Saturday, January 23, 2016

Tackling Rogue Landlords & Beds in Sheds
- But not in Redbridge

Last December the Secretary of State rejected Redbridge Council’s application to implement a borough wide licensing scheme for private Landlords to protect private tenants. Yesterday, Friday 22nd January, we had a government press release announcing plans to tackle rogue landlords with a £5 million injection of cash, BUT only for selected (invited) local authorities, which does not include Redbridge.

The full Press Release is here, (click the heading) including a list of councils who get the cash:


There is a recognition that rogue landlords and beds-in-sheds cause problems in the community.
The poor quality, overcrowded and dangerous accommodation let by rogue landlords can result in a ripple effect of wider problems in the local community such as noise problems; sanitation issues for whole roads; greater fire risk; council tax and benefit fraud and anti-social behaviour such as street drinking.
However, only 65 local authorities were invited, and only 48 (which includes 18 of the 33 London Boroughs) will get any cash assistance.
In November 2015 we invited 65 local authorities to bid for a share of £5m funding to tackle rogue landlords. Forty-eight councils across the country will receive funding to tackle rogue landlords in their area.
So the obvious question is why is this not being rolled out to every local authority? And why not Redbridge? Was Redbridge “invited” and if so did they apply or was the application rejected?

The leader of Redbridge council, Jas Athwal, has been asked to comment.

UPDATE: Jas Athwal has now commented. see comments section below,


  1. Not only do we have beds in sheds but beds in shops too! Silverdale Parade is a prime example here. I would hope LBR will do something - such as bulldoze empty shopping parades which are now not longer filled with shops - and build town houses at affordable prices for young people to buy.

  2. Anyone with a shed bed/ bungalow in the garden..gets away with it because of the "four year rule" ...just like the one near me.....that stinks of yucky cooking most days ,..I can no longer put out washing or enjoy my garden anymore cos of these things.. But Redbridge is only going to allow more...and they never do anything before it becomes a problem...

  3. The house next door but one to us has been extensively renovated and enlarged with a large loft and a truly massive extension to the ground floor.It is so high that they had to replace the bedroom windows as the extension was above the sills of the existing windows.

    In addition the owner - who lives next door to the renovated house - has had built another small house in the garden. It is not a garage or a storage facility, no access has been made from the service road behimd the houses. It is a little house. Door in the middle and windows either side, pitched roof. We can only speculate as to what the owner intends to use it for. No mention of it was made in the application for planning permission as we suppose there was no requirement to do so, therefore the Local Authority is blissfully unaware of its existence. What now?

    1. Even though such outbuildings are no longer subject to planning permission they are still subject to building regulations, and theoretically should have building regulation approval from the local authority.

  4. Simular story near me too, only a bit more subtle as a small departure from planning permission (unnoticed by planning officer) has made a self contained and now rented out flat.

    Why don't Redbridge Council at least up the council tax band of all massively extended properties? Would go a long way to solving their funding crisis.

  5. I can confirm that we did bid for some of this money but we were not successful. We have not received any feedback as to why but we believe that it is because we have already received two grants over the past four years to tackle beds in sheds.