Government / Council consultation questionnaire impartiality

Government / Council consultation questionnaire impartiality

Author
Discussion

13m

Original Poster:

26,280 posts

222 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all

Our local authority is consulting with the public regarding a proposed licensing scheme for all rented property in the city.

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/housing/private-s...

They did something similar with another scheme a while ago and decided to run with the scheme despite not having widespread support.

I must confess that I am cynical about the impartiality of these things. The Council stands to make a lot of money from this scheme and it is their stated intention to bring it in.

Does anyone know what checks and balances are in place to prevent fiddling of the outcome of online response questionnaires such as this? The Council can obviously spin the outcome to meet their requirement afterwards, but I am ineterested in how reliable the data resulting from the survey might be.

Anyone any knowledge?




MartG

20,677 posts

204 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
FOI request for a copy of the raw results ?

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Licensing will achieve nothing other than pushing up rents & generating revenue for the council.

Revenue generation & guarantee of pointless non-jobs will ensure that the consultation will find overwhelmingly as the council wishes.

Cynical, moi?

markcoznottz

7,155 posts

224 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Blatant tax grab, nothing more. Not very dignified is it watching these councils scratching round for money, and very damaging long term. This might be a template of what's to come, Whitehall saying gtfo that's all we've got, then the council going for the soft targets. Socialist command economy run by unreformed marxists.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Combined with benefit caps it's having the effect of LLs selling up & the tenants being housed by councils in hostels, etc., costing more than the licensing generates.

Unintended consequences................

MartG

20,677 posts

204 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Combined with benefit caps it's having the effect of LLs selling up & the tenants being housed by councils in hostels, etc., costing more than the licensing generates.

Unintended consequences................
Politicians never seem to be able to think things through completely frown Ones around here are stunned at the rise in fly tipping, shortly after they made it much more difficult and expensive to use the council 'recycling centre' rolleyes

Ian Geary

4,487 posts

192 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Technically, charges can only recover costs. But by charging for a service, the drag on council tax is reduced.

The council I work for has introduced such a licencing scheme, which covers a 5 year period. But our members were elected on a manifesto to improve the 'lot' for the low paid worker, who typically rent.

I don't think many believe the private rental market works perfectly, and whilst I'm sure none of the landlords on here do so, there is a surprising amount of bad practice that goes on, the victims of which don't usually have a knowledgeable car forum to turn to for advice.

However, to answer the op, the ultimate challenge would be a judicial review, but that would need funds to launch, and it wasn't successful in stopping the scheme where I work.

I would tend to agree that a lot of consultations are really just a mechanism for people to 'get used' to the outcome, though sometimes we do get genuine input that improves the solution

If it makes you feel better, the DCLG and DfE regularly do this to councils in their consultations about funding.

13m

Original Poster:

26,280 posts

222 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Ian Geary said:
Technically, charges can only recover costs. But by charging for a service, the drag on council tax is reduced.

The council I work for has introduced such a licencing scheme, which covers a 5 year period. But our members were elected on a manifesto to improve the 'lot' for the low paid worker, who typically rent.

I don't think many believe the private rental market works perfectly, and whilst I'm sure none of the landlords on here do so, there is a surprising amount of bad practice that goes on, the victims of which don't usually have a knowledgeable car forum to turn to for advice.

However, to answer the op, the ultimate challenge would be a judicial review, but that would need funds to launch, and it wasn't successful in stopping the scheme where I work.

I would tend to agree that a lot of consultations are really just a mechanism for people to 'get used' to the outcome, though sometimes we do get genuine input that improves the solution

If it makes you feel better, the DCLG and DfE regularly do this to councils in their consultations about funding.
Interesting to hear the view of an "insider" Ian.

To state my credentials, I have been a landlord for 25 years, a letting agent, a developer and currently run a couple of property companies that will probably not be affected by the licensing. I have being doing the above in Nottingham for about 15 years.

It is true that there are some poor properties for rent in Nottingham, and some dodgy landlords. But they aren't the norm. They could easily be managed by diligent responsive management - a hotline for problems to be reported and swift, decisive action. It does not require the licensing of 26250 properties.

I have seen, bought and developed properties licensed by Nottingham City Council under mandatory and additional licensing that don't even have 1/2 hour fire protection between floors. The council has taken the fee, issued a licence but clearly never set foot in them.

Nottingham City Council does not like private sector landlords and makes little secret of it. When I have had to deal with them as a landlord, their Environmental Health inspectors have been little short of contemptuous. They have sought to impose measures far in excess of those applied to their own properties, largely because they want to flex their muscle and stick it to the private sector.

I was one of the first landlords to own a licensed HMO in Nottingham. From the date that it was inspected it took the council two years to write to me issuing a licence. This is fairly typical, I gather. The cheque was cashed within a week of the application being submitted, natch.

Licensing will encompass every single rented property, even those just built to current building regs. It will also apply to top end homes costing millions which have every last refinement and whose tenants are most unlikely to be guilty of ASB.

I would also point out that the Council does very little by way of enforcing management standards. The poor quality landlords know this and understand that their licence fee is just a tax paid in order to operate in the city. Once they have a licence they don't get interfered with much.

It should also be borne in mind that Nottingham City's own housing stock is some of the worst in the country and has suffered years of neglect. Plenty of keeping one's own house in order to be done there.

So, it appears to me that it is a local taxation scheme, rather than a genuine attempt at managing housing standards.