Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Tricky dealing as Kinleigh Folkard Hayward rides roughshod over community interest
The claims of estate agents Kinleigh Folkard Hayward to being upstanding corporate citizens and even community champions are ringing very hollow in Harringay today.
Despite the proud boast of Kinleigh Folkard Hayward to be "bringing your city to life", the tricky dealings by the London estate agents seem to suggest that community interest and community wellbeing are of little concern to them.
Back in July this year, Salisbury boss Dave, heard rumours that the office premises next to Tesco, on the corner of St Ann's Road and Salisbury Road (originally leased for a KFH office), was to be sublet by Kinleigh Folkard Hayward to a betting shop operator.
There's strong awareness in the neighbourhood that we have about as many betting shops as any high street could bear. So I was keen to find an alternative letting solution. I'd heard about a couple of London examples recently when the community had approached either a betting shop operator, or a landlord and persuaded them not to open a betting shop. Given the case to be made for Green Lanes having a surfeit of betting shops, I suggested to Rob Chau of Harringay Traders that an approach be made to KFH.
I felt that there must be a solution that would satisfy KFH's legitimate commercial requirements whilst also delivering on community interest.
Rob picked up the baton and passed things over to the GLA team involved on the Green Lanes regeneration project. As summer progressed and turned to Autumn, all seemed to be going well. GLA supported plans had been hatched to let the shop and use it as a community pop-up space for an interim period.
About a week ago Rob told me that negotiations had progressed well and that the arrangements for a community pop-up shop were about to be finalised. Then out of the blue yesterday, the Haringey Council licensing team received an application for a licence to operate the premises as a betting shop.
My first thought was that perhaps the betting shop operator had made a speculative application in the hope that they would come to terms with KFH. I haven't completely abandoned hope of this being the case. We don't know for sure that it's not. But, when I spoke to Rob Chau early this morning he told me, "It's 90% certain that KFH have decided to lease to the betting shop. You don't submit a licensing application unless you're certain you have a premises to licence". Then Councillor Nilgun Canver told me, "Kinleigh Folkard Hayward abandoned our proposals and the licensing application is being progressed".
It seems like bad news. It seems like KFH could reasonably face accusations not only of riding roughshod over community interest, but also of what might at best be described as a rather tricky approach to negotiating with a local community.
Rob Chau commented, "I'm very disappointed. No one from KFH has bothered to visit. They just don't care. This is only a commercial issue for them."
"They've been very two-faced. They put on a community face and got involved in drawn out discussions and negotiations; with the other face, they did a deal against community interest.
I asked Dave at the Salisbury what he thought of the way KFH had conducted themselves, "I think it's disgusting. It's really disgusting. We really don't need another betting shop. I'm not happy at all"
Those of you who caught my angry tweets last night might suspect that I'm keen to see if we can get together as a community to fight this. You'd be right! I respect KFH's right to make a commercial decision, but there must be a way, where between them, the GLA, the Council and the community we can come up with a solution where we're all winners.
If KFH truly have shut the door on negotiation, then there are a range of options open for fighting this. More over the next few days.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting, gambling, kfh, kinleigh folkard hayward
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Hugh, I don't welcome the disposal by KFH to the gambling outfit.
But my sense is still that focusing on KFH is a questionable use of time and effort.
I see KFH as merely the messenger here. And the message is that, thanks to the ultra-permissive legislation, the highest bidder for such a prime site was always likely to be a betting shop. It will happen again and elsewhere and it will go on happening until the law is fixed.
To illustrate, KFH could in theory sell to some benign operation at a price well below the market value. Let's assume it's a shop selling knitting wool. Presumably, you wouldn't raise any objection. But what happens if later on, the knitting wool shop then sells the lease to a betting operation? Would you then focus ire upon the wool shop?!
Alternatively, if it wasn't KFH who sold out to the gambling operator, it would have been some other firm who would sell to the gambling operator.
KFH may have misled or let you down in some way, but surely the key problem is not KFH acting commercially rationally, but rather, the Gambling Premises Licence Application by the 'betting' concern?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
No, of course KFH aren't the real problem, Clive. But this isn't an academic debate. I'm focussed on finding a real solution to a real problem now. Changing government policy won't cut it right here right now which is what we need, nor probably will licensing legislation. The only realistic option is to ask for KFH to help out and alongside them we, the traders and the Council need to play a big part too. I'm asking that we all pitch in together to find a solution.
-
-
I reckon the chances of KFH helping out are zero or close to zero; I do wish you luck with this approach and I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
I will try to help out the Objectors who are forming up to oppose this Application formally, at a Hearing, and try to achieve realistic concessions in practical ways about the operation of yet another, deeply unwelcome, anti-social betting shop.
-
-
Clive, don't mistake me. I fully appreciate the challenges of the difficult route. However for those of us who live in the area it is a critically important issue. Previous experience tell us what any concessions from the licensing committee might look like. It's already a well trodden path. We know we'll get a good hearing and we know the arguments that will be available for both sides and the limited remedies available. We can make it a little bit better, but the truth is that the difference will be relatively insignificant.
I guess if most people echo your sentiments, then the chances of altering the outcome move from slim to nothing.
-
-
My sense is that it's not about echoing sentiments.
