Landlords should not be allowed to let their own properties

"I am sick and tired of all Landlords being tarred with the same brush!"
This is a common refrain Barry, one usually levelled at my articles because I deal with the criminals but that isnt what is happening here. I'm sure you are a good landlord, so is Lise and Mark and Mary and HMO Landlady etc. It isnt tarring all landlords to discuss a very real problem. I dont feel I am being tarred with same brush as other human beings when murder is being discussed in the papers.
Mary asked earlier why more isnt being done to take the bad ones off the board. I mentioned staff cuts and resources etc but the other reason is there are simply so many of them. I know this isnt what you want to hear but its the truth.
The vast majority of landlords are decent caring people and there are also thousands who arent. Thugs, bullies and chancers with little regard for their tenant's lives.
My views have chanaged in the past few months. I appreciate that the decent landlords want the criminals out of the way because it makes it bad for all on many levels, not least of which is a liberal bit of brush tarring but despite sympathies I dont see much going on within the landlord community to address the problem so I think licensing should be imposed. And I wholly disagree with the idea that it will drive landlords away from the lettings industry. Its too lucrative an endeavour and people are drawn to landlording because they like it. Some may get out but more will come in and licensing gives enforcement officers the real tools they need to police the sector.

I took the decision long ago to put my money into property, rather than have a pension - there were too many fingers in the pension pie!

But how lucrative is property over a pension? You pay tax on both, but you get tax relief against your contributions to a pension. When your pension matures you just sit back and reap the benefits -with property there are always the questions of management and maintenance. You hope your property will increase in value, but there are very few areas where that is currently happening. Some would say "You can always increase the rent!", but how much can you increase the rent in any one year without driving the Tenant out? Lucrative? I don't think so - with mortgages, management and maintenance I'll be lucky to get 4-5% return on my original investment at current rates (although I agree a "bad Landlord" could probably get that up to 9-10% - that's lucrative!), and that is without consideration for the time I put into the business!

I have a property standing next to a property that belongs to a well-known "exempt charity" Housing Association. The Housing Association property is delapidated, has rotting soffits and eaves, they do not bother their Tenant with inspections - in fact, they give their Tenant a free hand to do as they please! I thought the Tenant owned the property - it was only when there was dispute about the state of the property that I researched and found the involvement of the Housing Association! Apparently, even respectable "exempt charity" Housing Associations can be bad Landlords!

So why do I do it? I don't know, but it gives me something to do in retirement! I'll leave that question to my daughters when they inherit the business!

I believe there should be a nationally recognised Code of Practice against which ALL Landlords should operate - not just the private Landlords, but also the large so-called "charity" Landlords.

I have seen attempts at preparing a CoP, but they have usually been prepared by Landlords' Associations - who are usually no better than Agencies with the advice they provide! I was recently presented with a Deed of Guarantor form from a National Landlords' Association, that I was told was the "cat's whiskers". However, it started off with the clause "In consideration of payment of one penny ...... " - was it a Contract or a Deed? It had a "cover-all" clause, but did not mention the changes necessary when there was a change in the Letting Agreement. There was the usual "gobble-de-gook" that should have been written in plain English, and finally there was an "exclusion clause", denying any liability to all who use the Form. That is not the sort of advice I want from a Landlords' Association!

A nationally recognised Code of Practice will provide a standard against which all will stand up and be counted, and to which all "good" Landlords will subcribe.

The problem is - who do we trust to prepare it?

We all know there are bad Landlords out there - big and indifferent, and small and calculating!

How would a Code of Practice work?

Eventually it would provide the basis for the registration of all Landlords - comply or be struck off! Only registered members would be allowed to call themselves "Landlord", all others would be delegated to the title "Property Owner". Perhaps, eventually, the name "Landlord" could have the same protection as Architects, Surveyors, and Engineers!

Only the Government could provide such authority, but the Government are notoriously slow at getting anything done! However, they could initiate a body to act on their behalf, representing Landlords and Tenants. Perhaps the resulting body called be called a "Landlords AND Tenants Association".

Membership of the Association would confer certain legal responsibilities on the Landlord, but conversely there would be some legal protection from prosecution.

The Association would prepare legal documentation, for which it would responsible - no more exclusion clauses!

Similar registration and documentation could be prepared for Tenants, providing a database of Tenants.

Perhaps this could be a beginning to satisfy Mr "Industry Observer"!

Any takers?

I'm with you there Barry, who do we trust indeed?
And I also agree that social landlords dont always run a tight ship either. Many fall short of the decent homes standards they should be complying with, but I suspect that has much to do with cuts too.
I dont know if you know this but some social landlords have gone down this government suggested line of paying tenants to do their own repairs, on the basis that it is cheaper than sustaining maintenace contracts. Again this isnt a council inspired idea but a goverrnment one. Arguments have been raised about safety and quality of work but all government are interested in is cuts.
To get a good solid system in place would require the concerned parries to sit around a table. Landlord accreditation bodies all have their own sub-agenda's, vying to be the accreditation body of choice, councils cant see past their own noses because they are trapped in a 1950s 'Yes Minister' mindset that they cant seem to shake off and tenants groups have no organised voice so I am not hopeful.
This is in part why I support licensing. Criminal landlrods are a massive problem but current legislation doesnt help enforcement officer like me to get them out of the way. Give us licensing and we will be able to clear them out and leave the good guys in operation

Perhaps "The National Landlords and Tenants Registration Council" or "The National Register of Landlords and Tenants" would be a good starting place!

Hi Ben - we seem to be singing from the same song-sheet, but for different reasons!

Where are you based? Forums are okay, but they can only be used to discuss matters of principle - perhaps we can get together for a meeting to discuss points of common interest.

Ive come late to this and confess
have not read all the posts word for word. My view......
I am a self managing landlord. I also view myself as
an agent in all but name . I am my own agent. We are one and the same really.
I could set myself up as a company and give myself a neat cool name and manage
my properties under that name. But its just a name. Whats behind the name is
more important

My day to day managing skills would not change with a
brand name. My qualifications would not change. My enthusiasm, my integrity ,
my experience, my knowledge base and my ability to do a good job ( or bad)
would remain the same. I`m not the best landlord or agent in the world and I
know for sure I am not the worse. Its a bit of an arbitrary test. Some skills
come easy to me and I`m the bees knees at. If I compared certain
skills I have against some agents even the good agents
I would still beat them hands down i reckon. If I went for a job in an agency I
believe i would get that job. I have far better interpersonal skills than many
of the agents I interviewed for the job of managing my properties. It was
embarrassing on occasions to see how so many fell short in that area. And
renting properties is a peoples business. Its all about human interaction.

I interviewed about 8 before i hit gold. Certain
skills I`m rubbish at though and an agent may beat me hands down. My technical
skills for example. I kinda know what needs to be done but I push it to the
back of my mind and take for ever to do it. Not the legal stuff so much ( but
having said that I bet no one would get 100% in the exam whether they are self
managing or a bespoke agency). Its more the technical day to day stuff. The
spreadsheets the computations the rent collection the programme of works. I can
do it but its hassle and many could do it better I`m sure. Of course i know the
gas certificate is important and legal and that gets done but its more to do
with the organising of it. Some agents are very good at
systems

So whats the answer. Regulation , Training, Education
,Raising Awareness, Ombudsman ,Carrot and Stick Approach, Fines, Spot Checks,
Reward System, Face to Face Interviews, Name and Shame, Written Tests, Yearly
MOT , Trust , Complaint System. I dont know to be
honest.

I`m open to suggestions. I`m would be happy from time
to time of having access to some guidance and support and encouragement from the
authorities. Some balances and checks. Ive built up a sizeable business
from scratch. Someone should poke their nose in and check all is ok I guess.
A man in a grey suit to come out with me and shadow me for a day would
hold no fears. I would maybe get 10 out of 10 for some bits and 4 out of 10 for
other bits. If there was 10 questions covering a range of expectations and i
scored 85 out of a 100 i could work on the 15 points where i came
up short. If the results were published and i saw 8 out of 10 recognised
branded agents in town got only 50 out of 100 I could puff my
chest out in pride and say i told you so I knew I was good If they
all scored 95% + then i would go very quiet and eat humble pie and go back to
the drawing board.
A supportive approach to bring standards up
i am all for as opposed to a controlling
oppressive regulatory approach with a - do this or we will shut you down type
attitude.

A branded agent with letters after their name and
pretty pot plants in high street premises is only as good as the
people who work within. All that glitters is not gold
Some Agents will be great but some will be a
superficial glossy book cover with no worthwhile content within

Some Landlords will be great but some will be a
superficial glossy book cover with no worthwhile
content within.
As a self managing landlord with 12 years hands on
experience I hope my book has worthwhile content
within. I like to think I`m a good read. Others including my tenants will judge though.

“Any takers?” Yeah me Barry haha

What I want is minimal property standards in terms of safety
and decency ( I see some dreadful places)

I want landlords trained to a minimum standard, not lawyer
stuff just enough for them to understand the do’s and donts.

I want tenants trained to understand their obligations.

I want standard enforcement legislation lifted and replaced
with licensing on a 3 strikes and out rule like Mark suggests.

I want councils to change their role and be mediators and
supporters of landlords

Another interesting article, some valid points from both sides