The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is making requests under the Freedom of Information Act to discover exactly how much Liverpool council intends to spend to implement its hugely-controversial landlord licensing scheme.
The Liverpool saga is being seen by some in the industry as a possible test-case in opposing future local authority licensing proposals.
The association has written a detailed 16-page response to Liverpool council’s proposals. The letter lists a number of objections to the authority’s plan for a £500 five yearly landlord licensing scheme, applied across the city.
The response makes the general points that landlord licensing as used by councils in general has rapidly earned a reputation of being expensive and bureaucratic, is a method of revenue-raising to pay for otherwise cash-strapped services, and is “being used by the back door to regulate the PRS for the sake of exercising control.”
More specifically, the RLA says Liverpool’s proposals are contrary to the EU’s European Services Directive, are likely to be ineffective at controlling anti-social behaviour - one of the council’s justifications for the initiative - and unfairly applies to private landlords who have been denied funding opportunities such as ‘Decent Homes‘ funding open to some social landlords.
Critically, the association says it believes the proposal is not transparent in making its case for introducing city-wide licensing.
The letter, from RLA policy adviser Natalie Williamson, concludes with two Freedom of Information requests:
1. In view of the lack of information on proposed budget for the proposed licensing schemes, and the concerns outlined in paragraph 1, I would be very grateful if you could provide me with a full breakdown of the proposed budget for the scheme under the auspices of Freedom of Information protocol.
2. I would be very grateful for the number of landlords prosecuted by Liverpool City Council, and the reasons for their prosecutions, for the last five municipal years; namely: 2012/13 ; ii. 2011/12; iii. 2010/11; iv. 2009/10; v. 2008/09.
Comments