The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[AlterEgo]

Rachel Reeves might be under impression licence was applied for, but clearly didn't check.

If you or I tried that excuse with TV licence or provisional driving licence etc. then went ahead anyway, wouldn't really be able to claim did nothing wrong.

But this isn't about a TV licence or a driving licence. The appropriate comparison is with other people who have made the same error.

 

[Gloster]

I think that most people’s opinion is that we all mistakes with bureaucracy like this. She hasn’t tried to hide it and will no doubt pay any fine that the council sends. It is just one of those minor mistakes that is part of life.

I feel that Badenoch misjudged things by playing the man, or woman in this case, instead of the ball. She does seem to charge in much too quickly and too far when a more moderate and subtler approach would have more effect. She seems to lack the ability to tackle the Government on major matters and then goes over the top on minor ones. She may feel that her best tactic is to attack the government‘s honesty and general competence, but wildly jumping on every incident does not succeed in this. What next from her: a demand that Starmer resign because he returned a copy of Mr Toolmaker to the library a day late when he was nine-years old?

 

[KevinBrum12]

But this isn't about a TV licence or a driving licence. The appropriate comparison is with other people who have made the same error.

It is, but the number of people who've made this error would be small as most local authorities do not operate a Southwark style scheme.

 

[Yew]

This has always been the real issue with unbridled capitalism. Competition means that you have a winner and a loser, and the winner just hoovers up all the losers until they control everything.

We see similar with fuel prices, everyone wants to put up prices when their costs increase, but then there is a stand-off of infinitesimally slow reductions in price when circumstances swing to reduce them. In a lot of industries, we might have multiple companies, but they're not actively competing, just an oligopoly that has most of the bad traits of a monopoly, with different colours.

 

[Kite159]

We see similar with fuel prices, everyone wants to put up prices when their costs increase, but then there is a stand-off of infinitesimally slow reductions in price when circumstances swing to reduce them. In a lot of industries, we might have multiple companies, but they're not actively competing, just an oligopoly that has most of the bad traits of a monopoly, with different colours.

Fuel prices go up like a rocket but come down like a feather

 

[styles]

I don't trust estate agents to do things properly at the best of times, let alone if I we're the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yeah it appears she was misled but I think it's right she takes responsibility. You can't just hand all your legal responsibilities as a landlord off to a third party and not do due diligence to ensure they're actually doing their job; especially if legal accountability remains with yourself. That's naïve.

 

[Bantamzen]

The letting agency has all but taken responsibility, so unless the emails being published of the exchange have some contradictory revelations, she's probably safe for now:

Rachel Reeves: Letting agent apologises to chancellor for not applying for rental licence

The agent says "we deeply regret the issue caused to our clients"; Reeves says in a new letter to the prime minister: "I accept it was our responsibility to secure the licence".

www.bbc.co.uk

"That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday."

Hmmm, a very convenient excuse. However...

I don't trust estate agents to do things properly at the best of times, let alone if I we're the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yeah it appears she was misled but I think it's right she takes responsibility. You can't just hand all your legal responsibilities as a landlord off to a third party and not do due diligence to ensure they're actually doing their job; especially if legal accountability remains with yourself. That's naïve.

I agree, regardless of what may, or may not have been going on with the letting agency Reeves still had a responsibility for overseeing the procedures and making sure everything was done. Such oversights don't give me much confidence in her abilities in a top level government job, especially one where diligence is a very important trait.

 

[Yew]

I agree, regardless of what may, or may not have been going on with the letting agency Reeves still had a responsibility for overseeing the procedures and making sure everything was done.

Is that was stated in the contract with the estate agency that rented out the property on her behalf? Otherwise where exactly does this responsibility come from, from a legal perspecctive?

Such oversights don't give me much confidence in her abilities in a top level government job, especially one where diligence is a very important trait.

I disagree, if a department leader is unable to delegate and let go of tasks, they will have no time to do their actual job.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is that was stated in the contract with the estate agency that rented out the property on her behalf? Otherwise where exactly does this responsibility come from, from a legal perspecctive?

I disagree, if a department leader is unable to delegate and let go of tasks, they will have no time to do their actual job.

Delegating work is one thing, but a leader should still have oversight that necessary tasks are undertaken.

 

[oldman]

Delegating work is one thing, but a leader should still have oversight that necessary tasks are undertaken.

The scale of the Chancellor's job means they have to rely on people doing what they said they would do. Jobs at this level are actually impossible - how do you know what you should have checked up on? When you are busy gazing into black holes in the public finances, your letting agent carrying out a routine job is pretty minor.

