Share this post:
Rachel Reeves has tried to draw a line under her rental licence scandal by blaming her letting agent – but even that agency admits it was her responsibility to make sure the law was followed.
Harvey & Wheeler, the Dulwich firm Reeves used to rent out her four-bedroom Southwark house, said a staff member had “offered to apply for a licence” but failed to do so before leaving the company.
The firm apologised for the “oversight” and said Reeves “would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for.”
But that does not absolve her – and her story doesn’t ring true.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
The law is clear: the owner of a rented property is responsible for ensuring it is properly licensed. And Reeves – as Chancellor and a senior member of a party that claims to stand for integrity – should have known better than to assume somebody else would handle it.
That was Boris Johnson’s excuse for failing to ensure there was a plan to see school pupils safely through the Covid-19 crisis, when he gave evidence to an inquiry two weeks ago – and we didn’t accept it from him. The buck stopped with him; he should have ensured that plans were ready.
So in this case the buck stops with Reeves, and we should expect her to have ensured that she was covered.
Furthermore: In her first letter to Keir Starmer, Reeves said she had been unaware that a licence was needed to rent out her Southwark home.
But the paper trail says otherwise. Her husband, Nicholas Joicey – a senior civil servant, no less – was told by the letting agent that a licence was required and that the agency would “sort it”. The agency later admitted that this never happened, blaming the departure of a staff member.
Are we really supposed to believe that Reeves and her husband – both highly experienced in public life – never discussed something as basic as whether they were legally allowed to rent out their home?
When ordinary people let a property, they don’t just assume everything’s fine; they check. Are we being asked to believe that Reeves and her husband did not talk about the practicalities of this, and what needed to be done?
When I was with the former Mrs Mike, we talked about everything that was likely to affect us both; let’s be honest – we talked about everything.
So the idea that two people at the very top of government wouldn’t talk about it simply doesn’t ring true.
This was not just a clerical slip — it was a failure of diligence, of responsibility, and of credibility.
Reeves can’t hide behind her letting agent.
She was the owner.
The law, and the accountability, stop with her.
Sir Keir Starmer has called the situation “regrettable” but says there will be no further action. That makes his earlier promise that “lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers” sound emptier than ever.
As I stated in the previous article, Reeves’s behaviour has been no different from that of Angela Rayner, who had to resign as Housing Secretary, Deputy PM and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
There’s a double-standard here.
The Guardian‘s coverage states that Starmer would have wanted to avoid losing his Chancellor weeks ahead of only this Labour government’s second full Budget, but it makes him look inconsistent, weak, hypocritical, and willing to bend the rules to protect his allies.
And what about the allegedly “independent” Parliamentary ethics advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus. Despite their stories being essentially the same, he said Rayner should go but has declined to suggest the same about Reeves. How can he justify that? And can Starmer really justify keeping him on if his advice is going to be inconsistent in such a blatant way?
Finally, there’s the question of whether other MPs are going to need to check their own housing arrangements.
Two senior Labour government figures have fallen into difficulties because of such matters; some might say that Reeves, being the second of them, should have reviewed her own circumstances after Rayner ran into trouble.
Some might say other MPs should take the hint and do the same now – before their own irregularities are brought to light.
Will they?
It seems the corridors of power are dripping with sleaze.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Reeves rental licence scandal: agency takes blame but responsibility is still hers
Share this post:
Rachel Reeves has tried to draw a line under her rental licence scandal by blaming her letting agent – but even that agency admits it was her responsibility to make sure the law was followed.
Harvey & Wheeler, the Dulwich firm Reeves used to rent out her four-bedroom Southwark house, said a staff member had “offered to apply for a licence” but failed to do so before leaving the company.
The firm apologised for the “oversight” and said Reeves “would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for.”
But that does not absolve her – and her story doesn’t ring true.
The law is clear: the owner of a rented property is responsible for ensuring it is properly licensed. And Reeves – as Chancellor and a senior member of a party that claims to stand for integrity – should have known better than to assume somebody else would handle it.
That was Boris Johnson’s excuse for failing to ensure there was a plan to see school pupils safely through the Covid-19 crisis, when he gave evidence to an inquiry two weeks ago – and we didn’t accept it from him. The buck stopped with him; he should have ensured that plans were ready.
So in this case the buck stops with Reeves, and we should expect her to have ensured that she was covered.
Furthermore: In her first letter to Keir Starmer, Reeves said she had been unaware that a licence was needed to rent out her Southwark home.
But the paper trail says otherwise. Her husband, Nicholas Joicey – a senior civil servant, no less – was told by the letting agent that a licence was required and that the agency would “sort it”. The agency later admitted that this never happened, blaming the departure of a staff member.
Are we really supposed to believe that Reeves and her husband – both highly experienced in public life – never discussed something as basic as whether they were legally allowed to rent out their home?
When ordinary people let a property, they don’t just assume everything’s fine; they check. Are we being asked to believe that Reeves and her husband did not talk about the practicalities of this, and what needed to be done?
When I was with the former Mrs Mike, we talked about everything that was likely to affect us both; let’s be honest – we talked about everything.
So the idea that two people at the very top of government wouldn’t talk about it simply doesn’t ring true.
This was not just a clerical slip — it was a failure of diligence, of responsibility, and of credibility.
Reeves can’t hide behind her letting agent.
She was the owner.
The law, and the accountability, stop with her.
Sir Keir Starmer has called the situation “regrettable” but says there will be no further action. That makes his earlier promise that “lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers” sound emptier than ever.
As I stated in the previous article, Reeves’s behaviour has been no different from that of Angela Rayner, who had to resign as Housing Secretary, Deputy PM and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
There’s a double-standard here.
The Guardian‘s coverage states that Starmer would have wanted to avoid losing his Chancellor weeks ahead of only this Labour government’s second full Budget, but it makes him look inconsistent, weak, hypocritical, and willing to bend the rules to protect his allies.
And what about the allegedly “independent” Parliamentary ethics advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus. Despite their stories being essentially the same, he said Rayner should go but has declined to suggest the same about Reeves. How can he justify that? And can Starmer really justify keeping him on if his advice is going to be inconsistent in such a blatant way?
Finally, there’s the question of whether other MPs are going to need to check their own housing arrangements.
Two senior Labour government figures have fallen into difficulties because of such matters; some might say that Reeves, being the second of them, should have reviewed her own circumstances after Rayner ran into trouble.
Some might say other MPs should take the hint and do the same now – before their own irregularities are brought to light.
Will they?
It seems the corridors of power are dripping with sleaze.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Like this:
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
Like this:
Like this: