Why the ridiculous RRA fines expose Labour’s anti-landlord agenda

Well, the morons running the Labour government really have shown their hand, and it has done so with numbers so large they make a mockery of criminal sentencing.

The new penalties revealed by Property118, highlight that the Renters’ Rights Act is not about ‘levelling up’ the playing field between landlord and tenant.

In reality, they expose a system that sees landlords as a revenue stream, not housing providers.

When I first read the fines, it looked like a list of punishment beatings to ensure no-one steps out of line again.

If you don’t fancy having your personal details available for the world to read on the landlord database, that’s a whopping £40,000 slap for repeatedly failing to do so.

That one is also highlighted by The Times which points out that repeated failures to comply with the act could also lead to a criminal prosecution.

The obvious question is why the state treats an administrative misstep in the private rented sector as a greater public threat than dangerous driving, assault in some cases or corporate negligence.

As landlords on the Property118 forum have been quick to point out, the statutory maximum fine for speeding at 100 mph in a 30 mph zone is capped at £1,000.

Yet failing to lodge your name and address on a new database could now cost forty times that amount.

If this is the reaction to resisting one register, what awaits those who refuse to engage with Labour’s Digital ID plans?

Councils keep the cash

The government insists these penalties are proportionate. But proportionate to what?

Councils have a long track record of inconsistent and, at times, aggressive enforcement.

Civil penalties handed out under selective licensing are used to plug financial holes, allegedly by some councils, because the revenue stays local.

Giving those same authorities a refreshed menu of fines topping £35,000 and then telling them they can keep the proceeds is a recipe for disaster.

The RRA guidance states, it’s at the very bottom, naturally, that local authorities can keep the cash for enforcement and what they don’t use must go to central government.

Right, like that’s going to happen!

Can we trust councils?

Why should landlords trust councils to apply any of this fairly? Nothing in recent history suggests they will.

Many landlords have been hit with disproportionate penalties over minor paperwork errors.

And now these same councils will soon have a statutory right to enter a landlord’s property from Christmas.

Does anyone seriously believe restraint will follow?

I was predicting council fishing expeditions to find fault with a rented home, and now I’m predicting that councils have a serious financial incentive to do so.

Landlords have nothing to fear

Ministers have said frequently that good landlords have nothing to fear and that the RRA isn’t designed to drive us from the PRS.

Could have fooled me!

Let’s face it, a landlord who takes a £35,000 hit will not recover.

They will sell, leaving fewer homes available and pushing rents up.

But still, the nasty landlords have been driven out of the sector, though the criminal landlords won’t be disturbed.

This is sickening and we should be worried.

There will be lots of landlords reading this saying I’m crying wolf. Am I, though?

Even a £12,000 penalty for not supplying a Gas Safety certificate will wipe out a year’s profit for many small landlords.

There’s also a £25,000 penalty for re-letting too soon after using a possession ground.

Will Labour MPs who quietly move tenants out of their own rental homes and re-let them face the same sanction?

Or is this only demanded of the people who let homes for a living?

Affordability tests

Let’s take the £6,000 fine for discrimination against applicants with children or those on benefits.

Years of guidance have stressed tenant affordability. Lenders require it. Insurers require it.

Now councils can decide that a landlord weighing income against rent is somehow engaging in discriminatory behaviour?

All it takes is a single disgruntled applicant and an officer with a target to hit for a landlord to be in trouble.

The uncomfortable truth is that these fines do not align with criminal penalties because this is not really about enforcement.

This is about political theatre.

If not, why don’t these penalties apply to councils and housing associations?

If they did, lots of authorities would already be bankrupt.

The same councils that want to fine private landlords £20,000 for overcrowding routinely place families in accommodation with shared kitchens, category one hazards and no security of tenure.

Enforcement, it seems, is a one-way street.

I think the sector has reached a breaking point because landlords cannot operate when one administrative mistake carries a penalty equal to a full year’s salary.

If Labour wanted to empty the private rented sector, this is exactly the strategy they would choose.

Hideous fines, intrusive inspections and mandatory registers will not improve conditions.

They will simply drive out the decent landlords providing safe homes.

And when the dust settles, and tenants ask why rents have soared and choice has vanished, Labour MPs will be left to explain how a policy built on landlord punishment managed to punish everyone.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader