Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Buy to let investments

Landlords hit by first mandatory licensing scheme

Christina Jordan
by Lovemoney Staff Christina Jordan on 10 July 2012  |  Comments 47 comments

One London council gets tough on rogue landlords, but is it fair that the good ones bear the brunt of the cost?

Landlords hit by first mandatory licensing scheme

A new scheme has been launched by Newham Council in East London to ensure that all properties let privately to tenants are licensed – and it’s local landlords that have to foot the bill.

It’s the first of its kind in the country and other councils are watching with interest to see if licensing is really the best way to combat sub-standard accommodation and rogue landlords.

Mountain to climb

Newham has more than its fair share of housing problems, including one of the largest numbers of illegal so-called ‘sheds with beds’ – often ramshackle structures housing whole families in unsuitable and sometimes dangerous accommodation.

In addition, the local authority recently wrote to over 1,000 housing associations across the UK to see if they could house 500 families that it can no longer support in the borough.

At the same time Newham Council wants to improve the quality of privately rented accommodation within the local area with its new licensing scheme. So how does it work?

The Newham deal

The property licensing scheme will come into force on the 1st January 2013, but all licenses must have been applied for before that date. In other words, landlords need to start applying now.

All properties will need a licence, rather than all landlords, which means that some landlords will need to get multiple licences to cover every one of their properties. There will be some 35,000 tenancies covered by the new licences – one in three of the borough’s households.

The cost of a licence is currently at a reduced rate of £150 for those who apply early, but after 1st January this will rise to £500 – for each property!

The licence lasts for up to five years, but the council can decide to limit its duration for landlords or properties where it thinks improvements need to be made. So if you are not up to scratch you may only be granted a year’s licence and told to make improvements in that time before reapplying.

Landlords who fail to apply for a licence could be subject to fines of up to £20,000 plus a rent repayment order for up to 12 months’ rental income. Ouch!

What is the idea behind the licences?

The council reckons that while the majority of landlords operate responsibly, there are some badly managed, poor quality properties and tenancies, as well as problems with anti-social behaviour in some private rented accommodation.

It says that licensing will help to improve the rental market across Newham by raising standards, supporting tenants and creating a more stable community with less churn – and it has already completed an 18-month trial in one neighbourhood.

Landlords will need to demonstrate that they are a ‘fit and proper’ person (including undergoing a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check), that they have sound financial arrangements in place relating to the tenancy and that the property is suitable for the number of people living there to hold a licence.

They also need to show that their gas and electricity installations are up to scratch (something all landlords should be doing anyway, as we explain in Tenants: Know your rights) and that they will effectively manage anti-social behaviour from tenants.

Newham Council reckons that licensing will help identify and penalise rogue landlords who are responsible for creating poor housing conditions. This will clearly benefit tenants but the council says it will also help the good landlords by raising standards across the board.

Licensing is not exactly a new idea. Back in 2009, the Government wanted full licensing across the country, with a landlord register. Those plans were dropped a year later once the Coalition came to power.

Is it a popular plan?

The local authority conducted a thorough consultation on the licensing scheme, which it says is overwhelmingly supported. It claims that 74% of residents and 76% of private tenants support private rented property licensing.

It doesn’t mention the percentage of landlords that think the scheme is a good idea, but I would hazard a guess at around 0%. The scheme is costly for landlords and more red tape. And given that the majority already provide good accommodation, it’s no surprise if they feel dismayed at having to bear the cost of bringing rogue landlords up to scratch.

Equally, some landlords feel that they can’t be held responsible for the anti-social behaviour of their tenants – and many people would agree with them.

The National Landlords Association unsurprisingly doesn’t support the scheme, which it says will simply increase burdens on those landlords who already comply with the law. 

After all, the owners of ‘sheds with beds’ are hardly likely to form an orderly queue to apply for an expensive licence, which they won’t be granted anyway.

On the other hand, charity Shelter has backed the scheme, saying that it has first-hand experience of tenants in Newham “suffering at the hands of rogue landlords who are ignoring their responsibilities and wreaking havoc on tenants’ lives”.

And it urges other local councils to follow Newham’s lead and launch their own licensing schemes.

Watch this space…

And that’s why this scheme is so important to all landlords, not just those with properties in Newham.

If property licensing proves successful, other local authorities are likely to launch similar schemes to ensure that private rented sector accommodation is up to scratch.

