Is Reeves the next one to go?

[olderandnonthewiser]

Her not getting whatever licence she needed doesn’t sound particularly corrupt but somewhat incompetent.

Apparently Starmer is reviewing ‘new information’. If there’s even a whiff of sleeze or being economical with the truth she’s got to go too.

For someone who banged on about sleeze and standards, Starmer isn’t doing well with his ministers.

I found out the other day I was breaking a law in my business inadvertently.

I literally despise RR but this whole thing is a reflection of how many idiotic complex laws there are in this country. You literally need a full time lawyer and accountant to keep on top of them all

This with bells on. It is so hard to keep on top of things these days.

The fine for non compliance is up to £30k and others in her area had to pay this fine.

She paid a letting agency to do the necessary legalities, the max fines etc are for people who wilfully avoid the regs.

I don't know what people want here, politicians - of whatever colour - governing the country, dealing with the countries problems OR pouring over the tiny details of their daily lives...

The Agency accepts full responsibility & she has been cleared by the guy who ensured Rayner was removed, that should be the end of it.

Reeves needs to focus on the budget, not this trivia.

There’s an old saying applies well to MPs , you know they are lying, their lips move. I have no love for labour or Rachel Reeves , but I’m just not convinced it’s an offence that requires her dismissal

He isn't a Labour woman, who at the moment, seem to be the targets for the right wing media.

I mean who in their right mind sits down, trawling the 'net examining female Labour ministers financial affairs in minute detail?

The thing is though, the agent meant to be doing it, and her/her husband dropping the ball with following it up sounds much better than the lie she told, which was she didn’t think she needed one.

It just makes her look dumb, and untrustworthy.

Edit: this was a reply to @Sadcafe , not sure why the quote didn’t work

THEY WERE TOLD THE LICENCE HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR by one of the most well regarded agencies in the business. What exactly is her sackable offence? That she didn't double check this firm of professionals had done their job?

Try to get your personal feelings about her policies and her budget out of the equation here folks. You can't bay for blood and demand a sacking or resignation just because you don't like someone.

If she lied, she should go. It’s really not unreasonable to expect the chancellor to have some integrity. Unrealistic yes. Unreasonable no.

I agree and there is far too much legal meddling and bureaucracy for businesses in this country, which makes everything more costly and inefficient.

However, she changed her story from one day to the next, on production of the emails. This makes her untrustworthy, so she should go.

Since we’re shouting:

BECAUSE THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE TOLD THE PRIME MINISTER.

SHE LIED AND SAID SHE DIDN’T KNOW SHE NEEDED ONE.

LindorDoubleChoc
THEY WERE TOLD THE LICENCE HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR by one of the most well regarded agencies in the business. What exactly is her sackable offence? That she didn't double check this firm of professionals had done their job?

Were Mr and Mrs Reeves not expecting a bill of £900 for said licence? Were they under the impression that the lettings agency had forgotten to charge them so they kept quiet - or that they were getting some sort of freebie perk of Rachel's new job?

On the question of whether she lied - it seems to me far more likely that she was just mistaken about not knowing about the need for a licence. Her husband was handling it, over a year ago, in amongst a pile of other admin. Imagine you get a call from the media "it turns out that you needed a licence for your flat, this is illegal, you need to respond immediately". Surely your first reaction would be "I've got no idea what this is about"? Then within the next day, your husband is able to dig out the email to show that it was actually the agent to blame.

Why would Rachel Reeves deliberately lie when it must have been clear the facts would come out before long? I think the most she can be accused of is not taking enough time to work out all the facts. And if she'd just been told by the Mail that they're about to publish (very likely) she wouldn't have had much time for that.

I'd imagine Mrs Reeves had a lot more on her mind (such as the entire UK economy) so this slipped though the net - particularly as it seems to have been a bit of admin that was started by her husband (though ultimately the responsibility of the agent). You pay agents a monthly fee, and in return they are expected to be on top of things like this, gas safety certificates etc so you don't break the law.

Of course, what's really happening is that the Daily Mail hates Rachel Reeves (particularly since she came for non-doms like their owner). She's a woman, left of centre, and has a bit of power, so any small mistake is blown up out of all proportion.

The real story is how a sitting member of parliament defrauded the taxpayer of £44,000 by claiming his low waged girlfriend magically came across a massive pot of cash to buy a home in his constituency outright, of course.

I imagine Mr Joicey and Ms Reeves had so many deductions as charges from their first month's rent that they wouldn't have known they were plus or minus the Licence fee.

My apologies, Mr Joicey - rhymes with Boycie

Ha at this.

Is it known if the letting agents actually deducted the £900 from the Reeves for the licence - even though one was never applied for?
If they had I suppose they could argue they had taken them at their word & paid the money for it. Presumably though they would only invoice them for it after the event & it was never applied for in reality.
Incredible the agent is standing behind this though.

Poor Rachel, I don't think she has any friends anymore

SHE BROKE THE LAW AND LIED ABOUT IT

I agree that the DM (and Telegraph) are both relentless and remorseless in their pursuit of RR (and Angela Rayner) but that makes her conduct all the more stupid.

Did she break the law? I think the licence is a local council thing, not a law.

I agree both she and AR should have been much more careful to be squeaky clean but this is hyperbole.

Her house is probably on the Dulwich Estate which is sort of like a freeholder and has some quite unusual rules on what owners in their houses can do. Most properties are sold freehold these days but even so some restrictions still apply under the Dulwich Estate Scheme of Management which would not apply to the vast majority of freehold properties.

I’ve seen ‘housing law’ in various reports. I was only shouting because pp did a few posts above.

I agree it’s hardly crime of the century - but it’s nuts that she didn’t check before releasing a statement.

To be honest, I imagine she just hadn’t got round to checking/doing anything about it. But she ought to have told the truth. I simply don’t believe that she didn’t know she needed it.

She needs to resign - its not a small thing for someone in her position to be guilty of. Incompetent, arrogant and entitled.
Anyone in the public eye especially politics- knows to be squeaky clean on matters such as this.

It is the responsibility of the LL to manage their administration. Hmrc is very clear not knowing is not an excuse. You make it your business to know.
We are all busy. She did know. She chose not to bother with it.

Labour are crippling this country with taxes. Same as they did in the 70's.

Majority of politicians are self serving, corrupt and tell any lie to get out of trouble.

Who to vote for? There is no one to vote for, if a general election is called. Disgraceful - accepting freebies, lying, standing by liars and cheats, and happy to see the populace struggle whilst they line their pockets .

Cobblers - the estate agent has agreed that they said they'd organise the licence and then didn't. I am a landlord and I trust that when I ask my agency to renew a gas certificate then they will book the inspection. I don't ask for the gas engineer's number so I can personally harass them about whether it was done - that's what I pay an agent (through the nose) for.

This is a massive nothing that the press has blown out of proportion to punish her for daring to remove some of their owners' tax breaks.