Councils in Greater Manchester admit to charging landlords over £14,000 for “officer time” involved in licensing schemes.
There are currently eight selective licensing schemes operating across the city along with four previous schemes that have ended. Some 3,240 properties across the city have been licensed under current and past schemes.
In a statement from the Manchester councils they say: “93 housing related enforcement notices were issued … against landlords, mandating improvements to be made at their properties. And 971 enforcement actions were served for environmental issues, such as litter, pest problems and other waste control incidents.
“Legal action via Civil Penalty Notice were issued against 15 landlords for either failing to apply for a licence or for non-compliance with enforcement notices served under the Housing Act 2004.
“A total of £71,799.00 was handed out through fines – and a further £14,532 was charged to landlords for officer time related to processing Housing Act Enforcement Notices.”
Now the councils are on the warpath to introduce yet more licensing.
The statement - released late on Friday - says: “Nine new Selective Licensing areas across six wards have now been proposed and will be subject to local consultation in spring / summer next year following executive approval being sought in the New Year.
“These areas have been chosen following a ‘hotspot’ mapping exercise that looked at areas of the city where licensing could make a positive impact on those communities – and where they meet the criteria for a Selective Licensing scheme.”
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.
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
WTF is “officer time” apart from another con to get money from landlords? 😡
Landlords are becoming a rare breed thanks to national and local governments, not to mention Shelter, Generation Rant etc lobbing grenades at us. The way they are going, we will be hunted to extinction.😠
Landlords who don't adhere to legislation should be penalised for putting others at risk and responsible landlords who maintain their properties well are unfairly affected by the actions of less conscientious counterparts.
In any industry, there will be a range of practitioners, and the real estate market is no exception. It's crucial to address issues related to irresponsible landlords to maintain the integrity of the market and protect tenants. Holding those who violate regulations accountable is an essential step in creating a fair and safe housing environment for everyone.
It's also important for responsible landlords to advocate for and adhere to best practices, as they not only benefit their tenants but contribute to a positive reputation for the entire industry. Collaboration within the landlord community to address issues and encourage compliance with regulations can help foster a healthier rental market.
If there are systemic problems or gaps in the enforcement of legislation, it may be worthwhile to engage with local authorities or industry associations to promote positive change. Open communication and a commitment to ethical business practices can help ensure a more stable and secure housing market for all involved.
L Lejinxca, agree to a certain extent but how would you start to implement any change when local councils and government keep moving the goalposts. There is no appetite for any new investors buying property and less inclination from landlords to stay invested.
A chronic shortage of properties is coming soon and no one appears to be doing anything about it. NRLA is not interested and the so-called charities are playing politics while sitting on their backsides on 150k a year.
A settled market and genuine reform would be welcomed by most on here but there has not been any consultation with anyone who is at the sharp end. Get to that and you get to the solution.
@L L - just intrigued, have you ever tried this?
"it may be worthwhile to engage with local authorities"
I consider myself to be a good landlord. My properties are top notch and well maintained, rents are fair. I get on great with my tenants. However, the biggest waste of my time over the last 15 years of my life has been when I've tried to "engage with local authorities". They become rude, hostile and uncooperative the minute they realise that I'm a landlord. It's like pushing water uphill. As a rule I now try to avoid them like the plague
LEXINJA
The vast majority of small landlords are good landlords.. Where there are problems it's at the bottom benefit dependant part of the market and is the kind of landlord who has hundred properties. The government has encouraged slum landlord by altering thd payment of rental benefits to reflect size of property rather than quality.(as they once did) ..This has encourage slum landlords as a decent landlord who maintains his property makes less profit than a slum landlord. Instead of universal licensing, which increases rents for everyone, rent benefit should be paid at two rates. A landlord who wants his property to receive the higher rate should be obliged to obtain a licence.. If non benefit tenants move in but subsequenbecome dependant they should be allowed to obtain a the LL licence free of charge. Over time the difference between the two rates of rent benefit could be progressively increased to where it would not be viable to be a slum landlord.
It’s all about stealing the equity. Just so they can show the SL dept bringing funds into councils that can’t run a straight set of books. Look at Nottingham Birmingham etc
Plain and Simple and only one word required .... TAX
THEFT
What are licences for??? Those people are a total waste of money.
Sorry they're not a "waste of money" as such because they are a source of funds for the council services.... a backhanded, devious and immoral way of funding!
Landlord licensing is a big fat con!
Manchester has implemented landlord licensing now for over ten years in different parts of the city and here's the killer..... they have absolutely no data to show how such licensing has actually improved anything! NONE!
The last time I was involved (in Moston), in five years they raise over £2million in licensing fees but tried to argue that it was not a profit center because they spent £2million servicing. Put aside the fact that if it cost £2million to run a small office of four people, they are utterly incompetent, what they admit is that the £2million did nothing..... and then they apply to the home secretary to do it again in the same area two years after the last shambles failed!
I think the problem here is pretty clear..... councils aren't performance rated for the funds they use!
It would be a fairly simple thing for the government to require councils to detail all their operations and costs such that there was a public easy to view table for things. i.e.
Total Spend Refuse Collection £10m (8%) .... per capita cost £10,031
Total Spend Child Social Services £5m (4%) ... per capita cost £5,012
Total Spend Road Services £3m (2.7%) ... per capita cost £3,,403
With such a simple overview the public could see how incompetent their council was as compared to the incompetency of other councils!
The council seem to think they have a right to charge what they want. I see no reason why landlords should not charge councils for any time spent on council related tasks.
I thought the licence fee was supposed to cover the admin of the scheme incl "officer time"
What will they think of next? Secretary time, receptioist time , how about a slice for the CEO?
Please login to comment