Nottingham Selective Licencing consultation bias against landlords

by Readers Question

11:53 AM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Nottingham Selective Licencing consultation bias against landlords

Make Text Bigger
Nottingham Selective Licencing consultation bias against landlords

The consultation closes this Friday so any landlord who have not responded to the survey should do so and also email the councillor responsible (as I for one do not trust that the survey outcome will actually be made public).

jane.urquhart@nottinghamcity.gov.uk

The city council have said they had 4500 complaints regarding the 43,000 PRS properties in the city over a 4 year period and this is the justification for imposing this £600 per property fee on all of them which equates to £25 million extra income to the council.

They have not broken down the 4500 complaints so we do not know if they are minor or serious health and safety issues, but I can guess! They have also failed to mention that their own 27,000 council houses (Nottingham City Homes) had 9612 complaints for the same 4 year period. I make that 3-4 times more complaints on a pro rata basis than for PRS properties in the city.

It is also very clear from their website and emails from officers that they are heavily bias towards encouraging complaints against PRS landlords but have no page or system on their website to complain against social landlords

Do they really need 76 more officers to run a duplicating licensing scheme?

Route Meister



Comments

Jamie M

13:03 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Typical. Crushing the PRS which is the best performing rental sector Tragic for 15 million tenants who have to pay for this and devastating for 2 million landlords. It's all but finished unless we get S24 reversed and get a sponsor in govt to stop this unwarranted assault. The councils are the worst landlords in all of the UK.

robert fisher

13:39 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

They are Trialling this in Peterborough, It is unjustified and is purely money making on behalf of the council. It will be brought in across the whole city after the trial regardless of the results. They also mooted a £600 fee , reduced to £50 for a 5 year licence if the landlord uses an ARLA registered agent and applies for the licence before a certain date. I now have 6 licenced properties from my portfolio of 19. The council asked to check my mortgage details to check i was using BTL products , I told them to sod off as it was none of their business despite the fact that i do use BTL products. They expressed a wish to be able to check the wording to see if the mortgage allowed it to be rented out and also to report direct to the lender any issues they felt pertinent to the property. They also came and inspected the properties to ensure they were fit for purpose, and all maintenance and legislation was attended to , ( fair enough we all want to see rogue landlords out of the business)) but Since gaining the licences they have informed me that they will be carrying out un announced inspections which considering that as a landlord i have to give tenants due notice of inspection it seems the licence authorities do not. i have advised my tenants that they do not have to allow access if they feel it interrupts their beneficial use and enjoyment of their home. I also commented to the pre licence consultation , they took no notice, unfortunately it is the tenants that will pay the price over the long term.

Luke P

13:40 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

You should be asking how many of those complaints resulted in action/notices/prosecution as anyone can make a complaint (ubsubstantiated or ortherwise).

Jamie M

14:27 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

It won't make an iota of difference as we operate on logic, decency and financial imperative where they do what the hell they like to shore up their broken operation and policies and make up pathetic excuses and reasons to justify their theft and waste. The UK is fucked and I am months from selling all and pissing off. So sad that despite any info or evidence no one will listen because their agenda is what counts, not tenants or anyone involved in this. My MP said on Friday night that she supported George and Hammond who were both good people but she couldn't answer my questions as to the justification for bankrupting most landlords, making millions homeless and rents very much higher for the rest. NOT INTERESTED and she's a TORY. Morons and scoundrels one and all.

Luke P

14:43 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jamie Moodie" at "27/03/2017 - 14:27":

Did you get any joy from Paul Nuttall?

Whiteskifreak Surrey

14:44 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "27/03/2017 - 13:40":

I went to Newham consultation meeting. The result was 0.02%. Speaks for itself.
NB Woking BC is now planning the licensing on a part of the town (so far).
It spreads and will have to be built into rent at some point.

Jamie M

17:19 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "27/03/2017 - 14:43":

Yes a good response. I presented the S24 situation and case to Paul and we discussed how disastrous this will be for all esp lower income tenants. I am awaiting a meeting with his housing person to go over this disastrous policy then a further meeting to present to Paul and look at action.

It's been promised Luke, they have Rosalinds Doc and I'm awaiting for a date to meet with some other landlords and Ros

Route Meister

18:22 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "27/03/2017 - 13:40":

I have done under a freedom of information request and it is pretty clear that they have not got any breakdown of the 4500 complaints but are using this as their primary reason to put in the scheme.

Luke P

19:34 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Route Meister" at "27/03/2017 - 18:22":

I asked a similar question locally to me when we were defending our position (I think it may have been the mention of licensing that prompted it). Not a single case resulted in further action. They were just quoting the raw 'complaints' figure.

Larry Sweeney

21:28 PM, 27th March 2017
About 2 years ago

These horrific Organisations who have just raised CT by 5%. must go through the charade of having a "so called " consultation. They skewer everything, and if that fails ,they employ lies as Liverpool did by stating that the entire city was an area of low demand to rubber stamp their revenue raising scam. We have this tosh running for 2 years in Liverpool and nothing has changed except a new layer of red tape for landlords and increased costs all around. No tenants have benefitted ,nor has there been any improvement in deprived areas. They have cobbled together a few prosecutions against landlords for non registration, not for any other offence and off course they have added a few more honchos to the already overstaffed bloated budget.

1 2 3

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

Variation of lease to rectify adverse possession?

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