Landlord Licensing Schemes – Raising Standards or Raising Funds?

Landlord Licensing Schemes – Raising Standards or Raising Funds?

9:41 AM, 9th August 2013, About 11 years ago 118

Text Size

WARNING – this article might make you want to cry, it might make you want to laugh and it will probably make you angry, and for many different reasons depending on who you are. Licensing - Raising Standards or Raising Funds?

This is one of those articles which I would like to be read by every landlord, every letting agent, every tenant and especially every Politician.

I would also like every person who reads this article to leave a comment, share it and help turn it into a HUGE debate.

So what is it all about?

My friend Mary Latham recently wrote a book about the storm she see’s brewing which is heading towards the Private Rented Sector with potentially catastrophic consequences. One of the chapters in Mary’s book is called “Raising Standards or Raising funds”.

There have been many discussions about the effectiveness of licensing which is being introduced into the PRS in it’s various forms and on many occasions, landlords have concluded that licencing has very little to do with raising standards and more to do with Local Authorities raising funds to create “jobs for the boys”

Well you may be pleased to hear that the DCLG have asked Local Authorities to complete a survey about licencing. Have they read Mary’s book one wonders?

When I heard about the survey, intrigue and curiosity got the better of me – what questions were the DCLG asking?

To my surprise,  I managed to get hold of a link to the survey questionnaire, DCLG had used ‘open source’ software for their survey. Being the curious type I obviously felt compelled to take a look, fully expecting to be met with a security screen where I would have to enter a User Name and Password to get any further. I’d have given up at that point as there’s no way I would attempt to hack a Government website. To my surprise though, there was no security! They were using Survey Monkey and that awoke the little monkey in me.

To see the questions being asked I needed to complete the page I was looking at to get to the next set of questions, so I began to fill it in. This is the point at which my curiosity transformed into mischief as I was having a lot of fun with my answers 😉

Here was my opportunity to tell the DCLG what I really think about landlord licencing in the most cynical and mischievous way possible. What an opportunity!

Now before you think about attacking me with some “holier than though” type comments, please remember the DCLG are responsible for the drafting of all of the legislation which has caused the PRS so much grief. Anyhow, enough said on that, it’s done now.

I took screen shots of every page I completed and I have put them together in a slideshow below.

Do take a look and whether you laugh or cry and for whatever reason you get angry, please post a comment or join in the discussion below this article 😉

If I mysteriously disappear, you might just find me at the Tower of London LOL

I hope you will appreciate the irony of my answers!

[thethe-image-slider name=”Raising Funds or Raising Standards”]

Note for tenants – More licensing = higher rents!


Share This Article


Comments

Lauren Wadey MIRPM, AssocRICS, CIHM

9:45 AM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Wow what a response! I enjoyed reading the comments but am afraid I hadn't the time to read them all. From what I have read though I think there are some really great opinions and ideas flying around.

I agree that it is silly to introduce new landlord licensing when the HMO licenses still don't seem to have been fully understood, implemented and proven. This is the case in Brighton and Hove, certainly in my experience anyway. One of my multi landlords had identical properties reviewed on separate occasions by the same HMO officer only to receive conflicting advise on the same issue!?!?!

On the whole though I think there is a place for regulating bad landlords and although it should penalise good landlords with further fees, I appreciate the need to crawl back the expense of introducing this service when councils are already stretched. Joined up thinking as proposed by Ben sounds long overdue, logical and practical.

I look forward to seeing how far this debate reaches.

11:30 AM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

I'd like to raise another issue to this.

Letting agents.

There is a big distinction between licensing landlords and licensing letting agents.

They are separate issues which should not be lumped together.

If letting agents go down for this, and it seems likely they will eventually, it is in their vested interests to make all landlords go down with them.

There will be a significant number of single property/ small portfolio, part-time landlords who will not have the time or inclination to deal with all the beaurocracy. Added to which are those that are not deemed fit and proper (including overseas landlords). They will be forced into dealing with the professionals -letting agents.
Jackpot.

I don't blame letting agents for wanting this, we are all capitalists after all!

But landlords need to be aware that letting agents may not be lobbying in landlord's best interests.

Neil Patterson

11:51 AM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Wow some fantastic input here from all readers and much food for thought. Thank you to all.

If you take a very simplistic Helicopter view of the situation:

1) None of this would be a problem if there was enough council housing stock

2) We want to tax the sector that is taking up the slack

Hmmm confused .com

12:03 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "12/08/2013 - 08:07":

Thanks Ben. It does however raise another question. If landlords aren't rsponsible for the behaviour of their tenants when they enter into a contract with them via the tenancy agreement, who is? Me?

12:13 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/08/2013 - 08:47":

Well there you have it. We now know that Scotland has 25% rogue landlords as per your observation. The percentage here is, er no one knows!

I also note you telling me that the purpose of thiis thread is to promote alternative ideas to landlord licencing. Sorry but I thought that such an informed thread might want to know how the PRS impacts on the much larger leasehold sector. I can't offer alternatives because I am NOT a landlord but that doesn't prevent me from being totally open minded on the comments and alternatives posted here. My views may be in opposition because my experiences are different but I just wanted to be part of what has turned out to be a very interesting and informative debate. I guess I was wrong.

12:14 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Crossland" at "12/08/2013 - 12:03":

The Tenants are responsible for their own behaviour.
Sorry to be unhelpful.

Eric Osman

12:26 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Can anyone describe for me the process, that connects universal licensing to identifying rogue landlords. Just how does it work? Rogue landlords, by their nature make sure that they stay under the radar. The only way to root out bad landlords is for enviromental health officers to walk around the borough.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

12:29 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

@Sharon Crossland

Your views and comments are most welcome. To consider solutions we must first be aware of the problems and the causes of the problems. Thank you for your input and for trying to remain open minded. I am sorry to read that you have not changed your initial opinion though.

With regards to 25% of landlords in Scotland being rogues, that too is a matter of perspective. Yes they are breaking the law by not being registered/licensed but there will be some who remain oblivious to the existence of the law. I accept that ignorance of the law is no defence but there is a big difference between that and a rogue or a criminal.

I agree with HB Welcome, tenants are responsible for their own behaviour.
.

12:32 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "HB Welcome" at "12/08/2013 - 12:14":

Not really. A response is always welcome even if it is in the negative. However what do you say to a councils stance which is that 'ASB committed by tenants is the responsibility of the landlord as it is civil matter' but landlords say 'LA's have enough mechanisms at their disposal to deal with it themselves'. I'm not a landlord and I'm not the council. Still down to me to deal with it? I have already done so but not without extreme risk to mine and my partners person as I have photographs of the black eyes, bruises and gouges to prove it!

Ben Reeve-Lewis

12:46 PM, 12th August 2013, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Crossland" at "12/08/2013 - 12:32":

Sharon like you I have been threatened and assaulted by landlords and tenants alike. I dont even bother mentioning it when I go back the office these days and I'm not beyond punching them back on occasion, which I obviously keep quiet about too haha

To clarify your point about responsibility though. Agents, like landlords have no responsibility for the actions of their tenants. What is different for agents is that you do have a fiduciary duty of care to your client, the landlord. This doesnt mean that if the tenant smashes the place up it is your responsibility but if the landlord requests that you, as the managing agent takes action on their behalf and you dont then you would be breaching your duties to them.

Tessa Shepperson has a handy video of solicitor Simon Parrot giving a talk on this topic here http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/04/23/simon-parrott-talks-about-agency-law-and-agents-fiduciary-duty/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

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