Council dodges a fine that would have cost a private landlord £76million

Council dodges a fine that would have cost a private landlord £76million

13:09 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago 17

Text Size

A council that breached the Home Standard after it was found to have 3,000 fire doors overdue for replacement has not been fined by the sector’s regulator.

The English regulator’s latest judgements reveal that the London Borough of Redbridge Council also had 2,000 properties with no electrical installation condition report (EICR).

If a private landlord had made the same mistake, says Phil Turtle, the compliance director at Landlord Licensing & Defence, they would have been hit with a £76million fine.

Mr Turtle said: “Oh, how different things are when the boot is on the other foot.

“On a daily basis, we see HMO landlords hit by councils such as Redbridge, and indeed most councils now, with fines of £28,000 or so under Regulation 4 of the HMO Management Regulations for four or five doors that are not decent fire doors.

“Or for fire alarm systems that don’t have enough units under the latest guidance – even though they meet the legal requirement set out in the Smoke Alarm Regulations.

“Sometimes occupants are in mortal danger. Mostly they are not from the properties we inspect.”

‘Same councils that drop on private landlords’

He added: “Yet here is one of those same councils that drop on private landlords as heavily as a tyrannosaurus dropped from space – and what commensurate enforcement does the giant corporate get for ‘forgetting’ to install 3,000 fire doors?

“They are putting the occupants of 2,000 rental properties, that could be up to 4,000 people, in mortal danger.

“The Regulator of Social Housing said it would not take statutory action at this stage because it had assurances that the situation was being remedied.”

Mr Turtle continued: “So, whereas private landlords would have been threatened, bullied and fined in aggregate £56 million for the same number of properties. Redbridge council is fined £zero.

“How on earth are these people trusted to police private sector housing when they are allowed to get away with such risk to life with nothing more than a slapped wrist?

“And that’s without counting the 2,000 properties without electrical safety certificates.

“That would be £20 million to private landlords. But to you, as you’re a council, it is £zero. And just do the work when you can get round to it.”

London borough did not have an ‘effective system’

The formal report from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) found that the north-east London borough did not have an ‘effective system’ in place to meet its health and safety responsibilities, a breach it said carried the potential for ‘serious detriment’ to its tenants.

In its detailed report into Redbridge Council, the RSH found issues relating to electricity, water, asbestos and fire safety.

In addition to the overdue replacement of fire doors, the report revealed that the local authority was unable to report on the risk profile of its current doors, and how long replacements had been overdue.

The council also did not know when its new fire doors would be installed.

2,000 domestic properties did not have a current electrical condition report

On electrical safety, Redbridge reported that almost 200 communal areas and 2,000 domestic properties in its portfolio did not have a current electrical condition report.

Across the council’s properties, there were also 450 communal areas where Redbridge had not assessed if asbestos surveys were required.

According to the regulator, without up-to-date surveys, the council could not be sure that tenants were not being exposed to asbestos.

Similarly, the report highlighted that water safety risk assessments were missing on more than 160 residential blocks.

The regulator said: “Taking into account the seriousness of the issues, the duration for which tenants were exposed to risk, and the number of tenants potentially affected, the regulator has concluded that LB Redbridge has breached the Home Standard and that there was a risk of serious detriment to tenants during this period.”

Redbridge has since started to put a programme in place to rectify the failures and has ‘assured the regulator that it is taking action to remedy the breach of standard’.

The RSH said it would not take statutory action at this stage because it had assurances that the situation was being remedied.

‘Implemented a programme of works to rectify those issues identified’

Claire Symonds, the chief executive of Redbridge Council, said: “Redbridge Council has designed and implemented a programme of works to rectify those issues identified, and has rapidly made progress since June.

“The Regulator will continue to monitor our progress until we achieve compliance.

“We apologise for any concern this situation might cause to our residents and want to provide reassurance that we have acted swiftly to put things right.”

Mr Turtle said: “Let’s remember that the ‘situation’ Ms Symonds mentions is MORTAL DANGER and says she has acted swiftly to put things right which, according to the RHS, the council also did not know when new doors would be installed.

“The disparity in the persecution of private landlords and the ‘ah-well’ attitude of councils to their own misdemeanours which are multiple magnitudes of order more serious has got to stop.

“Private landlords are treated by these councils as common criminals and often hounded out of business altogether.”

He added: “Why is it that these councils can avoid the same persecution and punishment?

“Something, somewhere is more than a little corrupt!”



Comments

Luke P

13:13 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

If the Council have the power of the PRS, so too should the PRS have the say over Council properties. A proper board, of course but they cannot be left to mark their own homework!

The comment about having received assurances the situation would be remedied, whilst getting them 'off-the-hook' for the time being, you can bet your life they won't have completed the requirements in, say, 6-months time...and yet it'll be overlooked yet again, no doubt.

nekillim200

13:49 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

It would seem people in glass houses CAN throw stones 🙁

Dylan Morris

14:28 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

And of course remember minimum EPC “C” is not going to apply to council properties.

Bill O'Dell

15:03 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

There must be a strong case for a Judicial Review of this, surely? It is iniquitous that the public sector do not have to abide by the same rules. They too are Landlords and should be exemplars of the sector. The system stinks.

Blodwyn

15:36 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

Until I read this here today, I was unaware of this situation. Why not release the facts (NB Facts not Political waffle) to any friends we may have in the Press and suggest an investigation of Council misbehaviour and double standards?

paul thomason

16:30 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

Thy should all apply for a rent rebate f

Paul landlord

16:36 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Bill O'Dell at 07/10/2022 - 15:03
That suggstion sounds not only sensible but a real requirement as far as i am concerned.

We know our representative organisation should be picking up the baton on doing this... but lets be honest we know they won't have the slightest interest.

Is this something we could innitiate through 118 just as we did when we smacked West Brom back into place to the tune of £27m some years ago?

Is there still enough 'fire left in our bellies' or are we all (understandably) too beaten down/ jaded/ disillusioned after all these years?

Bill O'Dell

17:27 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

I have just sent this to NRLA:

The London Borough of Redbridge Council have just escaped a massive fine that would have cost a private landlord £76,000,000.
There is a Property118 thread on this - https://www.property118.com/council-dodges-a-fine-that-would-have-cost-a-private-landlord-76million/#comment-147118
Will the NRLA please consider launching a Judicial Review on this. It is a double standard and it is these Councils that are penalising PRS investors and getting away with it by marking their own homework.
I am disgusted and appalled by this and I hope the NRLA will take it up.

DSR

17:48 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 07/10/2022 - 13:13
actually as a local tax payer (we LL's pay the council tax during void periods dont forget !) then we are entitled to have a say and hold the council to account for their housing practices!

John McKay

18:05 PM, 7th October 2022, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Paul landlord at 07/10/2022 - 16:36
The organisation that SHOULD be moving on this is Shelter but we all know full well they will turn a bind eye.

1 2

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now