This becomes even more important as pressure on social housing means the private rented sector has an increasingly vital role in providing accommodation to those in receipt of housing benefit, as well as to thwarted first-time buyers who can’t get a mortgage.

If you are a landlord, watch the Newham scheme closely because it could be coming to a borough near you sooner than you think.

More on buy to let:

Buy to let: landlords escape Euro red tape

Buy to let doesn't add up

Confident landlords expanding portfolios

Why landlords should buy in the north

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (47)

  • windlesham1
    Love rating 14
    windlesham1 said

    Newham has always been a basket case, loonie leftie council, a massive immigrant population with zero earning capacity. Why expect the private sector to pay for the vanity and arrogance of failed communists?

    All the world's major cities are blighted by such areas,but the difference is,they don't expect everyone else to pick up the tab.

    there is plenty of low demand housing in the midlands for the many people in Newham who have no connection,and no intention of integrating. It's a tough world get over it.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • riblo123
    Love rating 18
    riblo123 said

    Newham council...sums it up, run by people who could not get a job anywhere else and see an opportunity for easy money at the expense of landlords.

    Along with EPCs and rent deposit schemes just another way of local government to screw more money out of landlords.

    Unfortunately this will just be passed on to the tenant.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Stuff the taxman
    Love rating 2
    Stuff the taxman said

    Sounds to me like another government money making racket, where do they get the £500 price tag from? fresh air most likely with a thick layer of spite added.

    landlords already pay out too much complying with building regs. etc etc. As the report says the real rouge landlords will most likely ignore the licence anyway, so it comes down to threats of huge fines if the honest landlord does not hand over the loot.

    As usual it comes down to the governments gang of bullies being the biggest. As such they rig up more rules that will make them more money which ends up in the pockets of over paid civil servents, while a business that is sometimes only making around 4/5% gross has more of its bottom line chipped away.

    Simple question: How many landlords were in on the plannng of this £150 to £500 rip off?

    If this was at all fair then it should only be applied to new set ups after when the licence was announced. That way at least current landlords have a chance, while new and up and coming landlords know of the cost and can therefore work it in to overall costs.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Chingfordonian
    Love rating 3
    Chingfordonian said

    As we all know the 'starting fee' is one thing but before too long it will rise very quickly (mostly to cover the salaries of people employed to 'inspect' the properties). The cost and even more compliance laws will stop prospective landlords from entering this field. Or is that the aim? To 'push out' the smaller landlord with a few properties in favour of the 'big boys' and housing groups.

    Either way it will not 'help' the tennants, and the cost may well be passed on the the tennant.

    If a tennant does not like the property or feels it is under standard then why rent it? Or if the standards fall (after renting) - which I assume will mostly be down to the tennant - why should the landlord be responsible to restoring the property to a high level repeatedly.

    As already stated there are plenty of properties available in other areas of the country.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • rckleung
    Love rating 9
    rckleung said

    With the extra charges they are even less likely to spend money keeping the property up to standard! Besides this "income" will just be wasted by the council (either on themselves or on stupid idea projects that are off no benefit to anyone except to keep mickey mouse jobs going).

    They should just sell any rouge landlords' properties/assets to pay for ALL costs incurred plus a penalty (thats staff and court costs).

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • time2go
    Love rating 66
    time2go said

    Guess the tenant will pick up the tab in the end?

    Another great decision by a local authority!

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Ben Hall
    Love rating 51
    Ben Hall said

    My wife and I run a couple of flats to augment our old age pensions.

    We employ an agent who makes sure that everything is OK and that the tenants get a fair deal. This is quite expensive.

    If we have to pay licence fees the rents will have to increase....that's tough on the tenants.

    I think we're quite typical landlords. We try to act responsibly and kindly. Why should we be penalised for the few rogue landlords?

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Alexandrite
    Love rating 3
    Alexandrite said

    It may be that Newham has gone about this in a typically rip-off-the-punters manner, but speaking from a landlord's perspective (over 20 years' experience) I'd like to flag up a scheme that has been in force in Scotland for 5 years or so. There, landlords are required to register with their local authority - at a cost of around £60 every three years. In return, the local authority runs get-togethers for landlords in the area, alerting them to upcoming changes in the law and enabling them to network.

