Profile incomplete
7:57 AM, 8th April 2014, About 10 years ago 54
Text Size
I became a landlord about 10 years ago, as a pension investment. At that time, returns in my local area were relatively poor. I bought in an area that had 8-8.5% returns and had my properties managed locally.
I am a Chartered Surveyor with significant property management experience, so I believed that I came into the business with my eyes open. It was nevertheless a steep learning curve. After a few years I had to intervene to protect my tenants and my investments, and I now manage these properties myself. I am always at the end of the phone, even on holiday; most of the work on my properties is arranged as planned improvements or maintenance, usually following on from an inspection; and I hope that I provide as good a service as any managing agent (and I acknowledge that there are excellent agents out there; sadly, mine was not one of them!).
The local council has introduced selective licensing. I must make clear that I am not submitting this article in order to complain; whatever I feel about the policy is quite irrelevant. Most of the requirements are clear, and are either already in place, or easily achievable.
However there are several points that I find troubling, and suspect that other smaller investors like myself will have problems with the same issues. These are the problems I foresee, and my proposed solutions:
1) Requirement for monthly inspections. It would be inconvenient to carry these out personally, so I would contract out interim inspections. I will provide a suitable proforma to be completed, with photographic evidence, by an experienced contractor.
2) Antisocial behavior action plan. I take the view that, as a small investor, I have no choice but to issue warnings and if necessary refuse to renew the tenancy on expiry. Of course, if something serious happens long before expiry I would commence possession proceedings. My action plan will set out the behaviour I regard as sufficiently serious for these two options.
3) The requirement to notify tenants of their obligations. All of this is within the tenancy agreement, so I would propose to write to the tenants restating these terms.
4) There is a requirement for emergency and other arrangements in the event of the holder’s absence. In practice, I have always been at the end of the phone, wherever I am, and able to arrange repairs as normal. However, I propose to “nominate” an alternative contact, who will be another landlord like myself.
5) If I am unable to satisfy the Conditions, then it will be necessary to appoint a managing agent. I expect that I would still be required to submit the application in my own name, but with reference to the managing agent in the relevant sections of the form. I would presumably still be liable for any breaches, my only defence being to prove that I took steps to ensure that said agent were fulfilling their responsibilities under the conditions. In my opinion, it would be better to take full and direct responsibility, contracting others in to carry out parts of the requirement as necessary, so I will seek to obtain a licence on this basis.
I am very concerned that the impact of this new control would be to reject any landlord who does not live in the same town, or nearby, as unsuitable for three reasons:
– Sufficiently regular inspections carried out by the licence holder personally may not be practical (although, as said, I intend to arrange such inspections in a way that would satisfy the requirements)
– There would be a problem in attending a training course in the same town as my properties (although one day would not be an issue). I hope that the Council’s requirement here (which is not specified) would be reasonable.
– It might not be feasible for a landlord who does not live locally to take unspecified emergency action. Although the Conditions make no direct reference to personal availability in emergency, I suspect that this could be an implied criterion in assessing an application. I say “unspecified” because I have worked during evenings and weekends to arrange contractors for gas, electric and plumbing emergencies. However, in theory, there might be something that could require the “person in control” to attend immediately.
In summary, I am determined to personally fulfil the requirements of this licence, and would welcome a discussion on practicality for a small investor who is 1) not based locally and 2) has other employment. I am sure that other landlords like myself have successfully obtained and maintained licences, and are providing the service that the council is looking to achieve. However I have not found any discussion of this issue, and therefore hope that this article – and the responses to it! – will prove useful.
Regards
Philip Aston MRICS
Previous Article
High-End Liverpool Buy to LetNext Article
Surrender of shorthold assured tenancy
Joe Bloggs
10:04 AM, 14th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Mary Latham" at "13/04/2014 - 17:32":
Mary
Your statement which I queried was:
‘If a tenant is doing something wrong in the property he will simply refuse entry to the landlord, as is his legal right.’?
You made this categoric statement with no ifs, not buts and no provisos!
As you now seemingly acknowledge that the LL:
- has a right of entry (implied by statute); and
- can evict the tenant for failure to allow access; and
- can as a minimum enter without permission in case of emergency; and
- there is uncertainty (as acknowledged in tessas article) as to which right prevails
do you not think your initial statement was unbalanced (at best)?
