Yet another council pleads with private landlords to bail it out

That ship has sailed a long time ago, no chance

They'll learn the hard way

We don't even know if that is true. It might be a ploy to get other landlords onboard saying 50 Landlords actually like this scheme. Any clued up landlord knows what needs to be done and a free health check is to scare the ones who don't know the rules into submission. These councils don't realise, most of the novice landlords are either now clued up or moved on. We should just let the councils rot in hell.

I agree 100% John. I’ve always said when we’re selling ours none will go to a new landlord always an owner occupier. I’m not helping the Scottish Government get out their own self made mess.
Once they’re gone there'll be 10 less rentals available.

… the big boys will then have enough power to dictate what happens

With respect Robin I think that’s a naive thought. Councils very rarely evict tenants as they just need to find them another house. They want private landlords to take the heat hence this proposal. They have no idea what they’re doing. Not on my watch.

Sorry Robin,
In my experience, the councils are more of a problem. They charge more to remove bulky items from landlords than from tenants or residents, they force the landlords to evict tenants through s21 then courts and bailiffs. They don't want PRS, they want council homes, they don't want HMOs, but if you have them they will use them. The councils have never worked with the landlords, they have always used the landlords and dump them. If the councils actually worked with their Landlords, there won't be a need for licensing removal of s21 etc. The councils want us gone. They will have to deal with big boys with muscle to dictate their terms.

I agree that local Councils can be far more realistic than central government.
When I house people via one of the local Council run schemes they provide full details of the applicants income and expenses, a 5 week deposit or 2 month bond plus at least a month's rent upfront to correlate with the applicants UC payment date. The Council fully understands the idea of a 5 week wait for UC for someone who is weekly paid simply doesn't work. They also understand LHA is nowhere close to enough for even the cheapest properties in the area for a new let and that rent is paid in advance, not 5 weeks late. I don't know exactly how my tenants fund the shortfall. It may be from their own resources or it may be from DHPs. All I know is the tenants pay me the full amount at some point. One on time and in full, the other in installments through the month as he gets paid fortnightly (which makes his UC very unstable).

The perceived best tenants tend to be far more transient which means far more voids.

I've had generally positive experiences when I've let via Council schemes. As long as the property is in location that doesn't involve the tenant paying for a lot of transport it can work well.

Look who has crawled out of bed.

We are not charities Sandra, Shelter & co are the charities lets see them buying property and renting to the low lives in society

The lack of empathy here from you... You selfish idiot.

Sandra, go back under your rock. One day you will realise that YOU and tenants like you, are one of the CAUSES of landlords selling. I feel so sorry for the landlord who have suffered you as a tenant.

Who are the victims here? Tenants are the real victims here. We choose who we rent to as we own our property unlike you living off the state probably.

Pat, SBR is on PIP which is not means tested so she has a nice little earner already.

Pot calling the kettle black.

It doesn't make business sense to rent to councils. They don't pay the going rate, so the tenant tops it up with their benefits. Then the tenant doesn't use the heating or keeps all the windows closed causing damp and mould issues. Or they may sublet to have enough money to pay the rent and live. In short they end up recking the house.
Why would any sensible business people want to deal with people who can't afford to pay. We want well behaved people who can look after our property, with zero anti-social behaviour and good income to pay the rent on time.

It's not bad back any more it's the mental health card now

I could do that for long term like 5-10 years, They maintain the place, they let the place etc. When I get it back in 5-10 years, they pay for me to fully refurb the place at the going rate at that time of receiving the place back and they pay for the renovation void period too.

Do you think she is the partner of Gibbons - the EPC expert? They are both certainly as annoying as each other!

No Trica she's in love with Jim boy Turner

Andrew, that made me laugh! Thank you.

The only kind of tenants you will get from a council will be the dregs of society and who wants them ?

Come on Robin we all know that contract won't be worth the paper it's written on

Councils are not giving properties back to landlords they have leased from. So why should a landlord trust them?

Councils have also been repoerted as not repairing the wreckage left by their tenants.

Nick you are right about there being a legal problem with letting to councils. After one year the legislation allows them to give the occupants an assured shorthold tenancy, so therefore when those tenancies become assured, I don't think it would be easy to get the flats/house back.

Hi Ellie,
I assume this is under 189B of the Housing Act that I referred to in my ealrier post?

I am thinking the same thing, Nick. Too much time and thought being devoted to all of this. There are better things to do. We are back to the Rent Act days when people either sold their properties, gave them to family members or tried to find a means of avoiding tenants gaining security of tenure.

Have you ever let to a council and actually go the property back easily? I have seen councils keeping landlords' properties in the news.

The problem is the legislation which allows councils to give their licensees (who have been placed in a property subject to an arrangement with a private landlord) shorthold assured tenancies after one year. When shorthold assured tenancies cease to exist because of the abolition of Section 21, then those council tenants will have security of tenure.

Ellie,
Are you sure Councils can enter into ASTs when using TA provided by a private sector landlord? From what i read legislation prevents private landlords entering into secure tenancies at present. Therefore if the council enters into an agreement to provide a secure accommodation then this will be inconsistent with the head lease and therefore will not stand.

Surely by the nature of temporary accommodation secure tenancies will not arise?

Hi Nick I'm travelling at the moment, but will replicate the legislation below when I am home this evening.

Thanks Ellie.

Good evening Nick,

I was referring to Section 209 of the Housing Act 1996 which says:

209 Discharge of interim duties: arrangements with private landlord
(1)This section applies where in pursuance of any of their housing functions under section 188, 190, 200 or 204(4) (interim duties) a local housing authority make arrangements with a private landlord to provide accommodation.

(2)A tenancy granted to the applicant in pursuance of the arrangements cannot be an assured tenancy before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with—
(a)the date on which the applicant was notified of the authority’s decision under section 184(3) or 198(5); or
(b)if there is a review of that decision under section 202 or an appeal to the court under section 204, the date on which he is notified of the decision on review or the appeal is finally determined,unless, before or during that period, the tenant is notified by the landlord (or in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them) that the tenancy is to be regarded as an assured shorthold tenancy or an assured tenancy other than an assured shorthold tenancy.]

The Renters Reform bill refers to that section in relation to accommodation for homeless people and states in relation to the first part of Section 209:

"Accommodation for homeless people under section 199A of Housing Act 15
1996
In section 209 of the Housing Act 1996 (interim accommodation in relation
to which an assured tenancy will not normally arise), in subsection (1), after
“190,” insert “199A,”."

So my concern is that accommodation for homeless people/temporary accommodation could become secure accommodation for them after one year.

The difference between a tenancy and a licence agreement is that the tenant has exclusive possession in a tenancy, but in a licence agreement does not. That generally means that in a licence agreement there is a cleaner who can walk into the occupant's room as in a hotel.

However, in temporary accommodation for homeless people there might not be a cleaner, but they may have been given a licence agreement anyway. The problem is that there is a case which suggests that occupants could be regarded as having a tenancy and not a licence in those circumstances The relevant case is Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] UKHL 26

Thank you very much Ellie. I’ll look at this in more detail tomorrow. I can’t quite follow it all at the moment including the 199A reference.

It's not easy to understand Nick.

Section 199A, I think, refers to when a homeless person is referred by a local authority to another local authority.

I was considering letting to a local authority for temporary accommodation for the homeless, but am put off by the fact that local authorities can issue assured shorthold tenancies at the moment to the occupant.

Also Bruton and London and Quadrant, suggests that a court could find that a licensee actually had a tenancy despite the nature of the agreement with the housing association.

Ellie, I read 199A. It does refer to homeless person is referred by a local authority to another local authority. I can't immediately see the relevance of 199A. As you say it is difficult to follow. 199A refers to 189B (Initial duty owed to all eligible persons who are homeless). Under 189B (2) it states:

Unless the authority refer the application to another local housing authority in England (see section 198(A1)), the authority must take reasonable steps to help the applicant to secure that suitable accommodation becomes available for the applicant's occupation for at least—

(a)6 months, or
(b)such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed.

Under (7) it says:

The circumstances are that the authority are satisfied that—
(a)the applicant has—
(i)suitable accommodation available for occupation, and
(ii)a reasonable prospect of having suitable accommodation available for occupation for at least 6 months, or such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed, from the date of the notice.

I assume you refer to this.

My lease says: "Permitted Use” means use for the temporary housing of individuals in accordance with the Tenant’s housing policy or other general residential use or for such other use as the Landlord may from time to time approve (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed);

So I would assume they will use it for what they like!

Hi Nick,

I think the relevant section is Section 209 because it specifically refers to the relationship between the local housing authority and a private landlord.