    This scheme sits within the wider framework of some excellent work done by the Scottish Executive which outlines very clearly the responsibilities of landlords - and, conversely, the responsibilities of tenants. There are no grounds for confusion or misunderstanding and I think this makes it a lot easier for both tenants and landlords.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • paul roper
    Love rating 2
    paul roper said

    At Trafalgar Court Mundesley we minority leaseholders own 8 out of 32 flats and the freeholder seems to demands what he pleases out of us!

    Plus he has left 8 out of his 24 flats half finished so refuses to pay any service charge on them --------- In effect only 24 out of 32 flats are charged service so he has caused a black hole of around £100,000-------Will there be any licensing laws for our Rachman style freeholder?

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    £500 over 5 years is less than £2 a week. This is a small price to pay, if the council regulates landlords and tenants get decent housing. The problem is they also have to pay an obscene amount for water, council tax and a TV licence that funds the screening of Wimbledon, the Proms and Shakespeare; none of which is very popular in Newham.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • johnd993
    Love rating 12
    johnd993 said

    This could tip lots of honest decent caring landlords into bankrupcy. £500 per property!

    Fines of £20,000! If a toe-rag druggie goes out shop lifting every day all his adult life and finally one day gets caught - he'll get a caution. If he punches the security officer he'll get a fine of £100. If he burgles your house and defecates on your sofa - he'll get community service. Please tell me this is not about money! This is scandalous!. Councils love licensing everything and reaping the benefit of all that extra cash. It will not solve the problem of rouge landlords either. They have realised that rather than making a law to solve a problem - its much better to licence the sector first to rake in money first to pay for the prosecutions. If its just a law broken - the prosecution comes from public funds. Whats next? A window cleaners licence? An alcohol drinkers licence? A licence to step on the pavement? NO MORE LICENCES PLEASE! THIS COUNTRY IS DROWNING IN RED TAPE AND DISSINCENTIVE.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • Davek
    Love rating 3
    Davek said

    Why is that when it comes to London it's always the same councils again and again that we hear about. Newham has got to be at the top of the list for this. It's never for being efficient and usually because of some immoral practice of theirs.

    Now we have the introduction of a licensing system that is going to generate them £17,500,000! I would suggest that that might just result in landlords giving their tenants notice to quit and then selling the property. All that will achieve is an even greater need for accommodation that the council will be obliged to provide.

    As it is, the 'sheds for beds' they sector do not comply with any regulations and are made up normally of outbuilding or garages at the bottom of gardens. A lot of the people who live in them are either illegal immigrants who wish to remain in hiding or those that have nowhere else and not enough money to rent properly.

    What is the point in regulating and making life even more difficult for the landlords who are operating honestly. This whole idea is about as stupid as the ten yearly knife amnesty that the police have when people are allowed to hand in knives in a so called drive to remove them off the streets. All that happens is that honest people bring in unwanted knives from home. It's stupid and pointless and what Newham Council ought to be doing is cracking down on rogue landlords and not attacking the honest but I suppose that would require some intelligence and effort!

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    @stuff the taxman

    "Sounds to me like another government money making racket"

    How can this irresponsible communist COUNCIL DECISION be anything to do with the Government? We have enough incompetence in Government, past and present, and thoughtless comments like this add nothing to the debate.

    As many posters have already pointed out, the charge will eventually be passed to the tenant; it will also be an offsettable charge against tax for the landlord.

    As @Mike10613, says above, it is a small price to pay (?) and, I guess, a lot of Newham's rents are paid by housing benefit, so it will be the ratepayers of Newham who pick up some of the tab.

    Yes, @johnd993, more red tape! It's what our communist brothers seem to want. When we eventually get leaders that recognise that the country needs PRODUCTIVE jobs to earn income and balance our books, the sooner this nonsense will be ended. That means getting rid of or out of things we can't afford . . . the EU; the Arab countries; unproductive immigration; endless wars . . . . .

    r.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • PDB11
    Love rating 72
    PDB11 said

    Mike 10613 has a point - £500 is not an awful lot if it's going to last five years.

    But what if it doesn't? What if they find some nominal non-compliance and tell you to put it right and reapply in a year? Like MOT tests, it depends on the inspector you get. Some inspectors will take a reasonable view, some will nitpick little points that make no difference at all in real life, and still others will be happy to issue a certificate to a "friend" in the right circumstances... I think it'll be the hassle rather than the money that will annoy landlords.

