x

JFT Justice For Tenants

539 Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

JFT's Recent Activity

Hi Jim, Good points that you make. JFT doesn't know enough about foster care or the criminal justice system to have an informed opinion about that I'm afraid. It sounds like you would class yourself as a proactive landlord who complies with minimum standards for your properties and your tenants- which comes at an expense. Part of the justification for maintaining standards is because the NHS spends over £1 billion per annum as a result of poor housing conditions. Unfortunately, there are a number of landlords who operate a business model which depends on avoiding these minimum standards. Often this involves jamming as many tenants into a small flat or house in cities in an old property with faulty electrics that haven't been inspected for decades and with disrepair. A good example might be a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom flat with a partition wall in the living room creating 4 bedrooms let to 2 individuals and 2 couples. These landlords undercut landlords who operate lawfully making an uneven playing field. These landlords operating this business model have made a financial calculation that the low incidence of enforcement means that this is a more profitable business model. It is not uncommon to run across the same landlords carrying out the same offences on a yearly basis through different parts of their portfolio. The good news is that most landlords change their business model if they are operating in this way after an RRO, bringing their properties up to a safe standard and having the legally allowed level of occupancy for Human Habitation. If RROs did not have a positive effect on standards, JFT wouldn't be assisting tenants with them. Tenants do have a choice about where they live, but it is more similar to choosing what bus to take to get into work if you cannot afford a car or the tube. There is a mismatch between the demand for socially rented properties and the supply, forcing many into the PRS, where there can be a shortage of landlords accepting LHA rates. I don't think many tenants choose to rent a room in a house with strangers out of preference, it is a forced choice due to financial necessity. I suspect many would rather live in their own homes. If a landlord is choosing to operate their property as an HMO or choosing to take a deposit, they must comply with the legislation that is put in place to protect those experiencing the effects of that choice. If a landlord doesn't protect the deposit, the tenant may feel unable to get their deposit back. If there is no penalty for doing so, it creates an environment where landlords, from a financial calculation, would be better off never protecting their tenants' deposits. A similar logic can be applied to HMOs. However, I think you are right that there can be those who are inept and unaware, rather than setting out to avoid regulation and legislation. It is for this reason that there is discretion given to judges in these cases. A judge decides between 1x and 3x the deposit as compensation for when a landlord has not protected a deposit. A judge decides what % of the rent to repay when a landlord has breached a banning order, operated an unlicensed HMO or unlawfully evicted their tenant. This discretion allows for the worst offenders to be penalised more heavily than those who perhaps were simply ignorant or adopted a laissez-faire attitude - though I would submit this is also an unacceptable approach. In a situation where the property is safe and compliant in all ways other than being unlicensed, one would expect to see less awarded, much like where a landlord has returned a deposit the penalty for not protecting it is likely to be lower in general. The reason JFT carries out RROs is because they are not profitable. You do not see solicitors enter this space because the Tribunal is largely a costs-free jurisdiction (apart from exceptional circumstances). The amount of work involved is such that there is no realistic way a business could turn a profit, and the tenants are inevitably drawn from the poorest demographic so are unable to afford legal representation. RROs do not fall into scope for LASPO. Whilst landlords may be upset about the regulatory burden HMO conditions places upon them, most landlords believe their tenants have a right to a basic condition and standard in the place they call Home. If you look around and all you see are landlords who are making more money but operating unlawfully, then there is less incentive to act lawfully. In an ideal world, JFT would not be carrying out Rent Repayment Orders, because there would be a lack of landlords who have committed criminal offences which give rise to Rent Repayment Orders. We work with landlord groups and present at landlord forums to try and educate landlords about the risks of Rent-2-Rent and not being proactive about their obligations. The risk of enforcement action and the potential penal sum is a great encouragement tool. I can understand how it might feel like landlords are being attacked, but I don't think there is that much of a divergence in views that landlords should provide a basic minimum standard of comfort, thermal insulation and safety to their tenants. I also think that most landlords would like to see those that save money and undercut them by breaking the law have their excess gains removed. Perhaps if a National Landlord Register is brought in then some form of guidance can be given to all landlords to ensure that landlords are not caught out by lack of knowledge, so that enforcement action need only be taken against those that make a clear conscious business choice to operate criminally.

From: JFT Justice For Tenants 04 March 2022 10:28 AM

I think that an inevitable consequence of improving the condition of PRS properties so they meet minimum legal standards is that casual landlords may be driven out. Dominic, I think the fact that you are reading about this information suggests you will be proactive about complying with your obligations. The removal of the landlords who operate substandard properties will level the playing field by preventing bad landlords from undercutting those who have spent the money bringing their properties up to the required standard. PossessionFriend - it seems you may disagree with the definition of a 'Charity' and 'non-profit'. Shelter is a registered charity and JFT has consistently lowered its Success Fee as it has benefitted from economies of scale. The cost of running the service is recouped, but there are no profits made. The tenants who are living at the bottom of the PRS and have been unlawfully evicted or living with category 1 hazards have been exploited for profit enough as it is. If we get a pot of funding to carry out RROs, then the tenants are not charged a success fee.

From: JFT Justice For Tenants 01 March 2022 14:47 PM

Breaking News