 

[Bantamzen]

The scale of the Chancellor's job means they have to rely on people doing what they said they would do. Jobs at this level are actually impossible - how do you know what you should have checked up on? When you are busy gazing into black holes in the public finances, your letting agent carrying out a routine job is pretty minor.

But that piece of work was a key stage, and was her responsibility to confirm had been done. As a leader you need to be able to know that key stages of work are done, even if you don't drill down into how. Failing to do so with her private business shows a weakness in her thinking, and it is quite right and proper to call it into question when she is about to deliver a budget that could have profound effects on millions. And moreover, would you be as tolerant if this was a Conservative Chancellor or heaven forbid a Reform one?

 

[JamesT]

Is that was stated in the contract with the estate agency that rented out the property on her behalf? Otherwise where exactly does this responsibility come from, from a legal perspecctive?

Southwark are doing Selective Licensing, which is part of the Housing Act 2004. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34

95Offences in relation to licensing of houses under this Part
(1)A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing a house which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so licensed.

So the next step is the definition of control or managing

263Meaning of “person having control” and “person managing” etc.
(1)In this Act “person having control”, in relation to premises, means (unless the context otherwise requires) the person who receives the rack-rent of the premises (whether on his own account or as agent or trustee of another person), or who would so receive it if the premises were let at a rack-rent.

(2)In subsection (1) “rack-rent” means a rent which is not less than two-thirds of the full net annual value of the premises.

(3)In this Act “person managing” means, in relation to premises, the person who, being an owner or lessee of the premises—

(a)receives (whether directly or through an agent or trustee) rents or other payments from—

(i)in the case of a house in multiple occupation, persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises; and

(ii)in the case of a house to which Part 3 applies (see section 79(2)), persons who are in occupation as tenants or licensees of parts of the premises, or of the whole of the premises; or

(b)would so receive those rents or other payments but for having entered into an arrangement (whether in pursuance of a court order or otherwise) with another person who is not an owner or lessee of the premises by virtue of which that other person receives the rents or other payments;

and includes, where those rents or other payments are received through another person as agent or trustee, that other person.
(4)In its application to Part 1, subsection (3) has effect with the omission of paragraph (a)(ii).

(5)References in this Act to any person involved in the management of a house in multiple occupation or a house to which Part 3 applies (see section 79(2)) include references to the person managing it.

Rachel Reeves is the owner of the property and receiving the rent, so that fits.

Regardless of any promises or contracts from the letting agent, Reeves is responsible legally.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

From what I could see in the news of the emails, but others I haven't seen may show otherwise, it was her husband who was dealing with the letting agents.
Being legally responsible does not necessarily mean it becomes a sacking offence, or even in certain circumstances even the persons fault.
From what I have seen so far then this is a rap over the knuckles rather than a sacking situation.
If this is the level at which we expect a ministerial resignation then we are expecting levels of probity that a saint would struggle to meet.
Somewhere there has to be a line drawn, would we expect a junior minister in the education department to resign if caught slightly over the speed limit, they would after all have broken the law?

 

[Yew]

Rachel Reeves is the owner of the property and receiving the rent, so that fits.

Regardless of any promises or contracts from the letting agent, Reeves is responsible legally.

Perhaps, but if the contract, as is very likely, committed the estate agency to let the property legally - then she could likely claim those costs as damages from the estate agent, as they have breached the contract.

To put it simply, "I paid an experienced professional organisation to run this on my behalf, and they messed up some paperwork" seems a fairly reasonable position to hold.

 

[Bantamzen]

From what I could see in the news of the emails, but others I haven't seen may show otherwise, it was her husband who was dealing with the letting agents.
Being legally responsible does not necessarily mean it becomes a sacking offence, or even in certain circumstances even the persons fault.
From what I have seen so far then this is a rap over the knuckles rather than a sacking situation.
If this is the level at which we expect a ministerial resignation then we are expecting levels of probity that a saint would struggle to meet.
Somewhere there has to be a line drawn, would we expect a junior minister in the education department to resign if caught slightly over the speed limit, they would after all have broken the law?

I don't think anyone is expecting saints, but she failed to spot an important part, indeed a legal part of a process not being completed, a part that she was ultimately responsible for. It doesn't matter who she delegated the fine details & work to, she should have checked that all due processes were completed. Was this just a single error of judgement, or is this likely to happen again? That's what some of us would like to understand, especially given her important role in government. If there is any suggestion, any at all, that delegating and not properly overseeing due processes is a habit, then her position absolutely should be called into question.

