x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Selective Licensing Review will fail to ‘root out the bad landlords’

The National Landlords Association (NLA) has slammed the government’s Selective Licensing Review for failing to listen to landlords.

The report, which was released yesterday, failed to take into consideration the NLA’s suggestion of requiring local authorities to conduct an annual assessment to demonstrate the effectiveness of the schemes against the rationale for their introduction.

Currently, although it is considered best practice to complete this assessment, few local authorities do so.

The NLA says that it supports the proposal for standardised requirements for property conditions, which local authorities can enforce against. But the recommendations fail to include anything to close the loopholes which currently allow those who fail the ‘fit and proper’ person test to continue operating in other areas or through a letting agent.

Richard Lambert, CEO of the NLA, commented: “Far too often we see local authorities failing to live up to their side of selective licensing. It’s shameful that the Review has ignored our call for regular reporting against schemes’ published objectives, which would be easy to implement and would actually hold councils to account. 

“The majority of selective licensing schemes are introduced without any thought having been given to their implementation, funding and enforcement, leading to good landlords paying for effectively nothing. For the most part, selective licensing has failed to root out the bad landlords and the recommendations in the report will do very little to change that.

“The suggestion to introduce a national registration of landlords and a property MOT would be a viable alternative to selective licensing, but would need to be well thought out and proportionate to avoid an unnecessary burden on good landlords.” 

  • Paul Barrett

    Yes indeed

    PROPORTIONATE

    Is how LL registration should be applied.
    ANY that cannot meet the basis requirements should be STOPPED from trading until requirements are met.
    So these are the following proportionate and relatively cost free measures which should be achieved to operate as a LL.


    So for mortgaged LL to have a CTL letter from the lender for HB tenants and other tenants.

    Any LL with a residential mortgage to have CTL.

    To have a valid EPC of at least E but increasing as per EPC regulations.

    To have valid PLI

    To have valid Gas cert as required

    To have a valid electric cert as may be required by new regulations

    To have a valid LL insurance
    This means in practice Accidental LL would have to cease trading as their Residential insurance won't cover letting to tenants on AST.
    To have insurance covering HB tenants if they have been legally taken on.

    Compliance with HMO regulations even resi homes.

    Council Tax to be paid by legal occupier

    Electoral Roll to be correct.

    Just achieving that little lot will result in about 3 million homeless tenants as many LL will fail to meet these very simple requirements.

    It would also cause a run on the banks as loan book values collapse with many LL unable or not prepared to adhere to such very simple and basic Licensing requirements.
    LL bankruptcies would be many.
    Mass homelessness will occur
    No way can Govt afford to have a PROPORTIONATE or any other type of LL Register.
    It would reveal the mass FRAUD occurring in the PRS!
    Lenders and Govt won't want to know what is going on.
    National Registration would reveal this very large dirty secret in the PRS.

    Of course most good LL will be mostly compliant with all that I have listed.
    It is the rogue LL that should be concerned

  • Paul Barrett

    I note that Newcastle intends to license live-in LL with more than two lodgers.
    Will conditions be placed on homeowners similar to tenants?
    NEVER before have LODGERS been required to be registered.
    Newcastle Council will inform resi lenders of any lodgers.
    The licence will be very expensive and could well result in lodger rents having to increase.
    This could result in the RFRA being exceeded because LL need to increase rent to cover the Licence fees.
    It could be that many lenders haven't given permission for lodgers; some may even prevent them entirely.
    Homeowners could face their mortgages being called in once lenders find out lodgers are in occupation.
    There is also the issue of insurance.
    The resi insurance must include lodgers.
    If not the homeowner would be breaching lender conditions which require proper insurance.
    This is a radical step that Newcastle Council is taking.
    We could well see that an official Lodger Agreement is signed where currently there is no such requirement though of course strongly advisable.
    There will also be the situation where more than 4 occupiers will require Mandatory HMO Licensing.
    Few homes will be compliant such that a lodger may have to be removed.
    LODGERS have been the saviour of many a homeowner and Councils meddling in these circumstances does not bode well!!
    Lodgers have been a very effective accommodation method for many who can't afford to be a tenant.
    This shot across the bows of lodger LL by Newcastle Council is very concerning.
    Why start interfering in a sector which has largely been very effective!!??
    Nothing to do with garnering excessive licence fees is it!!!!!??

