Labour wants the keys to YOUR landlord properties

Well, the cat is well and truly out of the bag. Burnham’s tears during his party conference speech should be saved for the country’s landlords when the details of targeting sub-standard homes will see councils having the power to compulsory purchase them from the landlord.

I know lots of people, including landlords, are turned off by politics in this country, but we all really do need to tune in.

That’s because the Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner, and Captain Flip Flop, Andy Burnham, are singing from the same hymn sheet, and that’s not good news for landlords.

Within the space of two days, both had promised councils more power over privately owned homes, one targeting empty properties, the other forcing landlords to sell if they refuse to improve poor conditions.

First up was the Stockport Foghorn who said councils will be empowered to take over a home that has been empty for six months.

Then the man with no mandate said landlords renting out the ‘worst quality’ properties would be warned to improve by councils and their homes taken over if they didn’t comply.

Labour’s own website spells out what that means: the compulsory purchase of substandard properties, including where landlords have refused improvements, to bring more homes into council ownership.

This is clearly about changing who owns the property, not simply who manages it.

Does anyone else feel the chill of state intervention that could see landlords being forced to sell their properties for the greater good of housing people the government can’t take care of?

Less control, more responsibility

As regular readers know, I warned that the Renters’ Rights Bill would leave landlords with less control over their properties and tenants would get the upper hand.

Nobody should defend landlords who knowingly leave tenants in dangerous homes.

But where is the recognition that some tenants cause extraordinary damage themselves?

Wrecked kitchens, ruined bathrooms, damaged floors and extensive water damage cannot always be sorted with a decorator and a long weekend.

Finding contractors, arranging inspections, securing materials and financing substantial repairs can push a refurbishment beyond six months.

The landlord may already have lost rent and spent money recovering possession along with spending cash to restore a home they previously provided in perfectly decent condition.

Will ministers distinguish that owner from someone deliberately abandoning a property?

Otherwise, a landlord could fear council intervention while spending thousands putting right somebody else’s destruction.

Six months is no time

The proposed Empty Dwelling Management Order changes would cut the vacancy threshold from two years to six months and remove evidential requirements concerning anti-social behaviour and community support.

Also, tribunal approval would still be required.

Six months would not automatically trigger a takeover, and an EDMO currently transfers management rather than ownership.

Existing exemptions include properties genuinely marketed for sale or letting and certain probate cases. That might not always be the case, however.

The government must explain clearly how those protections, and genuine refurbishment, will be treated.

An empty house tells you nothing about the unpaid invoices, collapsed chain or builder waiting for a specialist part.

When government blocks the alternatives

Then there is the Renters’ Rights Act restriction on marketing or reletting for 12 months after using the selling or moving-in grounds.

What happens when a genuine sale collapses, the landlord abandons it and reletting remains prohibited?

That does not prove a council takeover would follow.

But it does demand an answer before ministers shorten the timetable.

The landlord database adds another concern.

Propertymark says it will give councils greater access to information for enforcement.

That does not establish that officials will know the instant every tenant leaves, but landlords deserve clarity about how their data will be used.

Without it, this is just another nudge for good landlords to sell up.

Need fair rules established

Burnham’s promise to tackle landlords who refuse to carry out repairs must come with a fair process for establishing responsibility, reasonable deadlines and effective appeals.

Refusing to repair and struggling to finish major work are different things.

And what happens when a tenant refuses access?

My suspicion is that Labour increasingly sees a landlord’s private property as a convenient reserve of yet untapped social housing.

If ministers want landlords to invest in better homes, threatening their control while leaving practical questions unanswered is a curious incentive.

And if Labour wants more council houses, it should build them.

It shouldn’t come looking for our door keys because it cannot deliver enough of its own.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader