| Oh dear not you as well Rachel 00:02 - Oct 30 with 5103 views | onceablue |
Another scandal involving this Labour government
|  | | |  |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 14:25 - Oct 30 with 1087 views | Herbivore |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 14:23 - Oct 30 by DJR |
According to this from the link, criminal prosecution is possible (although clearly unlikely in this case).
"If you rent out your property without a licence, the council can issue a civil penalty of £30,000, or prosecution. At worst, penalties could include an unlimited fine, court costs and a criminal record – creating a history that makes it hard to obtain a licence in future."
https://garrettwhitelock.co.uk/landlords/southwark-selective-licensing/ [Post edited 30 Oct 14:26]
|
Interesting. I wonder what the criminal charge would be? Fraud maybe? I think that would have to be at the more extreme end where you can prove intent. A fine seems a more likely outcome. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 14:31 - Oct 30 with 1052 views | Herbivore |
Isn't that all landlords? | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 14:39 - Oct 30 with 1043 views | Ryorry |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 07:51 - Oct 30 by BloomBlue |
I think she'll be ok. It seems she did actually ask an expert, in this situation an Estate Agent (yes I know a money grabbing EA), and they provided the wrong device.
Rayner didn't ask an expert (the person she asked actually told her she couldn't offer tax advice) with the aim of deliberately avoiding tax, so she had to go. |
It's ultimately a landlord's responsibility, even if they have an agent managing the tenancy, to ensure that everything's done correctly.
The buck stops with them, so she should have checked (but she's the Chancellor in the run-up to the budget, there aren't 25 hours in the day, and it's more a "Chancellor hasn't got time to deal with all of the 1,000 things in her life requiring her attention") than a scandal. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:18 - Oct 30 with 963 views | DJR |
Interesting development.
No 10 has revealed that inquiries into Rachel Reeves’s rental licence error – which in effect wrapped up within hours last night – have been reopened.
At the afternoon lobby briefing, the No 10 spokesperson issued this statement.
"Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband [Nick Joicey], new information has come to light. This has now been passed to the prime minister and his independent adviser. It would be inappropriate to comment further."
The initial reaction at lobby was that this could be career-ending for Reeves, particularly because initally the spokesperson declined to say that the PM has confidence in the chancellor. But the spokesperson swiftly corrected the impression he had given, and said that the PM does have “full confidence” in the chancellor..
Downing Street is expected to publish these emails later today.
The spokesperson would not elaborate on what the emails show, or what they imply for the chancellor’s career, but he repeated the point about the PM having full confidence in her. [Post edited 30 Oct 16:19]
|  | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:24 - Oct 30 with 955 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:18 - Oct 30 by DJR |
Interesting development.
No 10 has revealed that inquiries into Rachel Reeves’s rental licence error – which in effect wrapped up within hours last night – have been reopened.
At the afternoon lobby briefing, the No 10 spokesperson issued this statement.
"Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband [Nick Joicey], new information has come to light. This has now been passed to the prime minister and his independent adviser. It would be inappropriate to comment further."
The initial reaction at lobby was that this could be career-ending for Reeves, particularly because initally the spokesperson declined to say that the PM has confidence in the chancellor. But the spokesperson swiftly corrected the impression he had given, and said that the PM does have “full confidence” in the chancellor..
Downing Street is expected to publish these emails later today.
The spokesperson would not elaborate on what the emails show, or what they imply for the chancellor’s career, but he repeated the point about the PM having full confidence in her. [Post edited 30 Oct 16:19]
|
lol, arse and elbow syndrome again. They’re really not helping themselves. This’ll will end up hitting public finances and hurting us if she ends up going (remember the market response when she was struggling in the HoC?). Not that she shouldn’t go if she’s found in breach of the law/serious breach of ministerial code that justifies a sacking. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:30 - Oct 30 with 942 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:24 - Oct 30 by Swansea_Blue |
lol, arse and elbow syndrome again. They’re really not helping themselves. This’ll will end up hitting public finances and hurting us if she ends up going (remember the market response when she was struggling in the HoC?). Not that she shouldn’t go if she’s found in breach of the law/serious breach of ministerial code that justifies a sacking. |
It makes me think that they have spent all their time in recent years trying to remake the Labour Party in their own image but didn't find the time to think about personal responsibility and what to do in government. [Post edited 30 Oct 16:32]
| | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:51 - Oct 30 with 906 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:18 - Oct 30 by DJR |
Interesting development.
No 10 has revealed that inquiries into Rachel Reeves’s rental licence error – which in effect wrapped up within hours last night – have been reopened.
At the afternoon lobby briefing, the No 10 spokesperson issued this statement.
"Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband [Nick Joicey], new information has come to light. This has now been passed to the prime minister and his independent adviser. It would be inappropriate to comment further."