As you say, Section 199A is of little relevance - other than its mention in the Renters Reform Bill which seems to show that the Government is not going to exempt relationships between private landlords and local authorities from the Renters Reform legislation other than for the first year (the existing legislation).

This is the information from the Shelter website (heading "Local Authority Interim Duty to Accommodate")

"Security of tenure in interim accommodation owned by a private landlord

The homeless applicant is an assured or assured shorthold tenant where the accommodation has been secured under an arrangement with a private landlord and either:[25]

the applicant has been notified that the tenancy is to be regarded as an assured or assured shorthold tenancy

the accommodation is allowed to continue for more than 12 months after the authority has made its decision on the homeless application or review

The applicant may also have protection from eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 where either:

the authority has made an agreement with the applicant that the accommodation is provided under a tenancy[26]

the accommodation is allowed to continue on a more than transient basis"

When are you due to get your house back, Nick?

Thanks Ellie. It's a block of 3 flats. We converted a house. We haven't tried to get it back yet. I own it with a friend. She's not bothered about any of the RRB it seems like many other landlords isn't really following any of it.

I have raised councils not giving properties back but she seems relaxed... I am not. So I am genuinely trying to understand the RRB and how it could affect us.

It's a Private Sector Lease (PSL). There's not much info on this. It's all more complex than ASTs. I have posted for advice on Facebook and Property118. Will try Property Tribes too. But I haven't had much response other than a solicitor want to chat. I will organise that.

I wouldn't have got into property if I knew these faux Tories or Labour could just come along and retrospectively change the law. I expect my agreements to be left alone, and then once ended not enter into another where it's all become so untenable.

You are 100 per cent right to find out where you stand in relation to that valuable property.

We let a similar property to the council and it came back without a problem other than the condition - poor. However we let prior to 1996.

Ellie,
We have an ever increasing housing shortage. And these people in Westminster think they can make new laws retrospectively. I just want out where I can invest in the stock market with no hassle and tax free.

One's own property is not their own anymore. We bought it and rebuilt it with no help from anyone. Now I have ever man and his dog wanting to claim the right to keep it!

I feel exactly the same Nick.

I am thinking of selling, too. I am finding it impossible to continue letting the property when I am not clear what the law is and whether my agreement will be viewed as valid. I am advertising flats now as serviced flats, but am not finding many people whom I consider suitable for a serviced flat. Most people who reply want indefinite accommodation. It is not the right time of the year for people who want to carry out research in universities - and that has been mainly my tenant base.

Ellie,

That's how I feel. I have no confidence. I find it totally unacceptable that the government can go back and change existing laws and contracts between people retrospectively.

Gove has try to do this with leaseholds. But I think the pension companies who have bought these fair and square and need them to pay pensioners have successfully lobbied the government. Gove blocked M&S in Oxford St and M&S have successfully appealed. The whole industry was up in arms with a lack of understanding of what may or may not be permissible under planning if the decision was to stand. The judge ruled Gove didn't assess the proposals properly interpretting the law but rewrote it! They won on 5/6 counts. Everyone even Khan supported it. He's a disaster.

My friends agreed to get the Council out yesterday. So that's some good news. I would rather sell but she wants to re-rent. So we'll see in a year or two if and when we get the flats back.

I think you are very wise to take back control of your converted house Nick. If you all decide to relet then make sure it is in a way where you retain control. I am not sure about using any of the Section 8 grounds myself as they could all become discretionary even the one concerning students.

Company lets are outside the Renters Reform legislation as that applies to renting to people, not to entities. It should be safe to let to a company who are relocating their employees on a temporary basis, but you might have to find one through an agency as company lets are few and far between. Don't use a rent to rent management company as they could give their tenants secure agreements, and you would be stuck with them after the agreement ended with the management company.

For an added level of security (even with a company let) you could engage a cleaner thus ensuring that the occupants don't have exclusive possession.

Thank you for your good advice Ellie.

Thanks Nick! Another option is letting to students outside the renters reform legislation. Need to get a cleaner so there is no exclusive possession and therefore a licence agreement and not a tenancy. I think it is ridiculous that we are being out in this position.

I think it's ridicuolous too. I was thinking about students too. Anything but some stranger having more rights than me! This takes up so much time and energy. I would be better to get out and concentrate elsewhere!