Landlord Licensing Schemes – Raising Standards or Raising Funds?

In my opinion there is already sufficient statutory legislation in place. What is needed is more EHO’s on the street and a visit to every dwelling once every 5 years. Maybe a mandatory licence for all rental properties for say £100 annually. In Peterborough alone it would generate over £1m annually - surely enough to add 10 EHO's with admin back up and systems.

Perhaps a scheme whereby trained qualified agents can licence landlords properties and private self managed landlords pay their local council for licensing on a 5 yearly basis and make it clear to all renters that they should demand to see the licence and check it against a national government controlled register.

We should consider having automatic fines in place for specific breaches (gas tests)in the same way as we have for parking and speeding offences. Keep a national log of anyone with property offences and prevent the transfer of property until the penalty has passed/spent.

Perhaps my ideas will not result in tax revenue that they maybe planning thru the back door.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "11/08/2013 - 09:56":

The flat that isn't contribututing any service charges is a problem, the alcoholic tenant still in situ despite a Prohibition Order is still a problem, and the disrepair of the property is still a problem. Apart from that, no problem!

The lender knows about the bankruptcy.

Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "11/08/2013 - 10:24":

Hi Ben,

You are very welcome! Just one question. If the landlord is made aware of the anti-social behaviour committed by his tenants but doesn't even bother to serve an eviction notice, isn't this a tacit sign that he/she endorses such behavior? Leasehold block management rely on individual landlords serving such notices.

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Crossland" at "12/08/2013 - 07:45":

No It doesnt Sharon and the logic is basic law not even housing law. How can you be done for something that someone else did?

Admittedly it makes sense for decent responsible landlrods to take action but the problem is most times any action will be under Ground 14 (Nuisance, immoral purposes etc) and that means a court hearing. Also Ground 14 is a discretionary ground, so even if the landlord proved the case the judge still has to find it 'Reasonable' to grant a possession order. When councils and housing association go on these grounds they usually end up merely with a Suspended Possession Order, which is granted with the aim of moderating the tenant's behaviour.

I still think it is worth doing but I think it is something that council's should help landlords with as its quite legally fiddly.Of course a landlord could use a solicitor but this whacks the cost up, which is probably why landlords dont get involved. Its in the council's interest to have these problems sorted so why not a partnership approach? But I tried that with the gun incident and look what happened.

Not many people know that councils also have the option of serving injunctions in the public interest under Section 222 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972, where ASB regulations arent feasible.

Reply to the comment left by "Don Holmes" at "11/08/2013 - 16:37":

I found this comment very interesting. The one thing I don't get though is why, on the one hand good landlords don't want to be 'penalised' by the cost of licencing but on the other hand they want councils to spend money they haven't got on more enforcement measures. I also don't get the observation that 'if society wants a decent PRS then society should pay for it' (or words to that effect). Society as a whole does not care one way or the other about the PRS as it doesn't use it. Those that do care about it are the professional landlords offering good housing and reasonable and affordable rents and the good tenants who want a nice home.

It's all too easy to focus on negative points to promote ones own interest. If you take the observation about Scotland licencing, where a quarter of the properties have yet to be licenced, doesn't this mean that three quarters are? That's three quarters more than we have here.

However, my main concern is that where councils blanket licence, i.e. Newham, then landlords who don't want to pay (for whatever reason) will purchase properties in other boroughs where there isn't any licencing. I believe the NLA representative for East London said he would do so himself.

This is like moving on groups of troublemakers by dispersal orders to another area. It deals with the initial problem but only moves it. It doesn't deal with the heart of the issue. Nor at the moment does the PRS, certainly in terms of fragmentation!

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Crossland" at "12/08/2013 - 08:37":

Sharon you said "This is like moving on groups of troublemakers by dispersal orders to another area. It deals with the initial problem but only moves it."

This is what I believe is driving the Newham Logic. Its a roundabout way of cleansing your borough. I recently attended a housing forum in Ashford Kent, with Marion from the NLA and one presenter talking about their licensing programme said it was having the same effect. He wasnt championing it in that respect but experienced council workers can read between the lines

Reply to the comment left by "Sharon Crossland" at "12/08/2013 - 08:37":

Sharon, I can assure you that the rouges will be in the 25% of landlords which have not become licensed in Scotland. Decent people will obey the law, rogues and criminals will not. The rogues and criminals are not being dealt with. Therefore, GOOD landlords are paying money for nothing. For Shelter to admit that landlord licensing in Scotland is unlikely to ever work there is clearly a very big problem. The purpose of this thread is to consider effective alternatives.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Ben Reeve-Lewis" at "12/08/2013 - 08:42":

hi ben
the supposed ASB problems in newham are greatly exaggerated. it was impossible to verify the supporting data as lbn would not release on the grounds of DPA. licensing was driven by the mayor, who for idealogical reasons wants to drive out landlords and encourage family housing and particularly owner occupiers. hence the article 4 direction. in truth it has very little to do with ASB. newham landlords have been stitched up.

Reply to the comment left by "Joe Bloggs" at "12/08/2013 - 09:11":

I know Joe, this is one of the cases where the whole shebang came directly from Rockin Robin Wales, trying to transform his borough. Idealogically driven as you say.

I'm South East London born and bred and I've seen so many changes in my life. Growing up my bit had a dreadful reputation. Millwall football violence, muggings etc. I was watching an old episode of Minder a few weeks back where there was a running gag in it about going to South East London and the shock on all the West Londoner's faces. Dave at the Winchester club saying "South London???? There's some wicked people down there Arfur" haha

But in the past few years you are more likely to get short changed in a delicatessen than get mugged. The East London Line gives us a hotline to Islington and Brick Lane and all the young trendies who cant afford in Shoreditch or fashionable Hoxton are moving to Brockley and Honor Oak, the kebab emporiums noticably changing into cheese shops or tapas bars.

And what with housing benefit caps rubbing up against London rents while many homelessness units are farming people out to Manchester, South Wales, Hull, Stoke etc its easy to see how much of the old working class London will go the same way with a bit of a nudge. I'm sure the Newham Mayor prefers the idea of running a borough that is aspirational and largely middle class. Easier to police the PRS in a place like that, which means less staff

Reply to the comment left by "Terry Lucking" at "12/08/2013 - 07:33":

I can see a few problems with that suggestion Terry.

1) Why should good landlords pay to police bad landlords for the benefit of tenants and society as a whole?

2) Who could trust the Councils to spend the money on employing more EHO's? In Salford they collected £700k and spent £1 million administering it! No change to standards and just a bit of propaganda based on an winning a similar number of enforcement cases to pre-licensing. The same thing is happening in Scotland and Newham.

Please take a look at the alternatives suggested in this thread. I appreciate that you might not have time so you may want to wait a few days as I'm in the process of consolidating them all into one new article.
.