Expert hits out after councils escape safety fines that would ruin private landlords

Expert hits out after councils escape safety fines that would ruin private landlords

0:07 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago 10

Text Size

A landlord law expert has blasted four council housing providers for avoiding hefty penalties despite severe safety breaches which would bankrupt private landlords.

Phil Turtle, a director of Landlord Licensing & Defence, is furious that Brighton and Hove City Council, London Borough of Hackney, South Derbyshire District Council, and Ashford Borough Council escaped punishment for failings uncovered by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).

All four received a C3 rating, indicating critical safety shortcomings including electrical and fire safety risks, a lack of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and thousands of homes with a fire risk assessment.

Lenient treatment when compared to private landlords

Mr Turtle says he was bewildered by the lenient treatment of councils when compared to private landlords for similar offences.

He said: “Yet again councils get let off with a slapped wrist for housing failures for which the very same council would fine a private landlord out of existence.

“Fines for not having an EICR are up to £30,000 and it’s up to £30,000 for inadequate fire alarms/precautions and another up to £30,000 for damp and mould.”

He added: “If this was a private portfolio landlord where ‘professional’ means they would get the highest possible fines, because ‘they should know better’ – they would be looking at the best part of £100,000 in fines per property.

“But the same councils that inflict these fines – which they keep for their own revenue budget – just get a slapped wrist and time to leave the tenants in mortal danger until they feel like getting around to the repairs and upgrades.

“It’s at best immoral. Some may say completely corrupt.”

Safety breaches in council properties

The shocking details of the safety breaches in council properties highlighted by the RSH include:

  • Brighton and Hove City Council: Electrical safety risks in 3,600 homes, fire safety issues in 1,700, and a repair backlog of 8,000
  • London Borough of Hackney: More than 15,000 homes don’t have a valid electrical safety certificate, nearly 9,000 are without smoke detectors and more than 400 don’t have carbon monoxide detectors, and more than 1,400 council homes have damp and mould cases
  • South Derbyshire District Council: Half of homes haven’t had a fire risk assessment, ‘a number’ don’t have valid electrical safety certificates, and more than 100 homes needed extra work for ‘unsatisfactory’ electrical certificates
  • Ashford Borough Council: Severe health and safety lapses, including overdue electrical checks, incomplete fire safety measures, and missing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in some of its 4,800 homes.

Despite these shocking revelations, the RSH did not impose penalties.

‘Landlords must provide safe and decent homes’

Kate Dodsworth, the chief of regulatory engagement at RSH, said: “Landlords must provide safe and decent homes for tenants by taking a proactive approach to delivering the outcomes of our standards.

“Making sure tenants’ homes are safe and keeping up-to-date data is key to meeting these objectives, as is ensuring there are effective approaches to handling complaints and engaging with tenants.”

She adds: “The issues outlined in the judgements need to be addressed promptly and we are working intensively with each of the landlords as they put things right for their tenants.”


Share This Article


Comments

Ian Narbeth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:05 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Is it possible to bring private prosecutions against these councils?

moneymanager

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:14 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/08/2024 - 10:05Rather than prosecuting the Counculs directly, how about brining legal pressure on the regulatory body to do its duty< clearly harm, at least potential, has been occasioned, malfeasance in public office springs to mind.

Blodwyn

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:18 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Ptivate prosecutions sound very attractive until you look at the expense involved.
When it comes to saving their own skins, those councils mentioned would suddenly find a bottomless fund pit to do everything they could to frustrate the process and run up costs.
I'm afraid all you can do is make a very loud noise and accept it is a true example of one law for them, one for you? I would love to be proved wrong.

Reluctant Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:37 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago

I'm all for encouraging social tenants to start hounding the councils directly! If more tenants kick off then the true scale will be realised....

MPD

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:40 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Absolutely shocking that anyone would allow their tenants to be at such significant risks over tests and equipment that cost a few hundred pounds at best to ensure safety and compliance
When is the regulator going to start doing his job and stop issuing stupid report cards
He needs to get these idiots removed from office and force these councils to immediately remedy the major safety breaches
Disgraceful that they punish PRS LLs to the full extent and they seem to be able to hide in the shadows

Derek And jen

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:59 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by MPD at 15/08/2024 - 10:40
Perhaps a court order as they are not fit to act as landlords .The properties confiscated and set under a management order.

Suddenly all their rental income would disappear !

If they not fit and proper they can hardly fine any one then as they would have no doubt lost that capacity to do so.

Question is who would be the fit and proper person to manage it then??

The ombudsman , along with help of proper private landlords perhaps ?

obiwan Kenobi

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:47 AM, 16th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/08/2024 - 10:05
Hi Ian yes you could under breach of 122 (1)b) Electrical safety standards for Housing and Planning Act 2016, Non compliance with BS 7671 currently 18th Edition, HHSRS 2005 Regs Section 9 of the Housing Act 2004 if there are other hazards like mould or boiler issues. A local authorities Environmental Health does not tend monitor these due to subjective compliance issues. The latter there are few private operators and they are quite expensive and a tenant is unlikely to spend the time researching it or paying for it

obiwan Kenobi

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:49 AM, 16th August 2024, About 2 months ago

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 15/08/2024 - 10:14
Good idea Money Manager The Regulator has been in operation since 2018 but how would you go about doing that realistically a Judicial Review?

Blodwyn

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:59 AM, 16th August 2024, About 2 months ago

DON'T waste money on the Law!!!
From a lawyer.

Darren Peters

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:21 AM, 17th August 2024, About 2 months ago

The problem with fines generally is that they never go to victims but to central government with a transfer fee for the judiciary.

As. for handing the properties to someone else, Who? It would just be G4S, Capita or Serco.

Sorry nothing positive to contribute

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 Automated Assistant Read More