    But in general, I agree with what seems to be the majority view here: as a measure for catching beds in sheds, it will be totally useless, because most of those will be outside the system anyway.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Stuff the taxman
    Love rating 2
    Stuff the taxman said

    The landlord already has to comply with and pay building regs. So in effect the council could simply extend the rules it aleady has without more costs to the landlord.

    Which ever the council have the landlords details already in its system from the building regs. application, so there is no need for yet another council dept. with its army of directors managers officers & pen pushing pension chasers to run the new licence system.

    Sooner or later all these rules and licences with kill the incentive to bother because they will eventually destroy landlord margins and/or, ability of the tenant to afford to pay.

    The law is already loaded way too much in favour of the tenent for example if the tenant don't pay their rent or, they trash the place, one months rent as a deposit will hardly cover the cost of a complete make over.

    In the instance, The landlord in real terms is powerless to do anything. If the tenant don't pay the landlord cannot kick them out without paying out thousands to lawyers which often leads nowhere. Whereas the tenant always has the option to up and go when ever they want, with out any real penalty to worry about.

    So if these pen pushers want to dream up even more money making red tape or, look for more excuses to charge another licence fee, why not start with proper rules/laws to which the tenant has to follow like it being a criminal offence to trash a place and/or stay without paying your rent once an agreement to pay has been signed.

    That would be real progress.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ksmerd
    Love rating 0
    ksmerd said

    Another plan not thought through. What about the poor sods with only one property doing all the right things? Why can't these local authorities use their enforcement officers for that which they are employed.

    D Smith

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • OorWullie
    Love rating 38
    OorWullie said

    So let's say someone is finded for whatever reason and opts not to pay it; so what? Are they likely to be sent to prison which costs an average of £35,000 annually to keep them there. What a crazy society in which we live!

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jegwe
    Love rating 20
    jegwe said

    The Government decided not to go ahead with a Landlords' licensing scheme. That is the answer. The idea has been rejected. Local authorities should not therefore have the power to go ahead with local schemes.

    It is about time that local authorities were forced to go back to theit proper role in providing services for local people and that their powers to introduce selective money making schemes and to impose draconian penalties and to criminalise people were curbed.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 267
    oldhenry said

    Of course the Ggovernmnet would not go ahead with it. What do you expect from a bunch of capitalist exploiters? All renting of domestic roperty should be through Housing Associations. Landlords should have to go through a proper controlled environment to ensure that the condition was sound and that the rent was fair. It was controlled via the Rent Control Officer for years and that was swept away by the capitalist Tories. Of course Blair was a closet Tory so did not lift a finger to assist those forced in renting and being exploited.

    It is an exploiters pradise , good for Newham to try to redress the balance.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • meldrewreborn
    Love rating 45
    meldrewreborn said

    will the fees be paid by the Council itself for its own properties? Similarly will housing associations also have to pay for each of their properties? If not I smell a legal challenge in the wings. It sounds very much like a box ticking exercise for the Council and another little earner for letting agents in complying on behalf of the owners. But for those who don't register or comply with the new rules, the threat of fines might be enough to change their minds. Councils don't have a good track record on these things - enforcing planning decisions and building regs; although on parking enforcement they're pretty hot. I suspect we'll have to see what actually happens when the scheme goes live - the Courts in Newham will probably collapse under the workload if enforcement action is rigorous, but perhaps they're hoping the threat of action will be enough to improve matters. HMRC use this tactic and its only partially effective.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CharlesBath
    Love rating 0
    CharlesBath said

    @ Paul Roper

    The problem you have is not a buy-to-let problem.

    I am sure there are tribunals and processes you can go through to ensure that the freeholder cannot abuse their position. I don't see that licensing has a role in the issue you have.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CharlesBath
    Love rating 0
    CharlesBath said

    £500 per property seems very expensive indeed compared to an Energy Performance Certificate at around £50 and a Gas Safety Certificate at around £50 also.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Interesting comments/winging from the land "lords" here. And as usual Old Henry makes some very valid points.

    I must admit I think it's funny that some of the commenters here about productive jobs while others describe the people who are implementing this gradual reformation of this parasitic system as "COMMUNIST".

    When you consider that BTL in general does NOT create wealth but rather takes it from others then these views seem a bit absurd.

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • mjgfool
    Love rating 9
    mjgfool said

    This system of licensing is in place in Stoke on Trent in selected areas. The license costs £750 and the penalty for not having a license is a fine of up to £20,000. The sole reason for licensing given is to reduce/eliminate anti social behaviour by tenants by making landlords responsible for the people they allow to rent their property.

    Suddenly landlords have become the arbiter of social behaviour irrespective of their individual responsibility for the condition of property they let.

    Policing the outcome of this initiative will be most interesting

    Report on 10 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Skintsod
    Love rating 32
    Skintsod said

    Now let's not get all misty-eyed about housing associations Oldhenry. I once went to buy a flat that was newly decorated and carpeted all ready for me to move in. Three days before contract exchange I did a quick snap inspection and found all the windows leaking and a fresh hole in the roof. Seems the owners had redecorated to make it all look OK just long enough to get a buyer. And who owned this monument to housing standards? Why a housing association of course.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Scottishlandlord
    Love rating 0
    Scottishlandlord said

    This type of scheme has made no difference in Scotland.

    Here there has been mandatory landlord registration since April 2006 and mandatory HMO licencing (for all property types with over three unrelated tenants) before that too.

    The problem in most areas is lack of enforcement.

    The good landlords (ie the vast majority of landlords) pay their fees for registration, licences etc. They are then asked for more when the renewal comes round again.

    Those who don't register/licence mostly get away with it. Local authorities here say that they cannot get tenants to testify in court so there are almost no prosecutions for non compliance. The penalty could be set at £200, £20,000 or £20M, if nobody is charged and fined, it's not an effective deterent.

    So unless Newham is committed to spending on staff to go round every address in the borough, to idenfity every rental property, and then to have a good plan of how they will get tenants to testify in court, the likelihood is this will do nothing to improve standards in the bottom end of the private rented sector.

    Shelter in Scotland have even published information saying Registration has not worked here and that standards have not improved, so it's a shame to see the wheel badly reinvented south of the border.

    The landlords of the tenants who are suffering are no more likely to comply in Newham any more than the bad landlords currently do in Scotland over 6 years later.

    The necessary huge resources put into compliance would require much higher fees. Costs like this ends up raising rents so in effect will also hit the tenant.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • simonlilly
    Love rating 2
    simonlilly said

    great idea Newham Council - the £500 (£10/month) license cost will just be added to the tenants rent bill, the less than affluent tenants of one of the poorest borough of London

    And dodgy landlords will not register, just keep renting out under the radar

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lwdcourt
    Love rating 1
    lwdcourt said

    Sorry to correct you but it is NOT the first mandatory landlord licensing scheme in England. c2003 Manchester City Council (and some others I think) applied for and obtain permission from the secretary of state to apply selective licensing in certain areas of the borough. I have two properties which fell into their remit. The end result from all the evidence I personally witnessed and gathered from conversations with others was that it was entirely ineffective. It was nothing more than a paperwork exercise that provided temporary employment for some council officers. I cannot understand how any sane mind thinks that simply getting landlords to fill in application forms, read information and have an up to date gas certificate is going to achieve anything. If government is serious about identifying poor landlords they have to grasp the nettle and get feet on the street and see for themselves. The reality is that councils have a range of powers they can and do use to force landlords to provide reasonable housing. The biggest problem is that councils are ineffective and inefficient in using the tools they have.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • chris h
    Love rating 0
    chris h said

    What a ridiculus idea this is. It's like giving a 16 year old a 1 year driving ban for driving a car without insurance. Those who it is intended to deter from doing bad things don't give a damn about it.

    But those law abiding people who worry about the legal system and what it can do to them have only one choice - pay up and up the rent!!!

    They can see a reason for gas safety certificates, or electrical safety checks. Even annual servicing. But a piece of paper that says "Licence"???

    Why don't the "people" in power try to think up a better way of identifying the bad landlords, the squalid tenures, overcrowded rooms and just dangerous places. Then let the law deal with them as it can if there is sufficient evidence. They have people who identify social security fraud. Is this much different?

    Simply licencing has only one benefit. More taxes for the local authorty.

    Mabe that is what it is about. Maybe not, but we all know this will not work.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rat
    Love rating 6
    rat said

    The better way to deal with poor landlords would be to a. force the councils to act within a specific time frame to deal with problem landlords - I have personally experienced the foot dragging when I was living in a property which had a category one safety problem.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • philippasutton
    Love rating 10
    philippasutton said

    Most of the comments here seem to be of to be of the "another hit on the poor old landlord" variety. Quite a few then point out that the landlords will not, in fact, bear the cost as they will pass it on to the tenants.

    My own experience is that of being a tenant with, mostly, good landlords. The last one let an agent manage the property and, despite the extra cost, I would now always look for a property handled by a reputable agency when renting. Amateur landlords can be conscientious but ignorant of their legal position regarding, for example, access to the property.

    My son and his partner experienced someone who probably thought he was a good landlord who tried to improve the property. That process included giving builders keys to the flat without even telling the tenant. Later when they decided to move (not because of the landlord) he handed spare keys to complete strangers who wanted to look over the flat without any consideration about security or privacy.

    The one point where I do agree is that regulation without a sensible degree of enforcement is just red tape. Any measure of this type should have a very carefully worked out scheme not just of penalties but also of ways to steer those who are being regulated into compliance.

    As for waste and corruption - I read Private Eye and hear other stories from friends and acquaintances, and if there's a thoroughly honest and competent and efficient local government nobody seems to have found it.

    Report on 12 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bobmattfran
    Love rating 58
    bobmattfran said

    I have a lot of sympathy for the good landlords, but a lot of the problems were caused by the buy to let mortgage scheme. A number of the buy to let group have not a clue when it comes to management of either budgets, property or costs. They blindly see an income with few responsibilities. Personally I feel that a licence at the beginning of the process should be the norm. The change of use from private occupation to rented occupation should require an inspection by the local authority building inspector to ensure that all the regulations have been adhered to and that all safety checks have been done by an independent and certified engineer. In the long run the owner of the property has an investment, only a fool allows the investment to depreciate in value because of poor/shoddy maintenance. The law should also be changed so that any property let as a rental property must be owned by an owner who's normal domicile is in the UK, this would remove any intended opaque deals to avoid UK tax, and additionally the owner of the property could be easily identified in the case of legal proceedings. Not red tape, just balancing the responsibilities of both landlord and tennant, unless of course we want to go back to the bad old days of Rachmanism.

    With regard to existing landlords failing to comply with the current laws, the whole process needs to be shortened so that a court hearing can be achieved within 28 days of registering a formal complaint.The argument that the costs of registration should be paid by the tenant are flawed, the costs are a tax deductable business cost, most landlords are honest and will be entitled to offset this tax against rental income. Only cash in hand landlords and those that wish to evade declaration of earnings are the ones who will be really upset.

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • kittzy
    Love rating 32
    kittzy said

    What a load of bolony, I am a landlord, i am registered with Her Magestys Revenue and customs, i pay my taxes, its just one thing after another. Get off your asses and go punish the people responsible for wrong doing instead of tarring everyone with the same brush, and creating heavens knows how many more beaurocratic jobs paid for by the 90% of decent people.

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • matchmade
    Love rating 38
    matchmade said

    Here we see localism in action: the majority, who don't have to pay a penny, are quite happy to see heavy taxes imposed on private landlords, who a significant proportion of left-voting people don't think have a right to exist anyway ("tenants shouldn't be paying their landlord's mortgage", etc etc). Landlords have no right of appeal, the council is under no obligation to show that the level of charges for its Article 4 Direction are fair and appropriate, and the council is free to impose whatever Decent Home "standards" it deems appropriate.

    Because it's not just a question of landlords having to pay £500 per property: they will also be inspected and obliged to make whatever changes are required by Environmental Health officers before a license will be issued. What's the betting that the Environmental Health department at Newham will be under instructions to demand ever-increasing improvements: locks on every door and ensuite bathrooms for every bedroom in shared houses, compulsory insulation everywhere, sprinkler systems and wired-in smoke detectors, all lights replaced with the latest energy-saving LEDs, fire-protection material under every step on staircases and between the kitchen and hallway, the replacement of original Victorian doors with fire doors, and so on and so on.

    Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of private houses that are of very poor quality, with little insulation, no smoke alarms, owners who smoke and use chip pans, but there are no obligations on homeowners to register or improve their properties, to be held responsible for vulnerable children or old people living in these flats and houses. This is all about a vendetta against good private landlords, because certain homeowners regard tenants as second-class citizens dragging down the neighbourhood. Oh, and of course it's a great revenue-raiser for Newham.

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • SiGl26
    Love rating 26
    SiGl26 said

    Tend to agree with bobmattfran, even as a landlord for whom such provision would be a pain. Vet & register the landlord and property once, ensuring it's up to agreed national regs, paid for by the landlord, then jump quick and hard on any complaints. Would be better for all. I predict a major social housing shortage in Newham (maybe they can turn their nice shiny council HQ into social housing??)

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • TopQuark
    Love rating 0
    TopQuark said

    If you CHOOSE to invest in property then you need to be prepared to take on the associated risk. The worst case scenario being a trashed place and/or unpaid rent. If you cannot, or will not accept this risk, then you should not be in the business. Having a roof over one's head is one of the most basic of human needs. The provision of such therefore requires careful and strictly controlled regulation.

    In reality, housing is often supplied by lazy, greedy and incompetent amateurs (and agents acting on their behalf), who [often] have neither the financial wherewithal nor even a minimum of education to have a clue what they are doing.

    Report on 16 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    I see no problem in landlords having to join a mandatory licensing scheme which requires them to show that the property or properties that they are letting are fit for purpose and provide conditions that meet with certain legislative requirements. The problem here is not tenants, although there will always be bad ones. The problem is that good private landlords are few and far between and regardless of what some may say about how the law sides with the tenant, the reality is very different, the nature of short term tenancies takes care of that. If landlords want to break the law, be a rogue or simply lazy and do nothing, they can do so because the law does little to protect tenants who can be evicted after 6 months anyway. The law that often works slow for landlords in getting an eviction of bad tenants is exactly the same slow moving law for a tenant when they are trying to get the bad landlord to do what they should be doing.

    I've known and rented from many landlords and while I would say that none of them were rogues or bad in a nasty way, all were lazy and gave the impression that they like the quite life with the rental money just rolling in. One defied the law for years on their rental property even though it was a listed building and numerous court orders were passed. The landlord still brought in his own builders, did work that was illegal and got away with it!

    Landlords should understand 3 things.

    1) You run a business, it's likely to be hard work, if you are not up to it do something else. All businesses have to comply with laws and regulations, landlords are no different. While in the ideal world less bureaucracy would be great, people do have a habit of abusing the power they have when there is no law or it is an ass - just look at the bankers!

    2) The tenant is your customer and you are offering a service. I sometimes get the impression that landlords and their agents just don't get this. In fact, one estate agent once told me, "we operate in the interests of our client the landlord!. Of course they do! But where does that leave the customer who is paying - the tenant!

    3) There is a saying in business that the customer is always right (even when they are wrong). Of course, we can say that this is nonsense, but certainly when it comes to landlord and tenant - the customer - you would struggle to find many landlords and agents that hold to this principle.

    I'm afraid that the reason why we need laws and regulations to keep landlords in check is because historically they have such an appalling record of the service they provide. The bad landlords just make life worse for the few good ones. Leaving things to market forces would just favour the landlords, especially the bad and lazy ones.

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LastChip
    Love rating 92
    LastChip said

    The problem I see with this, is a simple one.

    If licences are to cost £500, rents will increase by £700. After all, there an administration burden in doing this and it has to be paid for.

    Ultimately, who foots the bill? The tenant!

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    LastChip, you may be right, but the cost prior to Jan 1st is £150 over 5 years, £30 a year, a little over 58p a week. Only the rogue landlord types will try to make out it is more and pull a fast one on their tenants, but that's to be expected. Only the lazy ones won't bother to register by Jan 1st and then have to pay £500.

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    LastChip said:

    "If licences are to cost £500, rents will increase by £700."

    [...]

    "Ultimately, who foots the bill? The tenant!"

    If you could charge another £500-£700 then why don't you do so now? Perhaps it's because the market cannot sustain that level of rent for that value of land?

    Also if someone can only just pay £500 rent then doubling it will only push them out and they won't be replaced.

