Landlord Licensing Schemes – Raising Standards or Raising Funds?

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Reynolds" at "11/08/2013 - 10:41":

Its more complicated than that really Mark and there is a lot of confusion, yes, sometimes from ill informed staff but also landlords and tenants often misunderstand what they are being told. Not surprising when you see how daft and arcane so much housing law is.

Homelessness units will often tell tenants to stay put because if they give up their tenancy and go "Dahn the 'Omeless" as they say around my way, then they may well be told they are intentionally homeless. This is the main focus of homelessness units whose needs are not strictly those of housing law, which is my focus.

It gets lost in translation too because there is a legal difference between being told that if you dont leave the landlord must follow due process and obtain a possession order followed by a warrant and a tenant or their adviser saying "You have a right to stay there so stay there till the end".

I will always advise on the former because it is legally correct but I also point out to the tenant that if they dont look for somewhere else and force the landlord to follow due process this will likely ruin their references for future landlords.

Ben, what is your rationale for charging landlords a fee to improve the lot of tenants? Why should this not be funded by the government? As the tenant is the beneficiary a rational argument could be to charge the tenant. In any event it is inevitable that landlords will either charge any such tax on to the tenant or withdraw their property from the rental pool.

Tenants are not forced to accept sub standard housing; they choose to do so because of their often self-imposed circumstances:

1. Illegal immigrant.
2. On benefits. Regular Landlords (the majority) will no longer accept such tenants because the councils in their wisdom choose to pay rent to the tenant instead of the landlord to whom it is owed.
3. Poor credit history.

Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "11/08/2013 - 10:51":

Thanks Ben - How does this

"Homelessness units will often tell tenants to stay put because if they give up their tenancy and go “Dahn the ‘Omeless” as they say around my way, then they may well be told they are intentionally homeless. "

...fit into the DCLG guidance on homelessness? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I am just trying to better understand why tenants who are faced with this scenario are given a letter from the LA telling them to stay put, or in one case don't pay the rent?

I don't expect you to know the answers, but I am sure many landlords out there will have been faced with similar issues but if there is a genuine reason then so be it - Us landlords will just have to put up with it 🙂

Hmmmm Can we just turn that question around there Johnathon?

Is it ok for landlords to run substandard properties for illegal immigransts, those on benefits or have a poor credit history because they have brought it all on themselves?

Who would ever choose to live in sub standard accommodation just because for instance they ruined their credit history when their company, which ran succesfully for many years went bankrupt. I could give you a list of people in that category, including a couple of ex landlords in the same boat because of the recession

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Reynolds" at "11/08/2013 - 11:07":

I wrote an article for P118 explaining this bit of law some while back. Mark Alexander may be able to point you to it. The case law of Croydon v Jarvis. I've got to go out now

WHAT DID I TELL YOU MARK ?

This has been on the cards since 2004. This is pole tax through the back door!!!!
Just look at who “ additional licensing “ affects?
It’s HMOs. Every room in an HMO is getting taxed but not individually, because that WOULD look like pole tax,
So instead HMOs are being taxed as a group of dwellings.
The effect is the same, just from a slightly different angle. THE BACK DOOR.

I’ve been bleating on about this for years, “ no, no, no “ say the councils,
“ we are not nasty people,” proclaimed Medusa, she of many heads !!!!

They claim they did a survey.

Who did they ask,? you ? no.
What did they ask ?
How did they ask ?
Where the true effects of their proposals ever FULLY explained
to those who would be effected if the proposals were ratified ???

very much doubt it.

Told you this was going to happen, I told everyone. It was bloody obvious.

Like a train on the rails to Leeds.... IT WILL GET TO LEEDS.
It might stop a few times, may even go into the sidings for repairs, maintenance and modifications, but Leeds is where it’s going to end up.

And now..........??????? what ?????? what fight have you ?????? none.

It’s done.

and just like the death of every high street due to the greed of councils, this will be the death of HMOs, student lets, little old ladies renting out 2 rooms to make ends meet, and possibly eventually couples living together. by the very same method. GREED BY COUNCIL
( because that is the final step. not a joke. )

I'll TRY to be brief and summarise/paragraph to make this easier to read.

