Chancellor Rachel Reeves retained her position last week, less than a month before the Budget, after facing 24 hours of intense scrutiny over whether she broke the law by renting out her family home without a required council licence.
The Conservatives called for Reeves to be sacked if she had committed an offence by failing to obtain a licence for her four-bedroom South London property when her family moved into 11 Downing Street. Prime minister Keir Starmer, however, accepted Reeves’s apology as sufficient.
The letting agency Reeves used admitted it was responsible for failing to apply for the licence and issued an apology for the oversight. Southwark Council confirmed it had no plans to take action against her. Starmer subsequently stated that no further action would be taken, following advice from the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Laurie Magnus.
The controversy began with letters exchanged between Reeves and Starmer regarding the unpaid £945 selective licence required in parts of Southwark. Reeves maintained she was unaware of the requirement and applied for the licence as soon as she learned of it.
But The Daily Mail over the weekend reported that there has been “fresh revelations” after it found that Reeves had been warned about the licence requirement by two different letting agencies – Knight Frank and Harvey & Wheeler, the company she eventually instructed.
An extract from an article published by The Daily Mail yesterday stated: “A source has told this newspaper that before engaging that company, Ms Reeves and her husband had approached blue-chip estate agency Knight Frank about managing the property – and were warned about the need for the licence.
“The revelation raises fresh questions about the Chancellor’s initial insistence to the Prime Minister that she was not aware of the legal requirements, given that two separate estate agents raised the issue.
“On Saturday night a Knight Frank spokesman said: ‘It is standard procedure to notify all clients of their legal and regulatory obligations when letting a property.”
The Tories have now called for fresh action.
Shadow Treasury Minister, Gareth Davies, said: “Each day brings fresh questions about Rachel Reeves’ account. This latest revelation casts serious doubt on her claim not to have known about the need for a licence. Her story seems to shift with every explanation.
“The prime minister must now get to the bottom of this and order a full investigation without delay.”
Calls to act against Rachel Reeves rejected by Labour-led Southwark Council
This sounds very familiar to the Jonathan Reynolds affair, where he called himself a solicitor when he wasn’t, the SRA initially refused to take action, but then further information came to light, and the SRA still didn’t pursue him for breaking the law!
When are these politicians going to be held personally accountable for breaking laws, that us mere mortals would have the book thrown at us for breaking!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
She is safe until after the budget. I am surprised that there has not been a petition about this.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
… Could easily start one 😉
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So it seems that Rachel Reeves has set a legal precedent so the local authority cannot pursue and fine landlords for not having a licence anymore? I think not. As I understand it, in this case it would have to be the tenant who would have to apply for a rental repayment order as long as the local authority can confirm the licence was not in place (which I assume they are bound to do). If the tenant is a Labour croney nothing will happen so this won’t be a problem, but if she is saddled with a “I know my rights “ brigade tenant she could yet pay the rent back from the start of the tenancy to the day the licence comes into force. She could always see if the tenant will accept a lower amount unofficially and get them to sign an NDA would this be seen as corruption? Probably not.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
How many landlords have been fined by Southwark for not having a license? For Reeves to escape a fine needs investigating.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I have made a complaint to Southwark and they are investigating.
What action have Southwark taken against other Landlords without a license, and
Why didn’t Southwark recognise that the 2nd most senior Govt minister that lives on their area, has now moved out ( into Number 11 ) and therefore Double Council tax should apply, Alternatively, when they see others registering for Council Tax at her address, why didn’t they put 2+2 together. and make Licensing enquiries.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register