Binning selective licensing will leave tenants at the ‘mercy of unscrupulous landlords’

We must accept that some properties in the PRS are not fit for purpose. Just as some homes in the social sector are not fit for purpose and some homes in the owner-occupier sector are not fit for purpose.
Increasing costs for landlords leads to higher rents and less money for landlords to spend on essential repairs.
However, I don’t think the high percentages are likely to reflect the condition of properties nationwide. The figures may tell us as much about the tenants than the landlords.

1. ‘non-compliant’ under licensing rules.
Does not mean non compliant under national legislation.

2 “The report goes on to say that all five boroughs were shocked when they set up their licensing schemes about the ‘high degree of non-compliance’.

So that means the number of LL not licencing their properties then? If so prosecute them for not having a licence then!

3. It says that environmental health officers found issues ‘in nine out of 10’ properties that had been licensed.
What ‘issues’ exactly? Define.
How many non licenced properties did they visit?

4 Apparently, one borough reported that 95% of properties that had applied for a licence had not complied with its conditions.
What were the conditions exactly and what were the ‘failures’

No mention of the actual number of properties visited.

This article and alleged statistics are great fodder for the press, Shelter, Generation Rant et al, and will doubtless be used to further vilify Landlords.
However I don’t believe for one minute that the problems quoted are representative of the whole PRS in the areas quoted, and surmise the underlying data may be suspect, incomplete or selectively reported. Like Reluctant Landlord, I question the basis of the report.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 26/03/2024 – 08:45Good gracious. Can’t believe what I just read. Having been both a tenant and a landlord, I tend to side with the tenant. I made a good profit from renting out at a fair rent. I also happily had good tenants.
I found if I looked after the property and kept it to a decent living standard , my tenants respected the property.
Sadly I think as one can see from this site, many people be some landlords as an easy lazy way to make a living and somehow they don’t seem to think it’s their place to keep a property safe and up to standard.
It should be made known to future landlords that they do have to input. Snd can’t expect people to live in conditions they would not, plus they need to invest. We all know why we become landlords .

Yet another charity I have never heard of. If all of these charities were banned and the money wasted on them was used to build new homes we would be in a better place.

Reply to the comment left by Bobby Ridgewell at 26/03/2024 – 12:56
Not sure what you just read that can’t believe.

Much of the ‘non-compliance’ is just not having a (pointless) licence itself and not, as many would have you believe, a huge number of landlords flouting the ‘national standard’ rules.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 26/03/2024 – 15:55
That you are blaming it on tenants .

Reply to the comment left by Bobby Ridgewell at 26/03/2024 – 16:31
That you are blaming tenants

What a load of old tosh ! The only landlords excluded form selective licencing are the council and housing associations. why is that you should ask ? if i was at all cynical maybe its because they are the biggest rogue landlords in the entire country. The councils already have powers to inspect properties . It is the council owned properties that have the majority of uninhabitable , poor condition houses, that’s why they exclude themselves from their SL schemes.