And all of this notwithstanding, there is still the matter of optics on this. Even if this was just one unfortunate slip, it has now given the opposition parties leverage against the government. They will not let go of this, and if she makes a mess of the upcoming budget and associated policies, it will be the hill that the government could fall on. And Labour are starting to make a habit of giving the opposition scoring points, which will further their position going forwards and make it easier for other parties to gain ground in the opinion polls. She needs to knock the budget statement out of the park in a few weeks, otherwise Labour could be in serious trouble.

 

[oldman]

And moreover, would you be as tolerant if this was a Conservative Chancellor or heaven forbid a Reform one?

I expect I would play politics with it, like the Tories in this case. But I would know what I was doing, though I wouldn't have the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun and Metro to help me make a mountain out of it.

 

[Bantamzen]

I expect I would play politics with it, like the Tories in this case. But I would know what I was doing, though I wouldn't have the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun and Metro to help me make a mountain out of it.

But you get my point? it's understandable to give the party might prefer more leeway than others when it comes to something like this. But if a right wing Chancellor had done the same, I'm sure the left wing media would be all over it, as would a fair few on these forums. However it still doesn't take away the fact she made a serious error of judgement, and it is that judgement that is now under scrutiny with her being Chancellor.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

I don't think anyone is expecting saints, but she failed to spot an important part, indeed a legal part of a process not being completed, a part that she was ultimately responsible for. It doesn't matter who she delegated the fine details & work to, she should have checked that all due processes were completed. Was this just a single error of judgement, or is this likely to happen again? That's what some of us would like to understand, especially given her important role in government. If there is any suggestion, any at all, that delegating and not properly overseeing due processes is a habit, then her position absolutely should be called into question.

And all of this notwithstanding, there is still the matter of optics on this. Even if this was just one unfortunate slip, it has now given the opposition parties leverage against the government. They will not let go of this, and if she makes a mess of the upcoming budget and associated policies, it will be the hill that the government could fall on. And Labour are starting to make a habit of giving the opposition scoring points, which will further their position going forwards and make it easier for other parties to gain ground in the opinion polls. She needs to knock the budget statement out of the park in a few weeks, otherwise Labour could be in serious trouble.

So how much checking of delegated work are we expecting? At some point all managers have to trust the staff they delegate to, obviously there are going to be some things they will check up on but it is physically impossible to check on everything. As regards the licence, there was from the letting agent mention of them going to apply for the licence, so it us not unreasonable to then assume they are actually going to do so.

As for optics, well all opposition parties are going to use any chance to get at the government, and there are always going to be oversights and slips, from a ministers staff not submitting items to the register of interests to personal things such as this.

 

[styles]

The scale of the Chancellor's job means they have to rely on people doing what they said they would do. Jobs at this level are actually impossible - how do you know what you should have checked up on? When you are busy gazing into black holes in the public finances, your letting agent carrying out a routine job is pretty minor.

If you're too busy in your day job to manage your legal responsibilities for your landlord side hustle, don't be a landlord.

From what I could see in the news of the emails, but others I haven't seen may show otherwise, it was her husband who was dealing with the letting agents.
Being legally responsible does not necessarily mean it becomes a sacking offence, or even in certain circumstances even the persons fault.

From what I have seen so far then this is a rap over the knuckles rather than a sacking situation.

If this is the level at which we expect a ministerial resignation then we are expecting levels of probity that a saint would struggle to meet.

I agree it's not a sackable offence, and I find it quite tiring that in the past decade or so we have slipped in to this mundane routine of calling for people to be sacked for every little thing (not helped by the fact that people who do commit serious wrongdoing simply refuse to step down). However I think it's right she accepts responsibility, apologises, and is subjected to scrutiny from her peers and the public. In fact it sounds as though the only reason she's actually applied for the licence now is because the media investigated the issue and found she didn't have one. Without the press, this could've gone unnoticed for a long time or even completely.

Somewhere there has to be a line drawn, would we expect a junior minister in the education department to resign if caught slightly over the speed limit, they would after all have broken the law?

Well, no, just as we didn't expect Burnham to resign when he was caught doing 70 something mph in a 40mph area, and he's the police and crime commissioner via his role as mayor.

But again, Burnham was rightly scrutinised for being in charge of crime yet doing nearly twice the speed limit, and at a speed which would be unlawful on any road in the country.

 

[Bantamzen]

So how much checking of delegated work are we expecting? At some point all managers have to trust the staff they delegate to, obviously there are going to be some things they will check up on but it is physically impossible to check on everything. As regards the licence, there was from the letting agent mention of them going to apply for the licence, so it us not unreasonable to then assume they are actually going to do so.

