Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North, has tabled a ten-minute rule bill in the Houses of Commons in a bid to change the law to allow the housing ombudsman to intervene between neighbours and landlords.
The Tory MP is campaigning for more rights for the neighbours of anti-social households.
De Bois presented his Housing Ombudsman (Power to Settle Disputes Between Neighbours and Tenants) bill to Parliament on Tuesday. He is seeking new powers for the Housing Ombudsman to intervene in disputes between landlords of HMOs, including hostels, and neighbours. Currently, the rules only allow the ombudsman to step in between a landlord and tenant
On his website De Bois claims there were 195,231 HMOs last year in London alone, 10,000 more than the previous 12 months. He says return on investment is higher for HMO landlords.
De Bois’ bill would hold absentee landlords responsible for anti-social behaviour without having to introduce a special licence or blocking the HMOs. Landlords would be tracked down by the housing ombudsman and would be forced to enter into negotiations with neighbours.
"Presently it can be very hard to even try to locate and identify landlords when residents are seeking to enlist landlord help in resolving what can be a very disturbing cycle of anti-social behaviour, that all too often take too long for authorities to sort out, if at all,” he said, “I want to put a stop to this, by giving the neighbours who are the victims of anti-social behaviour the right to deal with the landlord of properties – which I believe will help resolve the problem in a more timely fashion. Good landlords will want to stop bad behaviour if they are aware of it, and where there are landlords that don't care then this bill will force them to take action."
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
Comments
If this law is passed it could mean that landlords become even more particular than now about the type of tenant in their property(ies), and this could result in an increase in prejudice against people on benefits.
People live in HMOs because they are cheaper than living in other private rented properties, which tend to have extortionate rents. What needs to be introduced more than anything is:-
Licensing for privately rented properties.
Fair rents
An increase in the number of council housing.
Interesting.....I have a very good long term tenant who lives in an ex local authority flat. However, some of his neighbours can be unsociable at times. Does that mean I can get the council to evict them?!
A wonderful sentiment. I am very interested to know what a landlord can do about any 'anti-social' behaviour' from a tenant. The legal restrictions on ending a tenancy and even on just entering tenant’s premises override any desire by a landlord to take action against 'anti-social' behaviour. I fail to see how licencing will make any positive difference?
I would love anyone to give me a specific example current procedures would be enhanced?
Ridiculous to try to make landlords responsible for tenants behaviour, no landlord wants a bad tenant but if you are unlucky enough to get one trying to get them out quickly is just not going happen.
The courts have all been reduced and the time to evict has now increased so what's a landlord supposed to do.
This is clearly a role for the police. anti social behaviour is against the law so they should be called to act.
Typical MP that has no knowledge of what he is talking about and about time they started to learn the facts before they try anything to enhance their image.
What an absurd notion. Trying to make the landlord responsible for the tenants' behaviour is completely ridiculous. What is the landlord to do? He can not throw out the tenant - the law does not allow for this. The fact of the matter is, if there is a problem, the authorities should be able to intervene and hold the tenant directly responsible and have the power to fine, incarcerate and if necessary expel the tenant yet at the same time the tenant would also be responsible to the landlord for any losses incurred due to the tenant's behaviour.
Your headline is very unfair, this isn't what he said at all when you read the article!!