Rachel Reeves let out house unlawfully

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.

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.

The Rachel Reeves Rap

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

Breaking News

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

I think Smileless2012 saw that, upthread, OldFrill

But yes, a level playing field is a good idea.

Croydon (a labour council at the time) had a Private Property Licensing scheme from 2015 - 2020.
We had a flat that we let out and paid over £500 for the licence. Never once during the years did anyone inspect the property to ensure it was fit for purpose. It was just a money making scheme by the council to fill their ever decreasing coffers.
I can't see that this new act will make any difference to the tenants.
Private landlords are just 'cash cows' for the government and local councils.
No wonder so many are selling up. The available properties to rent will decrease and rents will rise for the others. There are no winners here, neither landlords nor tenants

Casdon

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?

In my opinion, all on one bill but itemised.

Agents have to provide a separate Invoice for anything that’s been paid to another party, usually they forward Invoice itself from, say, the Gas Inspection firm, the plumber etc. It’s also then included on their own Invoice because it’s deducted from the rent, not paid separately or unless specifically requested.

A reduction in rent received is immediately apparent.

Given what’s been revealed so far, I think it was an oversight by both the agents and Rachel Reeves and her husband.

Although I was pulled up n the suggestion that she should immediately and willingly pay any fine due, I still think that personally and politically it would be the best thing to do.