  • icon

    Rent Smart Wales are a very good example of this.
    The system is not set up properly to 'root out' rogue landlords.
    They are not pro-active enough on the enforcement of unregistered landlords and owners of properties not in a good state of repair get away with maintenance issues as long as they are licensed and registered with this 'chocolate teapot' debacle in Cardiff.
    When I have had occasion to ring them, I ask whether they have actually targeted known areas where there are likely to be rogue landlords and I get the same answer, along the lines of 'we act on information received from aggrieved tenants'
    Totally unfit for purpose and a 'jobs for the boys' outfit set up by those socialist trough feeders in Cardiff.

  • Paul Barrett

    Hmm!!!!
    Targeting known areas.
    Would likely be deemed a racist policy.
    We all know where the dodgy LL are
    Very few of them have traditional British names of 70 years ago.
    A bit like targeting areas where it is known ILLEGAL immigrants congregate!!
    In fact the areas very much go together.
    Illegal immigrants and rogue LL seem to be in the same areas................................funny that!!!
    It seems the RSW system has been a valiant attempt to solve things but has shown just how difficult and awkward it is to get the process correct as you so pointedly quote.
    It does seem bizarre that rogue LL seem to be very slippery.
    You would have thought that with property tending not to be very mobile that it should be a relatively simple process to ensure the RSW was totally effective.
    I don't understand the RSW mechanics but it must be a bit disconcerting for Govt to see RSW effectively fail.
    This surely was being viewed by Govt as a potential template for an English RSE.
    I think it is back to the drawing board or CAD or whatever they use now!!!
    To me the simplest is to ban any letting that doesn't have a licence no akin to the EPC requirements.
    You can't legally drive a car without a licence plate so why not the same for a rental property!?
    No licence no letting permitted.
    Any advert would have to show the licence no so that tenants could check in a national database that it was a proper licensed rental property.
    No LA would manage an unlicensed property.
    The major web portals wouldn't accept unlicensed rental properties.
    Yes of course there would be many that would let unlicensed properties outside of the usual ways but most rental property would be licensed.
    You have to start somewhere!!

  • icon

    no thanx--i am convinced you are a mole

    Paul Barrett

    Mole!!!
    What sort of mole mate!?
    If you mean a LL mole determined to get rid of unfair and mostly illegal LL competition then that is me.
    Why should good LL like me tolerate rogues who cause me to have lower rents due to their lower costs of doing business because they do not comply with regulations.
    I owe no loyalty to such LL.
    They are as bad as rent defaulting tenants in my book.
    The sooner both types are eradicated the better.
    I will be grassing up one of these rogue LL very soon who is letting to AirBnB in contravention of the lease and freeholder conditions.
    I know for a fact that her BTL conditions do not allow short-term lettings.
    I bet she ISN'T insured under the block insurance for AirBnB operation.
    So I will be grassing her up to her lenders.
    I will also be grassing her up to the Council as AirBnB don't pay CTax and there is always more than one in there and I bet she is claiming SPD for a fantasy tenant.
    So yes I will be a mole undermining her roguery and hopefully putting her ILLEGAL operation out of business.
    I know for a fact that she cannot sell and is in negative equity.
    Her business has failed and she should be bankrupted yet she carries on unfairly operating.
    I will see her gone!!!

     
  • icon

    Good on you PB.

  • Paul Barrett

    Yep I am sick and tired of letting fraud in the UK.
    There are too many LL gaming the system with impunity.
    This is grossly unfair to LL who do comply with lender and Tenancy regulations.
    Make a start on eradicating these gaming LL by introducing a National LL licensing scheme to replace ALL other schemes currently in place.

  • icon

    the enemy within--theres always one

  • Paul Barrett

    FO you twat!

  • icon

    i have outed you!

    Paul Barrett

    Pray tell how!!!!??
    You are still a twat.
    I am still a good LL.
    Who had been outed about anything!!?

     
  • icon

    mission complete--over and out

  • icon

    TS is a twit

  • Paul Barrett

    Yep I think he is a troll.
    Idiots like him devalue the contributions that LL make on here.
    We shouldn't waste our time bothering to engage.
    But trolls are very clever at sucking you in to debate with them.
    Troll detection is an art form and I confess I am no artist!

  • icon

    pb is the troll

    Paul Barrett

    Nope you are the troll mate.
    I am well known on many fora of the last 10 years.
    I have never heard of you.
    So highly likely you are a troll.

     
  • icon

    TS now a troll twit.

    Paul Barrett

    Why do they waste their time trolling!!?
    Some psychological issues methinks!!!
    Personally I like lively debate with relevant parties but a troll brings nothing to the party and is generally antagonistic for no particular reason other than to wind people up.......................very sad!!!

     
icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up