Rachel Reeves let out house unlawfully

Crossstitchfan

Smileless2012

She didn't have an HMO Licence which is her responsibility to obtain, not the letting agents.

Althugh, technically Ms Reeves is ultimately responsible for making sure she follows the rules, her agents do indeed have a duty to advise landlords when things change. That’s why people use them instead of going it alone when they want to let a property out. In my case, when laws etc. change, the letting agent I am with immediately makes me aware, even though they handle the necessary changes, and I have to do nothing. That is the whole point of having them!
A good letting agent is a lifesaver. They will make sure the landlords who employ them will be aware of everything required to stay within the law. They are well worth their fee, just for peace of mind. Ms Reeves would do well to get one!

Just for clarification it was a Selective Licence that was required nothing to do with an HMO.
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 will eventually, next year it's suggested 2026 require the licensing of all landlords, stopping any confusion over council having different requirements.
Not before time will this Act offer less confusion for landlords and more security for tenants.

If you are talking about Knight Frank Primrose53 I read a very general statement that read:

a Knight Frank spokesman said: 'It is standard procedure to notify all clients of their legal and regulatory obligations when letting a property.'

This isn't quite the same.

Primrose53

Breaking News

Another Estate agent has come forward and revealed that they also told RR she would need a licence.

Where is this from please and was it actually her husband who was told? (and we know he doesn't read emails very closely)

Yes, but she has KS’ support, at least until she’s delivered the budget.
He can’t get anyone else to do it at such short notice.

Casdon

Presumably this was an estate agent that her property was not let through?

Yes. So she was told twice they needed a licence despite what she claimed.

Presumably this was an estate agent that her property was not let through?

Breaking News

Another Estate agent has come forward and revealed that they also told RR she would need a licence.

Possibly, but many people are like that, and she has got plenty of money, hasn’t she? Who knows in this case, all I’m saying is that I can see how easy it would be.

Not checking what you’ve paid for is perhaps a thing about having plenty of money.
I check what the bill from the garage has covered, rather than just paying the bill.

Mollygo

Pippa000

Do she not notice they had been no payment taken for the licence? As an economist I would think either she or her husband would be on top of household accounts .

I did wonder that too. Even if they have separate accounts, one of them must have noticed, even if such money is small fry to them.

I’m not sure I’d notice a discrepancy if the estate agent said they had taken care of it, because I’d expect it to be part of their bill to me for their full letting services charge rather than a separate bill?

Smileless2012

She didn't have an HMO Licence which is her responsibility to obtain, not the letting agents.

Althugh, technically Ms Reeves is ultimately responsible for making sure she follows the rules, her agents do indeed have a duty to advise landlords when things change. That’s why people use them instead of going it alone when they want to let a property out. In my case, when laws etc. change, the letting agent I am with immediately makes me aware, even though they handle the necessary changes, and I have to do nothing. That is the whole point of having them!
A good letting agent is a lifesaver. They will make sure the landlords who employ them will be aware of everything required to stay within the law. They are well worth their fee, just for peace of mind. Ms Reeves would do well to get one!

MaizieD

Maremia

But, did she ACT unlawfully? Or did her agents let her down?

I wouldn't bother to engage with this. The facts have been established and no blame attaches to Ms Reeves.

Exactly that.

There are some people who live to be constantly in a state of moral outrage just as there are some who feel constantly hard-done-by and, thankfully, some (most?) who would rather be positive. It's time to leave those addicted to self-serving anger and outrage to get on with their sad lives.

We now know that Rachel Reeves and her husband have been treated in exactly the same way as anyone else in the same circumstances - circumstances which happen frequently enough to have rules in place to deal with it. That really should be enough.

Pippa000

Do she not notice they had been no payment taken for the licence? As an economist I would think either she or her husband would be on top of household accounts .

I did wonder that too. Even if they have separate accounts, one of them must have noticed, even if such money is small fry to them.

Do she not notice they had been no payment taken for the licence? As an economist I would think either she or her husband would be on top of household accounts .

LadyGracie

She only reported herself because she was found out.
I can’t begin to defend anyone who is in a high power job who acts unlawfully, no matter who they are.

So if someone isn't in a high power (sic) job it's ok if they act unlawfully?
Is it something to do with electricians.

She has KS’s full confidence. What more can she ask?

Maremia

But, did she ACT unlawfully? Or did her agents let her down?

I wouldn't bother to engage with this. The facts have been established and no blame attaches to Ms Reeves.

But, did she ACT unlawfully? Or did her agents let her down?

The Rachel Reeves Rap

youtube.com/shorts/K0OH5Xo-ZhA?si=MOVC-QcEAkJ2Ajfq

She only reported herself because she was found out.
I can’t begin to defend anyone who is in a high power job who acts unlawfully, no matter who they are.

MayBee70

Maybe the fact that she reported herself means that they are at least attempting to be better than the last lot? And when it comes to Mome it isn’t just her that’s ripped off the tax payer; the people in government at the time were more than happy to hand out contracts to their mates.

When two of the principal ministers have these accidental errors . . .
I don’t excuse any of the actions of the previous lot, but I do wonder what the next accidental error will be and who it might involve.

Maybe the fact that she reported herself means that they are at least attempting to be better than the last lot? And when it comes to Mome it isn’t just her that’s ripped off the tax payer; the people in government at the time were more than happy to hand out contracts to their mates.

MayBee70

There are different levels of sleaze imo. Some of the things ministers in the previous government were off the scale compared to what’s happened recently.

Agree about the different levels of sleaze.
The mistake was implying that your government is going to be squeaky clean and then not being.

To answer your question MaizieD yes, I think , in order to avoid accusations of one rule for them etc she should be subject to whatever has been imposed upon other landlords in the way of fines in that Council. If none have been imposed within that 21 day window, then her exemption would be in line with what has been allowed to others.

If the recompense to tenants has been applied to other landlords, it should also be applied in this case. There should be no question of preferential treatment.

As I sad before this is not spite, but a desperate need for members of this Government to show they can act with integrity. I voted for them n the promise that they would.

shoppinggirl

Jane43

shoppinggirl

Rachel Reeves seems to be very forgetful...She forgot to disclose that a benefactor had paid for her clothes; she forgot to disclose the free tickets for various venues and now this! Very worrying that she's "in charge" of the country's finances!

I am assuming you didn’t Google the facts before you posted. The facts are clothing was bought from a cash gift from a benefactor, Juliet Rosenfeld and the gift was declared. Everything was in accordance with the rules so there was no lapse of memory. She didn’t declare concert tickets given her but referred herself to the parliamentary standards committee over this.

From the Independent: "Sir Keir adopted a sanctimonious moral tone in promising that his government would observe higher ethical standards than the outgoing administration, and yet within days of taking office, he and several of his senior ministers, including Ms Reeves, found themselves mired in sleaze.

"He and his chancellor accepted gifts of clothes and concert tickets – which they admitted, in effect, that they should not have done when they announced that they would not accept such donations in future." QED!

I pointed out yesterday that what you said was factually inaccurate shoppinggirl, as she did not fail to declare either of those, the issue raised was whether she should have accepted them.