The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[styles]

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

Well I don't know about anyone else but a few months back I bought a house and it's precisely because I checked all the underlying documentation that the sale took months to complete, because I discovered that while the previous owner did get planning permission for their adaption, they never got the completion certificate. So we waited until they sorted that all out with the council before completing. You can bet bottom dollar I checked that the deeds were correct, the 89 page mortgage agreement was what we expected, the planning permission matched the completed work, the completion certificate was uploaded, the lot.

Being a landlord isn't something you can just pass off to somebody else and absolve yourself of all legal responsibility. At the end of the day you remain the landlord.

Yeah it's not really a sackable offence but I don't think it's some mild transgression, particular when we have enough dodgy landlords not fulfilling their legal obligations and she's the chancellor of the country. If you're too busy in your day job to have a landlord side hustle, don't hand a landlord side hustle. It's not an excuse.

 

[43096]

So if he was aware, why wasn’t she?

Perhaps he said to her that he would handle everything to do with the letting of the house. Is she supposed to not trust him and double check everything he does?

 

[WesternLancer]

If you're too busy in your day job to have a landlord side hustle, don't hand a landlord side hustle. It's not an excuse.

But the outcome of that would likely be one house standing empty that could otherwise have housed someone whilst MsReeves lived in her official residence.

Better to have a lettings agent with more diligent systems in place in my view.

 

[Falcon1200]

did you personally verify all the work that they did?

As the licence had to be paid for, did the Chancellor not notice that this had not happened? Perhaps £900 was too trivial an amount for her to worry about.

 

[styles]

But the outcome of that would likely be one house standing empty that could otherwise have housed someone whilst MsReeves lived in her official residence.

Better to have a lettings agent with more diligent systems in place in my view.

There are plenty of alternatives:

• Don't move into Downing Street
• Sell the house and invest the funds instead
• Rent it out as storage
• Let someone stay in it rent-free
• Or simply check the landlord licence which you're legally obliged to obtain, has been obtained.

It's no excuse to just say oh I'm too busy in my day job. It's a legal responsibility. And from such a senior minister it's just politically naïve not to dot the is and cross the ts on things like this, especially with the state of the London rental market and their landlords.

 

[WesternLancer]

As the licence had to be paid for, did the Chancellor not notice that this had not happened? Perhaps £900 was too trivial an amount for her to worry about.

Would just have been a line on a quarterly statement from the agent that was missing. Such a statement might have umpteen deductions from anything from the building insurance to window cleaning to maintenance call out charges. 900 would only be a modest sum if you are a landlord renting a decent quality home.

It’s not realistic in my opinion to expect her to be on top of this sort of detail. Which is why she got her fingers burned. It’s got to be delegated to someone else trusted and competent and you have to Hope they don’t mess up. As they admitted, they did.

 

[Falcon1200]

It’s not realistic in my opinion to expect her to be on top of this sort of detail.

So the Chancellor, in charge (supposedly) of the nation's finances, is not responsible for her own?

 

[styles]

So the Chancellor, in charge (supposedly) of the nation's finances, is not responsible for her own?

It's not even just her finances really, it's her legal responsibility. That responsibility cannot be delegated. The action of filling out the application could be delegated, but the legal responsibility for making sure it is done remains hers.

It would be like Burnham delegating paying the fine he got in court for speeding to a solicitor. He can do that, but the legal responsibility for paying it remains his. It would be unwise to ask someone else to do it then never check that it happened as he could end up back in court for contempt, have bailiffs sent round, etc. This is the position Reeves finds herself in now, hoping Lambeth don't take enforcement action for the criminal offence.

 

[WesternLancer]

So the Chancellor, in charge (supposedly) of the nation's finances, is not responsible for her own?

I’d be prepared to believe she’s doesn’t spend much time on them.

Personally I don’t think she’s a great chancellor and suspect early decisions in her job sealed the fate of the Labour party such that they’ve already lost the next election. A far more significant error.

But I think it’s unrealistic to think she’s going to have time to be on top of stuff like this.

Like everyone else you just do your best and sometimes things get messed up. I’d be surprised if everyone managed to keep on top of everything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2025 ==

It's not even just her finances really, it's her legal responsibility. That responsibility cannot be delegated. The action of filling out the application could be delegated, but the legal responsibility for making sure it is done remains hers.

