Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Landlord set to lose rents from illegal conversions
Rogue landlords continue to blight the Harringay Ladder - Haringey Council have managed to bring one to book.
A rogue landlord faces fines and having his rents confiscated after losing his appeal against conviction for two illegal house conversions.
Cllr Nilgun Canver, Cabinet Member for the Environment, said:
"Hopefully we will now see justice done. The extra rent accrued while people were living in illegally converted flats may now be confiscated. I hope this is a lesson to all landlords who try to take shortcuts or hope to dodge planning laws."
[name removed] of Southgate converted properties on Hewitt Road and Burgoyne Road N4, to four and five self-contained flats. He had no planning permission for the conversions. Consequently council planning enforcement officers issued enforcement notices requiring him to return the properties to single dwellings.
He was first prosecuted and convicted in 2010 when he failed to comply with the enforcement notice. A further prosecution in 2011 resulted in a second conviction.
Subsequent planning inspection visits found no changes to the properties and he was prosecuted and convicted for a third time in January this year. He unsuccessfully appealed the conviction at Wood Green Crown Court on March 11, arguing he had done all he could to comply with the enforcement notices. The judge dismissed this as 'far too little too late'.
Haringey Council requested that the matter be referred for confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act as so much time had lapsed since the enforcement notices were first in breach. He stands to potentially lose all of the calculated benefits from renting these properties as flats in breach of the enforcement notice and may be fined and asked to pay costs incurred by the council.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
No one is arguing for unregulated housing, I'm certainly not, simply making the case that housing needs to be made now, if the government is so inept it can't build it, the people will simply do it themselves and that's exactly what is happening and having a council that's building relatively nothing but stopping local innovation to deal with the situation is ... futile and counter productive.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
But you are arguing the case for unregulated housing. If it's kept to the market we will get exactly what John says. My aunt Nancy lived in one of those free market tenements in Edinburgh and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Five flats sharing one toilet, bath and kitchen. Each so called flat with up to 6 people living in them.
I wonder why you think this is innovation. Packing people into sub standard homes has a centuries old tradition.
-
-
You can't regulate a market you have made illegal. By making something illegal you have ended your ability to regulate it and handed over that responsibility to the black market.
The best outcome is always, in my opinion, liberal laws that regulate behaviour to limit risks and maximise outcome for all.
Sometimes when the state uses it's clunking fist to ban something, the best outcome in that situation is for the black market to thrive, as it always does. In this situation, more housing for all is clearly the best outcome and in that respect I wish the black market the best.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
"The best outcome is always, in my opinion, liberal laws that regulate behaviour to limit risks and maximise outcome for all." - not when it comes to a scarce resource like "room to lie down in London".
At Woodberry Down they are demolishing the estate, that was previously home to 2400 households, and replacing it with upwards of 4800. This kind of thing would be impossible with privately held land. In fact the exact same thing is happening up near Turnpike Lane according to the 2011 census but would you want to live in one of those hutches?
Rentiers are not businessmen and entrepreneurs. The practice needs to be discouraged.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
FPR, do you not see any problem with the rather sweeping way you've laid out your ideas?
"You can't regulate a market you have made illegal. By making something illegal you have ended your ability to regulate it and handed over that responsibility to the black market."
So end the legal restrictions on the sale of guns?
-
-
We are one of the key international arms suppliers to the world. We already have a regulated arms Industry. We supply guns all over the world.
Some things that are ridiculously dangerous in the hands of sick minds should however be only kept in the possession of pooled sovereignty organisations.....
Flats in green lanes are not however one of them.
-
Permalink Reply by markb on
-
Not quite a fair example - Alan. First, the gun-market in the UK is tightly regulated. Licensed gun use exists. Gun deaths are relatively low in the UK, so the regulation seems to be working. Second, it's a small market. The appeal/utility of a gun is quite limited for most people.
There's a better analogy in the recreational drug market. A strong appeal exists and for some as vital as housing (addicts) but there's a blanket ban. Because of that, users subject themselves to far greater health risks than needed because of poor quality drugs or trying legal high analogues (poorly understood 'novel' drugs with potentially dangerous side-effects). The more desperate a user is, the worse it gets. Same thing with housing - the whole 'sheds with beds' thing.
Regulating the quality, availability and sales channels just like you do with alcohol & cigarettes shapes the market into something much less problematic and takes money away from criminals. Availability is key - restrict access too much to what is desirable and you create a black market.
Housing is a much bigger market - everyone needs it. Good regulation and enforcement is crucial. Both are lacking and it's a hard problem because there's a cost/quality trade-off, along with an enforcement-at-scale problem Housing-benefits along with a housing shortage complicate the game even more. Shortages drive profits up and housing benefit puts money in a market where there wouldn't be any otherwise. Government-led housing construction of quality housing in in-demand areas is the only way out of this dysfunctional market-hole.
The odds are not good.
-
-
Great post, totally agree.
-
-
Housing is a scarce resource. Made more so by our failure to build more. Leaving it to the market gives you exactly what we have now: insufficient housing and increasing land values.
The government need to build and a lot. The place they need to build is London's Green Belt.
-
-
-
I think that are somethings that are so basic to human life that the market should not be given the upper hand in deciding how best they are provided. Food, water, warmth, health and shelter. See what a fantastic job the market has done on these counts!
But that's idealism I suppose. For poorer people these five things take up most if not all of their money so a least the providers of these essential resources should be regulated?
-
-
We'll know when our 'elected representatives' have managed to build enough homes, because landlords will stop dividing big houses into flats. Until them, the practice will continue and the only people to blame are the politicians for packing too many people in to the UK with not enough housing to house everyone.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