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aldus4
    Love rating 2
    Aldus4 said

    The problem here is that rogue landlords will not get licenses. The one's this law is targeting are often housing around 10 people in shed like properties, asking upwards of £100-200 per week. This means after around 10 weeks the sum of £20,000 (the fine) is achievable, i.e. this is the risk the rogue landlords face (small risk). As this sort of criminal behaviour is mainly organised I doubt the rogues will be shaking in their boots. If one looks at the London Borough Of Newhams's track record of convicting such rogues, it becomes clear why they think this new law might help. So far after finding evidence, receiving a court order, raiding the premises, taking witness statements etc. and appearing in front of court, a year easily goes by and the fine imposed by courts is laughable. With this new system, I presume the fines will go up for the rogue landlords but basically nothing will improve. These sorts of people don't advertise in the local papers or stores. The don't deal with estate agents, council tenants, housing benefit claimants - they deal with migrants, foreigners etc. who don't know or don't want to know the law because of their situation. So in the end this law doesn't help those it is intended for but the normal landlord has more red tape, the government (even if local) knows more through CRB's and they can give the information on to HMRC (rent = income tax). The police state is slowly forming around us...

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • LastChip
    Love rating 92
    LastChip said

    SevenPillars, the £150 is only a sweetener to get this off the ground. What do you think the renewal will cost in 5 years time? I would suggest £500 + inflation as a minimum. It's another nice little local tax over which there is very little control.

    LandofConfusion. Don't confuse £500 per month, with £500 over (potentially) 5 years. The two do not equate. Nowhere did I say, rents would increase by £500 or £700 per month.

    The bottom line is, like it or not, landlords are not going to do this without someone else footing the bill.

    Aldus4, you've summed it up beautifully. Those that it's targeted at, won't give a damn and you'll find, most will make very sure you can't track them down without wasting huge resources. With cash strapped Councils, that's not going to happen and they know it.

    It's badly thought out and unworkable, and will simply be another tax on the honest.

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    LastChip,

    "It's another nice little local tax over which there is very little control."

    Given that you're getting a free lunch paid for by the community I don't see how you can complain.

    "Don't confuse £500 per month, with £500 over (potentially) 5 years. The two do not equate. Nowhere did I say, rents would increase by £500 or £700 per month."

    If you are going to charge a significant amount over what you can now then why not do so now? Otherwise the increase in rent will be insignificant, won't really affect the tenant, will most likely be absorbed by the BTL'er and at the end of of the day isn't really a point worth making.

    Report on 17 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    LastChip - You need to address how bad landlords should be dealt with then. How can it be ensured that the service they are providing to their customers - the tenant - is fit for purpose and of a quality that meets certain standards? After all, as consumers we all expect businesses like Tesco, M&S, B&Q, etc to provide products and services that are fit for purpose and if they do not the law protects the consumer. You don't see the likes of Tesco going to the media or on forums complaining about their customers do you. Yet they invest a great deal of time, effort and money in customer service, much of which they are required to do by law. Landlords and property agents could learn a lot from businesses that know what a service really is.

    Report on 18 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • spirit
    Love rating 0
    spirit said

    Hmm, Odd that landlords providing much needed housing are now having to go through more red tape. I remember the recent program on either BBC1 or ITV which showed the truly shocking situation of entire streets being boarded up and families not being allowed to live in them because they needed "decoration" which in itself was moot. Families badly in need of housing have been offering to live in these as "homes" to put their own efforts in to "decorate" them but have been turned down. The term "sheds with beds" could be a palace to someone who has nowhere to live or has been unneccessarily barred from finding a place because there are "none available". It looks as if landlords are providing a much needed public service. I think the whole process requires judicial review.

    Report on 19 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • richardja@mac.com
    Love rating 0
    richardja@mac.com said

    This is an absolute rip off! This is just another hidden tax. Landlords should be incentivised, not penalised! This may be a good way of controlling bad landlords but why should the good ones pay the price too? I would encourage an incentive for good landlords. If really necessary then I would say, get a certificate for free but only pay if you do not meet the requirements. If you exceed the standard then you should get an extra tax incentive. Landlords need to be encouraged. The job is hard enough and there is a lot of risk being a landlord, give them a break!!

    Report on 31 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • tuttogallo
    Love rating 75
    tuttogallo said

    Just like the anti-money laundering regulations: a huge problem for the law abiding landlord, who is already religiously getting his gas and electricity tests and using a rent deposit scheme; no problem at all for the illegal landlords, just another set of regulations for them to ignore.

    This won't even get near to improving the "sheds with beds" problem.

    It will however employ a some extra local civil servants with Ponzi style gold plated index linked pensions. So in 50 years’ time our grandchildren will still be paying for this work which added no value at all!

    Report on 26 April 2013  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4