My Landlord mate just sent me this concerning Councils

by Readers Question

14:53 PM, 18th April 2017
About 2 years ago

My Landlord mate just sent me this concerning Councils

Make Text Bigger
My Landlord mate just sent me this concerning Councils

My Landlord mate just sent me this who he sending to council and secretary of state. I reckon some good points in there, as he mentions several of the attacks on us in one email.

“Dear Ms Urquhart

A copy of this email has also been sent to the Secretary of State Sajid Javid whom I believe needs to be aware of the adverse effect Selective Licensing is going to have on families who are having to live on a reduced and limited income in Nottingham.

I am writing to you to express my concerns with regards to the blatant and harmful propaganda that is being put forward by the Council with regards to selective licensing. The Council’s claim that Nottingham landlords are going to pay a £600.00 licensing fee along with other associated costs without having to increase the rents that they charge, frankly is deceitful. If it is truly the Council’s intention to improve the housing standards in Nottingham they should start by using the extensive enforcement powers that they already have at their disposal, as it is very much arguable whether those powers are currently being used to their full potential effect.

I am just one Nottingham City landlord but I believe that I am very typical. I have fifty 2 & 3 bedroom houses all of which, if your plans are approved, will attract a £600.00 licensing fee. The rents that I charge to my tenants have not increased since the credit crunch of 2008, nine years ago. I currently charge a maximum rent of £500.00 and £550.00 PCM, some are less, depending on the number of bedrooms and the value of the property. Thankfully during the last nine years inflation has been very low. However during the same period many landlords, myself included have had to deal with an erosion of tax allowable expenditure and benefit reforms, whereby the viability of housing many welfare dependent tenants has become more trouble than it is worth. Such is the current situation that since the introduction of Universal Credit I have reduced the number of HIMO properties that I operate from nine to six. The Benefit cap has also been introduced and of the 7 of my tenants who have had their benefits cut, only 1 has found work, 2 have been evicted, 1 is currently the subject of eviction proceedings and 3 are struggling to pay the shortfall in their rents.

The Council seem to be in denial of the fact that there is a massive housing shortage and in the current climate of demand outstripping supply most landlords are simply going to increase their rents and evict those who refuse to pay. It is dishonest of you to imply, as you have, that rents will not be increased as a result of the programme that you are pursuing. There is a limit to the amount of extra costs that any business can carry without increasing it’s charges. In the area that I operate I am meeting people on a daily basis who are living on the breadline. I did not invest in property with the intention of making families with children homeless or to demand money from those who are considerably less well off than myself, however that is the position that I find myself in.

If the £600.00 licensing fee is implemented I will immediately be increasing my rents not by the £2.30 or so a week as the Council have suggested will be the cost of selective licensing but by an amount that reflects the £30,000 needed to be raised that the Council will be demanding from me. I have no doubt that the £50.00 per month rent increase that I have in mind will cause hardship and an increase in evictions, which in turn will cause problems for the Council who will have to bear the cost of those in need of accommodation until they are rehoused. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the national outcry from landlords against George Osborne’s tax attacks on the PRS. The effect of the new tax situation along with benefit reforms cannot be understated and is bringing nationally as well as locally many property investors to their knees. The last thing needed in the current climate by both landlords and tenants alike is an extra property tax in the form of selective licensing. If I am typical of the majority of Nottingham landlords as I believe that I am the Secretary of State needs to consider NCC’s application with the utmost caution, as it may bring NCC far more problems than they realise.

Yours sincerely”



Comments

Larry Sweeney

22:37 PM, 18th April 2017
About 2 years ago

To Our Nottingham friend, I would point out the following. All of these blood sucking Councils use the "its only 2.30 pw argument". What they fail to say is that it all must be paid upfront for 5 years. Imagine the outcry if they demanded CT up front for 5 years. What about the Gas company asking for the bill up front for 5 years. The idiots in these organisations have no concept of the harsh commercial realities of the real economy where we operate. The scheme has been operating in Liverpool for more than 2 years. the few miserable prosecutions which they have obtained have been for failure to sign up to their rubbish scheme and not for bad Housing. I have extensive local knowledge of the city and not one single street in the so called deprived areas has been improved. It is a disgrace and nothing more than another tax. Simple as that.

Gary Dully

6:29 AM, 19th April 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Larry Sweeney" at "18/04/2017 - 22:37":

The same applies for Rent Smart Wales

Jim Parsler

9:16 AM, 19th April 2017
About 2 years ago

In Milton Keynes we were faced with a similar argument when the council wanted to impose Selective Licensing across the whole borough. There was no justification for it apart from strongly held opinions from a few Councillors with strongly held opinions. What finally seemed to get their attention was the following statements:
Selective Licensing under the Housing Act is effectively a final resort to deal with ASB where all other actions have been exhausted. By implementing it the Council is basically stating that their borough has such endemic ASB issues that they have been unable to address with their wide ranging powers.
The impact on this will be to effectively red line the borough in the eyes of many insurers and mortgage providers. There is plenty of evidence of this in areas where SL has been implemented. It was pointed out to the Councillors that this will not only affect the landlord community but also anyone else in the borough seeking home insurance or a mortgage. Also it is these increased costs, not just the £x per week for the license that will force a rent increase across the PRS.

Route Meister

12:34 PM, 19th April 2017
About 2 years ago

I have had a response to my FOI request to Nottm City Council for a breakdown of the 4500 PRS "complaints" the city council have received based on the seriousness of the complaint and the number of actual enforcement actions taken. They have told me that they do not have that info to hand and it would cost too much to extract it. I am not sure therefore how they can use the 4500 if they themselves have no idea of the actual problem. The enforcement department already has 42 members of staff so another £25 million needed over 5 years. Why?

The city council's own social housing estate has a significantly higher pro rata level of complaints at 9612 for 27,000 properties (as against 4500 for 42,000 PRS properties)


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

44% of landlords fear Right to Rent

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More