What you have quoted adds little to the discussion, as what we are debating are whether the tenant has the legal right to refuse access for reasonable inspections, not inspections which amount to harassment. I am repeating what I have previouly posted.
Regarding your quote from tessa (no link so cant check context) she acknowledges that there is uncertainty but there was no such doubt in your post. I would have liked to have been able to read tessa’s article in full as it seems odd that she doesn’t give reasons or refer to the fact that statute (L&TA 1985) takes precedent over common law, i.e.:
http://www.lawteacher.net/european-law/essays/the-order-of-precedence-between-common-law-equity-uk-statute-and-eu-law-essay.php
The OFT advice talks about ‘…excessive right to enter…’, which is not what this debate is about [i.e. your post refers to the tenant having an (absolute) right to refuse entry, with no ifs and buts]. That’s straying off topic.
The shelter quote is even more irrelevant to the issue as to ‘If a tenant is doing something wrong in the property he will simply refuse entry to the landlord, as is his legal right.’?
I never said anything about forced entry. I would use a key; all potential tenants are told that we hold keys and will give 24 hours min. notice before inspecting.
I doubt that a LL can break in, although depending on the circumstances he may have a good defence to any action.
I do not hold myself out to be an expert, but when I read something misleading and unbalanced I query it. Your initial statement is in need of revision, eg at the very least it should say something like:
'The tenants right to quiet enjoyment needs to balanced against the LL’s right of entry implied by statute, and at the very least the LL may enter without the tenants consent in case of emergency.'
Daddy ofTwo
18:38 PM, 24th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Hi Phil
I too have a property in the Claremont Area of Blackpool, although I am a bit closer being based in Manchester.
You stated
"problem in attending a training course in the same town as my properties (although one day would not be an issue). I hope that the Council’s requirement here (which is not specified) would be reasonable."
but I cannot find any suggestion that the Council wishes for us to attend a training course. If have missed it might you kindly point it out to me.
I agree with your thoughts about the Selective Licensing - although probably lack your level of self control about the onerous conditions and excessive fees.
Also if you find a contractor who will carry out the monthly surveys might you give me their details.
Philip Aston
11:47 AM, 25th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Daddy ofTwo" at "24/04/2014 - 18:38":
Hi Daddy of Two
As you can see, much of this thread has been occupied with a "back and forth" about these inspections.
At the end of the day, I suspect the council will be unable to enforce any absolute commitment to undertake inspections, and might have to settle for 3 months and "best endeavours" - my own opinion on the basis is contained in my earlier posts:
http://www.property118.com/selective-licensing-can-part-time-investor-landlord-fulfil-requirements/64960/comment-page-2/#comment-40271
http://www.property118.com/selective-licensing-can-part-time-investor-landlord-fulfil-requirements/64960/comment-page-4/#comment-40415
On the training courses, please refer to
http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/Business/Residential-landlords/Documents/Additional-licensing-conditions-%5BPDF-103kb%5D.pdf
Page 12.
I haven't explored the contractor option, the reason being that I have used Entwistle Green for letting only on previous occasions and if need be will ask them to do interim inspections. I will be in Blackpool at least every 6 months (as I have family there) so, although I haven't discussed fees as yet, I'm sure 2 inspections are going to be much cheaper than a year's management.
I don't know how far you have got with the application, but as I compile mine I will probably post concise selections from the contentious areas on this forum for comment.
Subject to legality (comments please everyone!) I might also anonymise replies from the council and post these as well.
Philip Aston
12:01 PM, 25th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Addendum: the conditions link will not work because the square brackets in the URL do not transmit on this forum. Just log onto the Blackpool Council website and use the link as a clue to navigate to the required pdf
Daddy ofTwo
11:12 AM, 28th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Hi Phil
I had trouble in finding the document - in the end I found it through typing Additional-licensing-conditions-PDF-103kb.pdf into Google.
Para 12 does indeed state
Training
The Licence Holder and/or Manager shall undertake property management training courses where required to do so by the authority.
Reason: to enable the Council to provide licence holders with the knowledge and expertise to improve the management of their properties.
But I read this as applying only for Additional Licencing which as you are no doubt aware is the extension of the HMO licencing req.s beyond those required by statute as opposed to Selective Licencing.