Please correct me if I'm wrong Hugh, but you're asking KFH, in effect, to act against their keen, rational financial interest. (Even now, I hope they would and that would be the best community outcome).
And you're also encouraging others to act in a way that might not necessarily be in their best financial interest (NB others here have praised KFH's ability as estate agents).
How long would any boycott need to last? I'm prepared to withhold all my business from KFH - but then, like most, I have no business for an estate agent anyway.
Even if a boycott were desirable, I don''t think it would be practical, as so few people would know about it, let alone be prepared to go along with it.
Those wanting to buy in the area (and probably not living here already), are less likely to know of this important local issue, and those wanting to sell in the area (and presumably leaving) and who may know of the issue, will not be affected by it. I think KFH would laugh at the idea of a boycott, knowing its unsustainable even if it were workable.
The unreformed Gambling Act (2005) ensures that betting shops will always be able to pay top dollar for premises. It is a pity that this piece of legislation leads each of us to try to out-bid the other, on the extent of futility of the other's approach to opposing yet another betting shop.
I do see value in publicsing this scourge, this latest oil-spill in the community - and I note that there've been more than 3,000 views of this thread you've begun.
-
-
No Clive, I'm not asking anyone to act in any way against anyone's interests. That's precisely the point. Earlier in the thread I referred to the work of Professor Michael Porter. Under a body of work called "Shared Value', originally published in the Harvard Business Review, he shows how by working alongside the community commercial organisations and the community can create additional value for all. In other words working with the community is good business.
Implied in that approach is shared investment. I'm not expecting KFH to act alone. In fact at the Green Lanes Strategy Group last night I made an impassioned plea for residents, traders and the Council to work with KFH and Paul Simon to find a solution. If we all contribute what we can, we may find a solution that will work to all our benefit. Whether those please will do anything other than fall on deaf ears all round is beyond my control, but I can at least try.
And, for the record, I've specifically not called for nor recommended a boycott of KFH. That wouldn't help anyone.
-
-
Hugh, my understanding is that KFH are, in a recession, hemorrhaging money over the premises they do not occupy for whatever reason, and it is in their unsentimental financial interests to sell ASAP.
I take your implied point that yet another betting shop may have a depressing effect on property values in the area. But given that the business of estate agents has always been short-term and commission-driven, is it realistic to expect them to appreciate the long-run interests of the community?
We are given to understand that the licensing department has knocked back the application because Tipico haven't (yet) demonstrated they have the right to occupy.*
Do you know at what point the sale has reached? It sounds like the Tipico newbies have jumped the gun.
---
* incidentally, the same thing happened in connection over Firoka's gambling premises licence at Alexandra Palace. The council bent over backwards to accommodate their then preferred partner. They even re-submitted the Application to themselves (!?), in the name of the council-controlled company, APTL.
-
-
Read the Michael Porter piece, Clive. I'm noy pointing up the sort of transactional relationship that you seem to think I'm implying.
-
-
Permalink Reply by 1p2elqvr6fe2z on
-
"But given that the business of estate agents has always been short-term and commission-driven, is it realistic to expect them to appreciate the long-run interests of the community?'"
Clive,
May I reply to the statement you made above.
KFH earn revenues via their sales and via their lettings. Sales offer them one off fees in commissions, but lettings offer them ongoing fees for the term of the rental period. This period could be 6 months but more likely to be over year and onwards. Currently the lettings market is strong as we all know, and competitive, many agents out there.
The agency team that deal with lettings build a long term relationship with landlords and their tenants, and it has to endure for the term of the tenancy and beyond when places are up to relet. This cycle means that you have a trust and an enduring relationship, which is why one chose that agent to deal with, and why one would not choose to say go to agents who are hard nosed developers or have a bad reputation.
Lettings are the bread and butter of the agency industry and it should not be forgotten that this relies on good reputation and standing in the community.
Some HoL members may be subletting and have an array of choice of who to work with in Haringey,
Best wishes
Lynne -
-
-
Also, keep in mind that KFH used to have offices on Green Lanes (next to Paul Simon's) a couple of years ago but ended up closing them down due to slow business, so it doesn't have any tie to the area and therefore does not feel the need to care for local residents' feelings about who they rent commercial space to...
-
-
I think that was Keatons, wasn't it, Chris? As far as their relationship with their customer base is concerned , unfortunately for the them, you cant segment customers by geography. We have a habit of moving! They're also doing a pretty good trade selling Harringay properties to overstretched Crouch End wannabes right now. So Harringay as a selling market and as a customer pool is important to them. Like it or not, they have a relationship with the community.
-
-
-
Having been knocked back by the council licensing department on a procedural point, it seems likely that Tipico will now be pressing hard to be able to show they have the legal right to occupy.
The commercial transaction may be finalised within days if it hasn't already.
If community-led action is being sought, its seems a bit late now; its conceivable (but unlikely) that it might have had an affect many weeks ago, if the community had been aware of the possibility of sale to a betting shop.
The community has long-run interests, such as stability, continuity and remaining put for many years and perhaps raising a family. KFH have a relationship, but its with individual customers rather than with the community as a whole. IMO, I don't think they should be confused with a charity.
Sadly, I think the community can expect more betting shops until the law is changed.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