That depends on the nature of the work involved. But in this case overseeing the major steps that needed to be completed was a must, which she didn't. She should have taken time to understand everything that needed doing as she was the stakeholder in that. As I've said that might just be a one-off, but it also casts doubt in some people's minds. Is she just a delegate and sit back type, or is she going to be pro-active and oversee work that will lead to her making major decisions for all of us?

As for optics, well all opposition parties are going to use any chance to get at the government, and there are always going to be oversights and slips, from a ministers staff not submitting items to the register of interests to personal things such as this.

They will, but right at a time when she has to make some extremely difficult judgement calls, her very judgement is being questions. There's no spinning this one, it looks bad and undermines confidence in her judgement.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

That depends on the nature of the work involved. But in this case overseeing the major steps that needed to be completed was a must, which she didn't. She should have taken time to understand everything that needed doing as she was the stakeholder in that. As I've said that might just be a one-off, but it also casts doubt in some people's minds. Is she just a delegate and sit back type, or is she going to be pro-active and oversee work that will lead to her making major decisions for all of us?


They will, but right at a time when she has to make some extremely difficult judgement calls, her very judgement is being questions. There's no spinning this one, it looks bad and undermines confidence in her judgement.

So are you saying you would sack her?

 

[Bantamzen]

So are you saying you would sack her?

If she wasn't willing to take full responsibility, and instead seek scapegoats to blame, then it would certainly be something I'd have to consider were I the Prime Minister. Even then I'd probably want to discuss her plans in depth, and ensure that all due diligence had been undertaken to ensure she understood all the implications of her decisions. After all she's not some salesperson in a big corporation where you could feasibly let it slide, she's about to make decisions that could bolster or tank the economy. I'd want to be doubly sure she was making decisions on the right basis, otherwise both of us would be on very thin ice if it wreaked the economy.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

If she wasn't willing to take full responsibility, and instead seek scapegoats to blame, then it would certainly be something I'd have to consider were I the Prime Minister. Even then I'd probably want to discuss her plans in depth, and ensure that all due diligence had been undertaken to ensure she understood all the implications of her decisions. After all she's not some salesperson in a big corporation where you could feasibly let it slide, she's about to make decisions that could bolster or tank the economy. I'd want to be doubly sure she was making decisions on the right basis, otherwise both of us would be on very thin ice if it wreaked the economy.

Is that a yes then?

 

[Bantamzen]

Is that a yes then?

In a 'Yes Prime Minister' kind of way....

 

[43096]

I agree, regardless of what may, or may not have been going on with the letting agency Reeves still had a responsibility for overseeing the procedures and making sure everything was done. Such oversights don't give me much confidence in her abilities in a top level government job, especially one where diligence is a very important trait.

How do you know Rachel Reeves hadn’t agreed with her husband that he would handle the rental process? Or is she supposed to check everything he does too?

 

[gabrielhj07]

While we're at it, are there any more administrative transgressions from which we can excuse politicians on account of them leading particularly busy lives? Should the minister for something-or-other be found driving without an MOT, are we going to hear that it's alright as he was 'too busy' running his department to bother with such minutiae?

 

[Yew]

While we're at it, are there any more administrative transgressions from which we can excuse politicians on account of them leading particularly busy lives? Should the minister for something-or-other be found driving without an MOT, are we going to hear that it's alright as he was 'too busy' running his department to bother with such minutiae?

This isn't just a "they didn't go for an MOT", this is more equivalent to taking their car to a garage for an MOT, and the garage saying they did the MOT, and taking their word for it.

 

[gabrielhj07]

This isn't just a "they didn't go for an MOT", this is more equivalent to taking their car to a garage for an MOT, and the garage saying they did the MOT, and taking their word for it.

And not being at all suspicious of the missing certificate...

Not to loose sight of the topic, 'she was too busy to notice' is not an excuse.

 

[londonbridge]

My understanding is:

She initially said she was unaware a licence was needed.
Emails between the letting agent and her husband suggest they told him a licence was needed and they would apply for it on his behalf, but failed to do so.
So if he was aware, why wasn’t she? Does she not communicate with her husband? And why did they allow the rental to go ahead without verifying with the agent that the licence had, in fact, been applied for?

 

[Yew]

And why did they allow the rental to go ahead without verifying with the agent that the licence had, in fact, been applied for?

When was the last time you ordered a service from a professional, did you personally verify all the work that they did?