I am a landlord.

I don't agree with blanket licensing - it IS a funding exercise by local authorities, pure and simple. I don't see much evidence of the money being spent on anything useful to fight criminal agents/landlords. (I viewed a property in Newham just yesterday and a government worker wants to get shot of it asap...probably because he didn't have a license to let it out - and it sure has evidence of being let out illegally to me!).

I don't think that regulating letting agents would resolve some of these problems either. There are too many useless or downright criminal ones out there to give a flying f**k about getting regulated. Think of the damage they can cause in the short space of time they are operational before they get found out and closed down. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of deposits could go missing in the process, not to mention the fees paid for poor quality service!

Given the desperate shortage of homes to rent, and the willingness of LHA benefit tenants to get something...anything...even if only short term...then there will always be criminal/greedy elements of the landlord and letting agent population out there waiting to mop up the overspill of tenants from the council/social housing sector. The charity support workers do their bit to minimise the risk to their clients by helping them avoid the real dross by accompanying their client on visits...but they can only go so far.

I don't understand why the housing benefit staff don't come out to visit properties to check on the tenant's prospective or current accommodation. I'm not saying they should all become Health and Safety Executives or EHOs, but if the accommodation looks reasonable and isn't a real hovel (and anybody with some commonsense could decide this), then the housing benefit claim would be paid.

However, if it was a real s**t hole then the housing benefit would be refused. This would stop criminal/greedy landlords in their tracks because they couldn't just get any old body in their hovels. Furthermore the working population wouldn't rent it either...so it would be a way of forcing these types of landlords to clean up their act otherwise they won't make their money.

We have to take the profit element out of the system for the greedy, pile 'em high and charge 'em loads, beds in sheds types of landlords/agents and target resources to seeking and destroying these types first. NOT licensing and regulating good landlords out of existence, otherwise through your actions you will be vicariously aiding and abetting the criminal elements!

To see if landlord licensing works, take a look at the Scottish scheme.

It has failed miserably.

Around a quarter of rented properties remain unlicensed, although it has hard to quantify as it is in a state of permanent flux.
Guess where the 'rogue' landlords are?

Unsurprisingly, this is roughly the same figure as Newhams farce. Although they charge about 10 times more for offering the same 'service'.

They have set up a huge beurocratic scheme for administering good landlords.

I don't have up to date prosecution figures, but as of 2 years ago there were only around a dozen rogue Scottish landlords prosecuted for not licensing. Many of whom could have been done on other grounds anyway.

Here is a well known, landlord friendly, organisation's report on it;

http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/189734/Landlord_registration_3_years_on.pdf

“We conclude that landlord registration is not yet fulfilling the expectations placed upon it; indeed, that it may not be able to do so.”

I have high respect for Ben and what he does, but licensing won't make his job one bit easier. Due process will still need to be lengthily carried out. It will not give Judge Dredd like powers to stamp out the rogues, it will just be another endless layer of red tape to wade through.

Look at the Scottish scheme.

Another example of a failure was Manchester.

Also check out this exposé I did on the Oxford scheme last year >>> http://www.property118.com/hmo-licensing-fees/33761/
.

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Thomas" at "11/08/2013 - 11:49":

You've hit the nail on the head there Gareth.

Why wouldn't Local Authorities want to check they are giving out HB to pay fit and proper persons to provide decent accomodation?

Surely that would be the reasonable, logical thing to do when spending taxpayers money.

That would be what any responsible parent would do if paying for their offspring's accommodation. In this case, the state is effectively in loco parentis.

It would wipe out much of the problems in one fell swoop. They already know who they are paying HB to. No need to set up another costly register.

I'll tell you why they don't, and it's not the old chestnut, lack of resources.

It is because they could not cope with the huge demand for decent accomodation if they did. They know full well what the situation is out there.

Far easier to do a Newham and tax soft target good landlords and be seen to be 'doing something'.