More than 700 letters of objection have been received in a single batch by a city council which wants to extend its control of Houses in Multiple Occupation through a selective licensing scheme.
Landlord Shad Ali handed in the letters on the last day of consultation on the plans.
Ali said: “There are clearly a lot of people who don’t agree with these plans and are concerned about the impact of them.”
He said the council should have looked at the racial equality impact of its proposals, because he said they will impact disproportionately on the number of Asians who own properties in the areas concerned.
Cllr David Liversidge, portfolio holder for Commissioning and Voluntary Sector at the city council, said: “We will listen to any constructive feedback from this consultation, but this position is ill-informed and appears designed to protect the interests of landlords at the expense of leaving tenants without the protection from rogue landlords they need.
“We completely refute any accusation that our scheme is discriminatory.
“We have set out very clear reasons for introducing this scheme, our proposed licence costs compare favourably with many similar schemes and our consultation has been carried out in line with Government guidelines.
“We have had a meeting with a group of landlords including Mr Ali and their views are being added to the consultation for consideration, but at the moment they seem determined to avoid increased costs.
“The reality is that a small additional cost will provide much-needed regulation in the private rented sector to protect the interests and health and safety of tenants, including students, and help to tackle issues like antisocial behaviour and disrepair.
“We remain committed to working with good landlords and improving the standards of rented accommodation in the city.”
Comments
Landlord Shad Ali - 'the council should have looked at the racial equality impact of its proposals, because he said they will impact disproportionately on the number of Asians who own properties in the areas concerned'
Whilst the demographic may provide a 'disproportionate' impact that doesn't infer racism, thats just maths.
As landlords will be required to pay, register, hold a licence and agree compliance, is Mr Ali's objection purely based on the cost of meeting the new criteria? Are we to understand his implication that Asian landlords have not properly maintained their properties and will financially struggle to meet the standard now required of them? Perhaps better questions might be why this situation is seemingly prevalent amongst these particular landlords and indeed why it has been allowed to continue for so long?
Sorry Arnie but just as education/language skills didn't stop those seeking a solicitor to draw up a lease a few years ago, so it shouldn't stop those same people from seeking the same help in order to comply with current policies. Ignorance is never a defence...
This policy has been cast to regulate landlords and improve the basic standard of property, getting caught in the net means you've been deficient and has nothing to do with colour.
You said
"they are introducing policies that will be disproportionately difficult for landlords with limited language skills and education to comply with"
Irrespective of Race Colour or Gender employing an Agent who speaks the language and has the knowledge of legislation costs the same.
Are you suggesting that those with limited understanding and education have to be given financial concession? In some bizarre extension of political correctness are you really suggesting that anyone should be allowed to carry out a business free of the costs and charges that their background and circumstance dictate are necessary? It isn't racist to tell anyone that if they operate a business outside their native tongue or understanding it makes sense to employ an interpreter or persons qualified in the subject.
Arnie from Newington is the man! comments always spot on!
Sigh. Faulty logic. If the owners of such properties are Asian, so what? They still have to follow fair and just rules as the rest of us do. If they become exempt, that indeed would be reverse racism in their case, and blatant racism to other landlords who have to follow rules. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander. One rule for all. That's how the British behave. Are they British or are they not? Actions speak louder than words? Want any more pertinent cliches?
Without commenting on this individual case, I do think that there is some indirect discrimination taking place against Asian landlords.
A few years ago it was possible for someone with limited education/language skills to ask a solicitor to draw up a lease and then let out there property.
Now policy makers regard Asian landlords as rogues and to root them out they are introducing policies that will be disproportionately difficult for landlords with limited language skills and education to comply with.
You can stand in the corner if you like but really does it matter?
Unless one has a handle on every aspect of Grammar there is bugger all point in just whittling about apostophe's (sic). If one is going to be self proclaimed Gammar Police at least use a full stop at the end of sentence and don't shove apostrophes in the word apostrophe when making it pural.
Bill...Your a racist !!!!
Nowadays people just need to shout "RACIST" and they have won the argument because everyone shuts up for fear of being labelled a racist. Welcome to modern Britain
Cllr David Liversidge, portfolio holder for Commissioning and Voluntary Sector at the city council, said: “We completely refute any accusation that our scheme is discriminatory."
That's not true as it discriminates against properties....BUT WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH PEOPLE OR RELIGION?!
Being a grammar Nazi myself, I apologise for the final there - it should be their.
And before anyone comments, the internet term "Grammar Nazi" is someone who points out incorrect spellings and apostrophe's
I try hard not to be racist and worry that sometimes some of the things I say might come across as racist, but logically if we are to make a special case for one particular ethnic group isn't that being specifically racist?
I know the impact is negative for the group involved, but surely the colour of their skin should not exempt them from what is fair and right.
Surely, these rules are being brought in to protect tenants too, so if you give one ethnic group official permission to behave in a way that would be illegal for everyone else you will be creating a legally recognised slum landlord/ tenant scenario.
Now, again trying hard no to be racist, but state facts (as I see them).
In my 20 year experience (North London, East London, South London, Croydon & Surrey) as an agent I have found that the majority of Indian Asian (as opposed to Oriental Asian - just to be a bit more specific) landlords who own HMO properties do not use regular estate agents.
Going back to my days in Hackney & Haringey back in the 1990's I met several Asian (of both types actually) landlords who populated their investment properties with what was essentially tied labour - their workers were sponsored immigrants working in factories, etc, and the job came with a corner of a room in a shared house.
These landlords bought properties regularly and the conditions were shocking, the pay at the end of each week after deductions was frankly disturbing, but it allowed the tenant/ worker/ slave (pick appropriate word) to send money back to their family in their country of origin - by their own admission the tenants considered themselves better off. By my standards I considered it modern slavery.
Now I no longer work in those areas and have no proof that this practice still goes on, but I would bet a year's salary that it does, and I would bet it is just as prevalent up North as it was in London.
Just because your skin is not the same colour as mine should not allow you to treat tenants in a different way from me - we should both be the same - surely that is the VERY DEFINITION of not being racist.
The fact that there is a certain portion of the overall landlord community that behaves badly AND can be identified by their ethnic origin is there problem alone.
I think its a case of "thou doth protest too much" meaning the majority of the properties are not going to come upto scratch so the old racism card is being used to deflect the attention away.
I will be amazed if anyone can give me a sound and valid reason as to how this has anything to do with anyone's "racial equality impact".
It is as though they are saying that they should be given preferential treatment because of their religion.
What utter nonsense.
On a side note....you do realise that the only possible outcome is civil war?!...Have you figured it out yet??)
I find that the most problematic landlords i deal with are not, how can i say it, of British lineage.
This has been in place in Edinburgh for a few years now and I see no reason why the same is not put in place elsewhere. If you have nothing to hide then what is the problem.
Funny how the racism card always gets played. The rental market is crying out for tighter regulation. I find that a large proportion of private landlords are not keeping properties to a good standard of repair and are not carrying out gas/electrical safety inspections. Abuse the system and this is what happens.
If you draw the same analogy in areas with high numbers of non ethnic Landlords then the Council is racist towards white landlords??
Presumably then any ethnic Landlord thinks it is racism gone mad if they are prosecuted for any housing related offences?