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 John D on
-
We do not "invite " the immigrants to come here. They choose to come and we are obliged to let them in by virtue of our membership of the EU.
I would love to go and live in Monaco, but I can't afford the rents so I don't and I don't expect the Monagasque government to allow the character of their community to be destroyed to accommodate my circumstances.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
What I would really like to hear, is a left wing argument that refutes John's "I would love to go and live in Monaco, but..." straw man.
-
-
-
Immigration is not about "new blood" it is about keeping wages down. There is plenty of "new blood" in our economy and it's unemployed young people. Should we be doing a swap?
Do you think the private landlords filling the housing void are doing so with the welfare of their tenants in mind or the massive, massive profits they are making as rentiers?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
There are some fundamental problems with letting the market decide in the case of unregulated HMO developments.
Firstly, a growing population needs to be matched by a growing infrastructure. Planned development allows for this by matching new developments to provision; for instance, new schools, normally through a planning levy which goes into a pot for community or educational use.
Secondly, the motivation for some property owners in developing HMOs from existing housing stock is to maximise profit. This means the poorest provision you can get away with for the maximum rent you can charge. As these are usually way above those charged in social housing, subsidies in the form of housing benefit have to be paid. So the profit these types of landlords make comes from tax; that is from you and me.
The only sensible solution is well managed social and affordable housing development that recognises the need to invest in communities and is run with the aim of providing decent housing rather than a quick return on investment.
-
-
PS - as well as HMOs this should so read flats. Interesting development on my street a few years ago before Haringey clamped down. The planning application was for one bedroom with a 6 by 6 utility room. When it was marketed for rent it became a two bed (presumably the second bedroom was for a cat that did not wish to be swung)
-
-
-
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.
-
-
"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?
-
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.
-
-
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?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