Unfortunately, the flat that I bought in Claremont is officially classed as an HMO (one of a block of 4, 3 of which are tenanted and only one buy to let, and converted without meeting the 1991 Building Regs). I have spoken to the Council about this and they have been very helpful. Basically if I own one flat in the block I need a selective landlord licence and there is no need for anybody have an additional HMO licence. But if I was to buy another one then I would need to upgrade my selective landlord licence to an HMO licence.
but maybe you have some HMOs) and as as far as I am aware the Council has not
Daddy ofTwo
11:43 AM, 28th April 2014, About 10 years ago
Hi Phil
Thanks very much for your full and prompt reply. As you thought I did have trouble in finding the document - in the end I found it through typing Additional-licensing-conditions-PDF-103kb.pdf into Google.
Para 12 does indeed state
Training
The Licence Holder and/or Manager shall undertake property management
training courses where required to do so by the authority.
Reason: to enable the Council to provide licence holders with the
knowledge and expertise to improve the management of their properties.
Fortunately the council as far as I am aware currently has no req.s for training.
Anyway I read this as applying only for Additional Licencing which as you know (but for the benefit of other readers, following on from Joe Blogg's proper desire to ensure that what is posted on this forum is both correct and informative) is the extension of the HMO licencing req.s beyond those required by statute cf Selective Licencing. Although many flats which are far away from what a layman would consider to be a House in Multiple Occupation will be caught by this additional licencing net.
Perhaps if you don't mind, can I email you? I can get hold of your contact details, as I would quite like to discuss a couple of things with you but not on a public forum.
I would also like to touch base with any other landlords caught up with this Claremont Licencing. I don't think that this forum has a private message facility. But anybody can contact me through LandlordZone, my username is DaddyofTwo.
Mark Crampton Smith
11:53 AM, 6th May 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Philip Aston" at "08/04/2014 - 23:35":
Philip, pleased that you have not tarred all agents with one dodgy brush.......... Very sorry to hear that you have such onerous selective licensing conditions; a number of agents in Oxford took the city to judicial review when they first mooted selective licensing. This did at least give them a bloody nose, and I hope, ensured that the more impractical requirements were kicked into the long grass.
I do think that monthly inspections could be construed as an infringement on tenants rights to quiet enjoyment, it might be wforth talking to some of your better tenants and asking them to formally object to this........ there might even be some-one who reads this who might be happy to represent them in a class action to overturn this requirement?
Philip Aston
22:33 PM, 7th May 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Mark Crampton Smith" at "06/05/2014 - 11:53":
Hi Mark
I believe the council will only be legally empowered to impose terms that are reasonably required by the act; but I fear I may have to fight them on this. Referring to the Housing Act 2004 S89, the licensing authority may check:
"(c)whether any proposed management structures and funding arrangements are suitable.
(d)that the proposed management arrangements for the house are otherwise satisfactory."
I would hope that they will see the sense of "normal" management when dealing with a straightforward 3 bedroom house let to a single tenant.
Until I actually approach them, either informally (and I have heard that the actual staff involved here are more helpful than the literature suggests) or with an application, I will not be able to gauge this, but I will of course keep the forum posted on progress.
Mark Crampton Smith
7:50 AM, 8th May 2014, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Philip Aston" at "07/05/2014 - 22:33":
Hi Philip.......... Of course the three bedroom house let to a single tenant will not be subject to selective licensing..........as it will not be an HMO. The only mechanism by which they can impose any management requirements on you is via HHSRS. In practice, here in Oxford, this mechanism is only triggered by a "complaint" from a tenant to environmental health or the tenant liaison officer; these sections which lie outside the licensing department, are still hopelessly under resourced....... and officers must be careful not to vie funding from licensing to enforcement.
Philip Aston
16:35 PM, 9th May 2014, About 10 years ago
Hi Mark- As you say, only Selective Licensing Conditions apply here, and they do not directly require any particular inspection scheme. However, my concern originated from the application form, which gave no option for inspections at lesser intervals than 1 month. This, however, may be a one-size-fits-all form designed mainly with HMO's in mind.
I have held a brief conversation with a member of Housing Enforcement staff. I explained that I inspect at what I consider to be sensible intervals depending on the situation. Their advice was to simply enter this on the form when I apply. Hopefully, as said, commonsense will prevail.