The initial reaction at lobby was that this could be career-ending for Reeves, particularly because initally the spokesperson declined to say that the PM has confidence in the chancellor. But the spokesperson swiftly corrected the impression he had given, and said that the PM does have “full confidence” in the chancellor..
Downing Street is expected to publish these emails later today.
The spokesperson would not elaborate on what the emails show, or what they imply for the chancellor’s career, but he repeated the point about the PM having full confidence in her. [Post edited 30 Oct 16:19]
|
This follow up from Peter Walker in the Guardian suggest things may not be too bad.
"Emails will be out later - between lettings agent and Reeves’ husband. The guidance is that this will be good news for Reeves’ case." [Post edited 30 Oct 16:51]
| | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:24 - Oct 30 with 861 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 16:51 - Oct 30 by DJR |
This follow up from Peter Walker in the Guardian suggest things may not be too bad.
"Emails will be out later - between lettings agent and Reeves’ husband. The guidance is that this will be good news for Reeves’ case." [Post edited 30 Oct 16:51]
|
It's literally going to turn out that they explicitly asked if they needed a licence and the estate agents said no, isn't it.
Not really a surprise given almost all estate agents are terrible. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:39 - Oct 30 with 814 views | JammyDodgerrr |
The letting agent has admitted blame and said their clients would've thought they had the licence already. A total non-story, obviously.
From The Guardian:
Letting agency used by Reeves apologises, saying it's to blame for rental licence error
The lettings agency involved in Rachel Reeves’ rental arrangements said it had apologised to her for an “oversight” that led to a failure to obtain a licence.
Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey Wheeler, said:
We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.
At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.
Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.
We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. [Post edited 30 Oct 17:40]
| |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:43 - Oct 30 with 790 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:39 - Oct 30 by JammyDodgerrr |
The letting agent has admitted blame and said their clients would've thought they had the licence already. A total non-story, obviously.
From The Guardian:
Letting agency used by Reeves apologises, saying it's to blame for rental licence error
The lettings agency involved in Rachel Reeves’ rental arrangements said it had apologised to her for an “oversight” that led to a failure to obtain a licence.
Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey Wheeler, said:
We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.
At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.
Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.
We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. [Post edited 30 Oct 17:40]
|
As I said on page 1, a non-story. I'm amazed it's got to 3 pages. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:48 - Oct 30 with 756 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:39 - Oct 30 by JammyDodgerrr |
The letting agent has admitted blame and said their clients would've thought they had the licence already. A total non-story, obviously.
From The Guardian:
Letting agency used by Reeves apologises, saying it's to blame for rental licence error
The lettings agency involved in Rachel Reeves’ rental arrangements said it had apologised to her for an “oversight” that led to a failure to obtain a licence.
Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey Wheeler, said:
We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.
At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.
Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.
We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. [Post edited 30 Oct 17:40]
|
Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but If I knew a licence had been applied for on my behalf, I would have wanted to have known it had been granted.
Clearly this seems to end the story but I imagine not when it comes to the right wing media who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mail has known this issue for some time but have chosen to publicise it pretty near to the Budget to do as much damage as possible.
EDIT: apparently she was to have paid £954 for the licence but that money was never taken. Jon Craig on Sky News has just said that it was perhaps surprising that she and her husband didn't spot that money of that amount wasn't taken. After all, it's not like the cost of a cup of coffee, and you would have to ensure there was sufficient money in your current account to pay it. [Post edited 30 Oct 18:21]
| | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 18:14 - Oct 30 with 685 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:43 - Oct 30 by The_Flashing_Smile |
As I said on page 1, a non-story. I'm amazed it's got to 3 pages. |
Her story has, however, changed according to Jon Craig.
Yesterday it was that she didn't know a licence was required. Now it is that she or her husband thought a licence was being applied for.
This suggest the clearance overnight was made without knowledge of the full facts. [Post edited 30 Oct 18:17]
| | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 18:20 - Oct 30 with 663 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 17:48 - Oct 30 by DJR |
Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but If I knew a licence had been applied for on my behalf, I would have wanted to have known it had been granted.
Clearly this seems to end the story but I imagine not when it comes to the right wing media who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mail has known this issue for some time but have chosen to publicise it pretty near to the Budget to do as much damage as possible.
EDIT: apparently she was to have paid £954 for the licence but that money was never taken. Jon Craig on Sky News has just said that it was perhaps surprising that she and her husband didn't spot that money of that amount wasn't taken. After all, it's not like the cost of a cup of coffee, and you would have to ensure there was sufficient money in your current account to pay it. [Post edited 30 Oct 18:21]
|
Reeves has admitted that she should have checked.
She says the letting agency had told the family that they would sort out the licence, and failed to do so. But she accepts that it should have been her responsibility to check that this had happened. | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 18:41 - Oct 30 with 621 views | DanTheMan |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 18:14 - Oct 30 by DJR |
Her story has, however, changed according to Jon Craig.
