The government thinks a landlord’s house is more dangerous than a car with no MOT

Police interceptors wouldn’t fine me £7,000 for no MOT, so why would the government fine me for having an MOT?

Driving without a valid MOT can result in a standard £100 fixed penalty, although the fine can be up to £1,000. By comparison, certain PRS database breaches can result in penalties of up to £7,000.

Yes, I can have the boiler certificate, EPC, EICR, all perfectly legal, but woe betide me if I make an admin error and forget to send it to the government, because that could land me a £7,000 fine.

That’s a potential penalty up to seven times higher than the maximum court fine for driving without an MOT.

We all know that cars with no MOT can be dangerous and can kill someone. That’s why, when you MOT your car, the result automatically goes onto a database. The police can check it instantly while they’re driving behind you.

Yet apparently houses are more dangerous. Why? Because the government says so.

Retrospective rules are overtaking you

If they think a £7,000 fine is justified for not putting your boiler certificate on the database, even though you have actually got the certificate, then surely a car with no MOT should be fined more than £7,000, shouldn’t it?

You can have the boiler certificate. You can have everything legal. You’ve just messed up on your admin because all these new retrospective rules are overtaking you.

If this is so serious that it justifies a £7,000 fine, why aren’t the boiler certificates put onto a database automatically?

Now, with EPCs, we all know they do automatically get put onto the government website.

Those who have already uploaded these documents to councils that have selective licensing schemes, why do they have to do the same again?

Because it’s the same councils that have been put in charge of administering the database scheme, and the same councils that will be fining landlords for not uploading the certificate.

Constant threats from government

Do the government not get what they are doing with these constant threats?

Landlords are packing up. We’re not taking risky, vulnerable tenants. We’re neglecting the house and the tenant because the government and councils are taking our time and funds that would have gone on the house.

Do the government not get that this is an extra £6 a month on top of the rent?

And before you say, “well, it’s only a bit more admin,” read all the changes landlords have faced since 2015 and then tell me the government aren’t beating the landlord down and why rents are so expensive. I’ve written more about this here.

The rogue landlords are still going to ignore this like they have done with selective licensing.

Article by Mick Roberts, one of Nottingham’s largest landlords to house benefit tenants.