Councils want bans, fines, rent repayment and jail for rogue landlords

Councils have demanded draconian punishments for landlords who fail to bring their homes up to the Decent Homes Standard which is set to be introduced by the government.

The Local Government Association, representing an estimated 90 per cent of councils, has responded to the government’s formal consultation on the introduction of the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) for the private rental sector as well as social housing.

The LGA has told government it wants: 

- Failure to comply with the DHS to be a criminal offence and councils should have the option to issue civil penalties or prosecute, alongside rent repayment orders and banning orders;

- National guidance on exemption circumstances from the DHS . However, most exemptions should be at the discretion of councils;

- A clear definition of who would be liable for the failure to meet the Decent Homes Standard, particularly to take account of more complex circumstances where it is not simply a property owner letting to a tenant, for example where there is a freeholder alongside a long leaseholder and potentially further subleases. There must be uniformity across all systems on the individual that is liable for enforcement action to be taken against as a result of non-compliance with the DHS. Compliance should be captured in the Property Portal - another government recommendation for rental reform;

- Given councils existing role in tackling poor property conditions in the private rented sector, the LGA wants councils to investigate and address complaints of non-compliance. Any new duty must be supported by upfront and sufficient new burdens funding. “Our recommendation is that the new burden should be assessed on the basis of funding additional staff to undertake it. Without additional staff being supported through new burdens funding, the same number of officers will be required to undertake an even greater number of responsibilities” it warns.         

- Councils to be able to issue improvement notices, undertake emergency remedial action and issue failure prohibition orders. This is because councils must have access to a range of powers to deal with non-compliance proportionately, at the earliest stage;

- To mitigate the risk of landlords exiting the private rented sector or passing the costs of meeting the DHS on to tenants, an extended implementation timeframe would be appropriate. An 18-month transition period will be sufficient to mitigate the risk; 

- The LGA says: “We do not support a cost cap, as this will deliver the wrong message to landlords and the benefits of this reform may be lost. A cost cap would suggest that there is a threshold where the cost of compliance outweighs the benefits to the tenant – including improved health and wellbeing - which is at odds with the principles that underpin the PRS White Paper reforms;

- The scope of the Decent Homes Standard should be as wide as possible because it would be unfair for residents in the PRS to expect lower quality standards in their home than other properties in the sector and in other sectors;

- All elements of the DHS should come in at the same time – the LGA does not support phasing and it states that 18 months is already a lengthily period of time to adapt to the new responsibilities and phasing may result in confusion and inconsistency. 

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.