Yesterday it was that she didn't know a licence was required. Now it is that she or her husband thought a licence was being applied for.
This suggest the clearance overnight was made without knowledge of the full facts. [Post edited 30 Oct 18:17]
|
If I'm being charitable, the fact these emails come from her husband would suggest he was sorting it out as she might well have been a bit busy preparing to be chancellor.
So she should have known but he probably thought it was all in hand.
Either way, this is such a non story. Nobody has been harmed by this, it's a process error. |  |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 19:08 - Oct 30 with 587 views | bluester |
Sorry, I accidentally upvoted your post. I meant to downvote it. | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 20:24 - Oct 30 with 511 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 18:20 - Oct 30 by DJR |
Reeves has admitted that she should have checked.
She says the letting agency had told the family that they would sort out the licence, and failed to do so. But she accepts that it should have been her responsibility to check that this had happened. |
I think the bigger issue here is how they continually mismanage these sorts of incidents. A licence to rent is neither here nor there, as apparently there’s no issue applying for them retrospectively in any case. Labour’s mishandling and muddled comms around this and Rayner’s issue is a lot more worrying from a structural point of view (although doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know I suppose). The desperation of the opposition and media to try and pin anything on them is also wearing, but that also is nothing new.
I’d like them to just govern and minimise the own goals that result in so much bandwidth being taken up by unimportant issues (compared to those they should be focussed on). | |
| |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 21:06 - Oct 30 with 474 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 18:41 - Oct 30 by DanTheMan |
If I'm being charitable, the fact these emails come from her husband would suggest he was sorting it out as she might well have been a bit busy preparing to be chancellor.
So she should have known but he probably thought it was all in hand.
Either way, this is such a non story. Nobody has been harmed by this, it's a process error. |
Wouldnt be hugely surprising not to double check something that someone else was dealign with, which an agent said they would sort, whilst becoming chancellor. Clearly no question of dishonesty or impropriety. Utter non story.
The hypocrisy of the gutter press and indeed Ms Badenoch is extraordinary. I dont recall her jumping up and down demanding resignation when Boris and co quite intentionally broke covid laws. Or took dodgy loans for flats. [Post edited 30 Oct 21:07]
| | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 21:22 - Oct 30 with 450 views | DJR |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 20:24 - Oct 30 by Swansea_Blue |
I think the bigger issue here is how they continually mismanage these sorts of incidents. A licence to rent is neither here nor there, as apparently there’s no issue applying for them retrospectively in any case. Labour’s mishandling and muddled comms around this and Rayner’s issue is a lot more worrying from a structural point of view (although doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know I suppose). The desperation of the opposition and media to try and pin anything on them is also wearing, but that also is nothing new.
I’d like them to just govern and minimise the own goals that result in so much bandwidth being taken up by unimportant issues (compared to those they should be focussed on). |
It certainly looks a bit incompetent to come up with a different story the following day.
But I wonder if there was an element of trying to calm the markets in clearing her overnight and before all the facts were known.
No doubt, however, the whole story will now be overshadowed by Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. [Post edited 30 Oct 21:23]
| | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 23:28 - Oct 30 with 359 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 08:51 - Oct 30 by Swansea_Blue |
She’s uninspiring and seems quite limited, but this comes across as desperate and immature. |
Good new user name for ocean blue? |  | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 23:32 - Oct 30 with 352 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 10:19 - Oct 30 by GlasgowBlue |
It's a minor error. But I can't help thinking that had this been Farage or a Tory, then some of the "nothing to see here" brigade would have been all over this like a rash. |
Really! Think Boris and his chums did enough outrageous stuff that somethibg like this wouldn't touch the sides. Same for Farage and his hotch potch of quasi racists | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 23:53 - Oct 30 with 328 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 23:32 - Oct 30 by reusersfreekicks |
Really! Think Boris and his chums did enough outrageous stuff that somethibg like this wouldn't touch the sides. Same for Farage and his hotch potch of quasi racists |
The problem being that 75% of the media is agressively right wing and wants to score points. Making the managing of this stuff much more difficult for the current government. Alongside the instincts towards integrity which were simply non existent previously. | | | |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 00:09 - Oct 31 with 298 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Oh dear not you as well Rachel on 07:44 - Oct 30 by The_Flashing_Smile |
There is no scandal. This is just the right wing press desperately raking over anything and everything they can find to make a story out of. Funny how they weren't so scrutinous when the Tories were in power. Which is weird, given there was so much corruption and real scandal to report on. |
I remind my erstwhile Tory, now Farrightrage Reform, pal that I might listen to whinging about Labour sleaze once the total adds up to Richi's illegal £36m personal helicopter contract. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
