12th
Jan 2015
Enfield Council have been told they must "tell all", on exactly how much the chiefs have laid out on their landlord licensing scheme, which has been witheringly described as a "costly farce".
The judge, as previously reported, told the council that it could not plough on ahead with their scheme, until they had consulted landlords in neighbouring areas who rented out homes within the borough.
The High Court ruling has meant that Croydon Council are now widening the reach of its consultation regarding their own licensing scheme, in fear that they could receive the same decision.
Croydon Council's spokesperson said: “This will allow those in our borough more time to provide feedback and give people in neighbouring boroughs a more targeted opportunity to have their say.”
Edward Smith the Conservatives' housing spokesman has thrown down the gauntlet to Enfield Council to take the same steps as Croydon.
Smith said: “The council’s proposed landlord licensing scheme has descended into a costly farce, with legal fees escalating and taxpayers having to foot the bill.”
In December 2014, the High Court ruling condemned Enfield's consultation procedure with for their plan to make it compulsory for all private landlords to pay to be licensed within the scheme, for each of their properties. The judge had said that their licensing scheme, “cannot be lawfully implemented unless and until Enfield conducts a lawful consultation”.
Enfield Council is at present launching an appeal against last month's ruling. Meanwhile Edward Smith has contacted the council's cabinet member of housing, to find out exactly how much has been spent by Enfield on the consultation and the cost of their legal bills. Ahmet Oykener , the councils cabinet member, has been given eight questions by Mr Smith to supply answers to the requested information. He has also asked how much a further consultation will cost the taxpayers.
Edward Smith said: “Croydon Council has recognised the inherent flaws in Enfield’s previous consultation and acted accordingly.
"Enfield by contrast is choosing to spend yet more on legal fees.”
Mr Oykener defended the council's process as it had run the consultation for twelve weeks, two weeks more than the government's recommended timescale and had included other areas.
He told a local newspaper: “Mr Smith has not contacted Enfield Council or myself regarding these questions relating to the landlord licensing scheme.
“We have requested leave to appeal against the court’s decision and as such it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this stage.
“However, 84 per cent of Enfield’s residents and a majority of Enfield’s businesses who responded to the consultation strongly agreed with the council’s original decision to introduce the scheme.
“We will continue to stand up for the views and interests of Enfield’s residents and remain committed to introducing a scheme that many residents are waiting to be implemented.”
News Archive »