It would be like Burnham delegating paying the fine he got in court for speeding to a solicitor. He can do that, but the legal responsibility for paying it remains his. It would be unwise to ask someone else to do it then never check that it happened as he could end up back in court for contempt, have bailiffs sent round, etc. This is the position Reeves finds herself in now, hoping Lambeth don't take enforcement action for the criminal offence.

The council stated their policy is that they do not commence any enforcement action until 21 days after reminding a landlord of the need for a license. They haven’t said if they have yet sent a reminder to start with. This is Southwark iirc.

Councils only take legal action when people don’t co-operate even if they threaten it a lot.

 

[styles]

The council stated their policy is that they do not commence any enforcement action until 21 days after reminding a landlord of the need for a license. They haven’t said if they have yet sent a reminder to start with. This is Southwark iirc.

Councils only take legal action when people don’t co-operate even if they threaten it a lot.

If she wasn't diligent enough to check she obtained the licence she was legally obliged to, I doubt she was aware of such flexibility in the council's approach. Why take the risk of a criminal record and such public embarrassment? It is only council policy which they could deviate from, she has still, as it is strict liability afaik, committed the offence.

Ah yes, Dulwich is Southwark, not Lambeth. Don't spend a great deal of time south of the river! Thanks for the correction.

 

[WesternLancer]

If she wasn't diligent enough to check she obtained the licence she was legally obliged to, I doubt she was aware of such flexibility in the council's approach. Why take the risk of a criminal record and such public embarrassment? It is only council policy which they could deviate from, she has still, as it is strict liability afaik, committed the offence.

Ah yes, Dulwich is Southwark, not Lambeth. Don't spend a great deal of time south of the river! Thanks for the correction.

Well she’s not on top of it all of course. Not unlike she wasn’t on top of the book she ‘wrote’ with chunks copied and pasted from Wikipedia iirc.

She probably would be familiar with councils general approach to such things actually as her experience over years as a constituency MP in less busy times for her, would mean she’d have been aware of councils general ways of working I suspect.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

It doesn’t mean she should be fired though.

 

[SargeNpton]

It doesn’t mean she should be fired though.

People often have to stand down, not for the original mistake, but for attempting to cover it up or making out that it wasn't as bad as it really was.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

People often have to stand down, not for the original mistake, but for attempting to cover it up or making out that it wasn't as bad as it really was.

Has she tried to cover it up?

 

[JamesT]

It doesn’t mean she should be fired though.

“Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers”. Starmer gave the impression at least there would be zero tolerance.

 

[SargeNpton]

Has she tried to cover it up?

If I understand events over the last few days, she initially claimed she didn't realise she needed a licence, then said that the letting agent dealt with it (once the emails came to light).

 

[OhNoAPacer]

If I understand events over the last few days, she initially claimed she didn't realise she needed a licence, then said that the letting agent dealt with it (once the emails came to light).

That isn’t necessarily her trying a cover up, I am not saying this is what happened but it is a reasonable thing that could have happened.
She didn't realise a licence was required, talks to her husband, who has been dealing with the letting of the house, husband says letting agent was dealing with licence, she releases emails.

 

[WesternLancer]

If I understand events over the last few days, she initially claimed she didn't realise she needed a licence, then said that the letting agent dealt with it (once the emails came to light).

Typical amateur landlord behaviour if so.

 

[Cdd89]

Without getting into the right and wrongs, does anyone believe that it was correct for Rayner to have been (effectively) sacked for her transgression whereas Reeves is not going to be?

 

[WesternLancer]

Without getting into the right and wrongs, does anyone believe that it was correct for Rayner to have been (effectively) sacked for her transgression whereas Reeves is not going to be?

Rayners was more serious in my view. FWIW.
The licensing issue only becomes as serious if the license application revealed safety deficiencies with the house to rent imho. That’s is the specific reason for these limited area housing licensing schemes. Not all rented properties need them as most areas have no housing licensing schemes in operation. It’s unhelpfully confusing.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it Ms Rayner also showed poor judgement over the right to buy issue before when you’d have expected her to then be super cautious next time round when it came to property matters.

If it hadn’t been noted she’d have likely got away with paying less tax albeit inadvertently. Ms Reeves is not in that situation with this licence as yet.

 

[317 forever]

Incredible collapse of the Labour vote in Caerphilly last night, clearly demonstrating just how loathed Labour are at the moment. Of note however is the Tory vote of 2%. The two main players in British politics mustering just 13% of the vote between them. Perhaps a small sign that the days of two party politics is over, with Reform high in the polls in England and the Nationalists perhaps holding sway in Scotland and Wales. Labour of course still have time to get a grip, but are seemingly short on ideas of how to deal with the mess the country is in. Unless they shape up soon, could the door be open to a very messy and ungovernable hung Parliament?

