I would offer the following suggestions:
- Be calm and rational in your submissions; if something angers you, take time to calm down before making a submission. It is easy to dismiss a "the sky is falling" type response as being of little value.
- Analyse the information provided and make an objective assessment of its accuracy, appropriateness, and interpretation. Then provide a reasoned response along the lines of "whilst I agree with X, your conclusion of Y is incorrect because of Z", or "you appear not to have considered A, B and C".
- Don't whinge about how it will be bad for landlords/make their job harder: they don't care, but will probably think less of your overall submission.
- Take the opportunity to suggest ways the proposals could be changed to the benefit of landlords and tenants (should they go ahead). For example "payment of 5 years charges up front will eat into landlords reserves and result in one or both of rent increases for tenants and a suspension of maintenance activities (such as kitchen and bathroom upgrades, thermal insulation improvements) until reserves are restored. An annual payment plan would make it more likely that landlords can absorb the costs rather than pass them on to tenants" and "There is a need for good rental accommodation in Leeds. Decent landlords will be discouraged from providing new units (or taking over existing units from failing landlords) if they have to pay the 5-year rate for a licence even if there is a year or less of the scheme remaining. A pro-rata payment scheme should be provided to encourage good landlords into the city throughout the duration of the scheme".
- Get together with as many other landlords as you can to discuss the issues and come up with a coordinated plan for submissions: the more brains involved, the more holes you are likely to find and the more good ideas are likely to emerge. Then get everyone to put those ideas into the consultation in their own words: he more people suggesting something, the more likely it is that notice will be taken.
Try to get people on-board with the "reasoned argument" approach to submissions, but a few "rabid animals" may also be of benefit (and should help to keep on-board those who are less comfortable with being reasonable about the attack on their business.

Good luck.

Reply to the comment left by Tnetik at 06/09/2018 - 10:31
Having spent extensive time in two separate consultations I would highly recommend that you get residents (any tenure) rather than landlords to fill in the survey forms with objections.
You could out vote those that want it ten times over with landlords objections but the landlords objections will be swept aside. All other measures are secondary. It takes brave Councillors to go against residents wishes.