And this 11% was in their heartlands.

If this is all Labour can manage there, and they get a lower vote in non-Labour areas such as the west coast of Wales, the number of seats they end up with in the Senedd next May could be negligible.

There may have been tactical voting for Plaid Cymru to try to avoid Reform winning the seat.

 

[WesternLancer]

There may have been tactical voting for Plaid Cymru to try to avoid Reform winning the seat.

No local insights but this does seem likely. Though you’d only tend to do that if you thought Labour had no hope. Which is the key point.

To contradict myself it’s important to recognise that only people with some interest in politics vote tactically, imho. So it has more impact in low turnouts.

 

[Bantamzen]

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?

Erm, yes? She was legally responsible, so she ought to make sure if everything is done. I'm sorry, but this starting to sound like excuse making. She made a serious error in judgement, and seems to be trying to shift the blame. That is a red flag for me.

 

[Yew]

Erm, yes? She was legally responsible, so she ought to make sure if everything is done. I'm sorry, but this starting to sound like excuse making. She made a serious error in judgement, and seems to be trying to shift the blame. That is a red flag for me.

Yes, and she instructed a professional to do that, that seems to me to be a reasonable level of due diligence. If she had some work done on her car, would you expect her to be underneath it on the drive, checking the torques of all the bolts?

 

[JamesT]

Yes, and she instructed a professional to do that, that seems to me to be a reasonable level of due diligence. If she had some work done on her car, would you expect her to be underneath it on the drive, checking the torques of all the bolts?

A closer analogy would be having the MOT done, as that’s a legal obligation. I would expect to see the MOT certificate from the garage to show it’s been done. I’m not driving about just assuming it has.

 

[styles]

Yes, and she instructed a professional to do that, that seems to me to be a reasonable level of due diligence. If she had some work done on her car, would you expect her to be underneath it on the drive, checking the torques of all the bolts?

No but there isn't legislation requiring her to check the torques of all of the bolts on her car.

There is legislation requiring her to get a licence under the LA's selective licensing scheme.

A better analogy would be to say she uses a car but her husband deals with getting the MOT, VED, and insurance. She can buy all means have somebody else do this, but it doesn't absolve her of her legal responsibility as a driver for ensuring the car has MOT, VED, and insurance. If she's caught driving without one of those, she remains legally liable, and so she should set reminders for when these things are expiring and check that her husband has extended them before getting behind the wheel.

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes, and she instructed a professional to do that, that seems to me to be a reasonable level of due diligence.

But she would still have had to pay the £900 fee! Which she has not done, nor noticed that she has not done. Sometimes people, even the Chancellor, have to accept fault themselves, not blame someone else.

 

[Yew]

But she would still have had to pay the £900 fee! Which she has not done, nor noticed that she has not done. Sometimes people, even the Chancellor, have to accept fault themselves, not blame someone else.

No, the fault lies with the professional that she paid, who failed to do their job correctly. Whilst of course she carries the legal liability, she is obviously clear of any moral wrongdoing by the fact that she instructed an experienced professional to undertake the process and get the licence, and then they just didn't.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, and she instructed a professional to do that, that seems to me to be a reasonable level of due diligence. If she had some work done on her car, would you expect her to be underneath it on the drive, checking the torques of all the bolts?

Others have answered this above as well as I could. However the second point remains, she should simply accept responsibility for not being fully diligent. but it appears that excuses are being made, and that does not fill me with confidence. Leaders lead, and leaders accept responsibility when things go wrong with projects they are in charge of & not just apportion blame. At least that's how I see it.

 

[styles]

No, the fault lies with the professional that she paid, who failed to do their job correctly. Whilst of course she carries the legal liability, she is obviously clear of any moral wrongdoing by the fact that she instructed an experienced professional to undertake the process and get the licence, and then they just didn't.

It's going a bit full circle.

If somebody has an individual legal responsibility for something, whether it's a landlord licence under an LA's selective licensing scheme, or making sure a vehicle is taxed before driving it, while you can delegate the action to somebody else, it is prudent to check that the person it was delegated to actually did it.

She was naïve and didn't check that the things she was individually legally responsible for had been done. She rightly accepted responsibility for this mistake and apologised. She may (but unlikely) have action taken against her by the LA, that's a consequence which will also cause embarrassment.