FREE tenancy agreement
FREE landlord software
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this recent article in thisismoney.
A so called landlord organisation actually arguing FOR a landlord licence.
Landlord insurance - professional rates - discounted
The NLA appear to completely capitulated on the subject of the landlord licence and were actually arguing for a landlord licence similar to a TV licence.
NO! NO! NO! NO!
It is just this weak, consensus seeking tokenism, illogical pandering to politicians ill thought out posturings that has got the UK into the mess we are in today.
Somethings are simply wrong and requiring a licence to allow me to do what I want with my private property is an attack on my civil liberty. It's time for the State to be reigned in and time also for the NLA to wake up to who they are supposed to be representing.
Sign Property Hawk's petition against the landlord licence.
Free property management software, Free tenancy agreements
Posts
25 comments:
Come on, Chris, do you really believe this is true?
"Somethings are simply wrong and requiring a licence to allow me to do what I want with my private property is an attack on my civil liberty. "
Of course, you can do what you want with your private property but when you involve other people - i.e. tenants - you have to expect some kind of regulatory environment in which to practice. Every other section of the property sector is fully regulated - so, in some ways, a light touch license, like a TV license - leaves landlords pretty much untouched by the FULL weight of regulation by agencies such as the FSA.
The NLA hasn't capitulated, as far as I can tell. We have argued vociferously against landlords having to submit property addresses. We have also raised massive question marks about how unworkable the Government proposals are: "well-meaning but flawed."
If you'd like to come in and see us, you can meet some of the policy staff that are fighting day in, day out for landlords and their REAL rights.
The NLA knows who it is representing. And would like the conversation to continue. We'd like to hear views on this. So, Chris, come in and let's chat.
Thanks Steve for your comments Property Hawk is all for constructive debate.
My question to you is a simple one.
We know that the licence has been costed by the government at £2.5billion. Please explain to me how in any way this so called TV licence will improve conditions for tenants and even more importantly for landlords?
I'm all for raising standards.
The licence scheme is been agreed with by the associations because they feel that they need to support anything that is percieved to raise standards for political reasons.
Why not tighten up existing regulations and create harsher punishments for landlords that break them?
eg, Landlords could be banned from letting property, you dont need a licence for that.
Which draws me on to the next question, when a 'rogue landlord' loses his licence - whose to stop his friend or family letting the property under a different licence?
This wont be able to be policed ( it has already failed in Scotland) and rogue landlords will continue as always.
Delusional policy from delusional politicians.
Hey, Chris. You're hot on Twitter too!
The Impact Assessment (essentially a financial document) outlines three policy options:
a. Do nothing.
b. Full licensing of properties for all landlords.
c. National register
We know they have dismissed option a. We also know they do not want option b - the NLA would be 100 per cent against licenses for properties for all landlords. The costs for option b would be £2.5bn.
So, they are moving towards option c. Annual cost for this would be about £400m. The NLA has said it would rather see (as in Rugg) a no hurdle licence rather than a national database and we are certainly against submitting property addresses.
Perhaps there is some confusion about terminology here - i.e. licence, register etc.
This is what the NLA Chairman actually said about the Government proposals once it was clear they had dismissed Rugg's licence idea:
"It is possible to see some benefit to a 'no hurdle', low-cost, easy-to-use register for landlords as part of a concerted drive to root out rogue operators. However, the NLA would be opposed to the collection of rental property addresses. We consider this to be overly intrusive and of no direct benefit to tenants or landlords.
"The private-rented sector is already heavily regulated and many recent changes have yet to settle down. Any further regulation, therefore, has to be very carefully considered. In the current economic climate, the last thing good landlords need is to feel penalised. If a register is introduced it needs to focus totally on pushing up standards and rooting out rogue landlords. We will be looking for assurances that a register would be properly resourced and be of direct and immediate benefit to landlords and tenants.
"Any changes must not be seen as the 'thin end of the edge' in terms of further, burdensome regulation. Reform must be workable for landlords and not damage the private-rented sector. The challenge now for Government should be to focus on incentives and encouragement."
I think this is fairly clear. It is now up to Government to show a register will improve conditions for tenants. I'm not convinced they are fussed about improving conditions for landlords, but they do realise that fully llicensing all properties would be impossible, or nearly so.
This doesnt answer the question of what happens if a landlord loses his licence and then get his wife a licence.
If a licence is not attached to a property address how do you prevent this?
Anon
Yep, existing regulations could be made to work better. But you have to ask local authorities about that one. There are pretty harsh penalties for landlords already: but time and time again we see councils either do not have the resources or inclination to prosecute.
At least a licence - done properly - could actually stop a landlord letting property. If they do not have a landlord number, then a tenant should know not to rent from them. The register would be open for tenants to check, apparently.
The reason it failed in Scotland is because the register was of properties. The NLA would argue that licensing individual landlords might work a lot better!
If the landlord contravenes rules, then there would be penalities. But I think this is what the Government is now consulting on. They have yet to work out exactly how this would work.
You don't prevent it by linking a licence to a property either!
Check this out too: http://tinyurl.com/nwl7zt
Thanks Steve for responding.
As you say 'They have yet to work out exactly how this would work'
Past performance from this Gov. on housing regulations is - they wont be able to.
The licence will be abused by all those rogue landlords as happened in Scotland.
Steve I put this to you - this Government has absolutely no idea of who lives in this country as was proven by the whole immigration figures guess work over previous years.
Answer me this question - do you honestly think that a licence would prevent 'rogue landlords' who wish to abuse the system?
Heres a idea - why dont we use the 0.5 billion or 2.5 billion to employ inspectors and officers ( a bit like enviromental health officers ) who are given powers to take action against landlords who are reported by tenants.
Wont this be a far better value solution to raising standards for tenants - ie targeting the abusers instead of creating a pointless system that allows them to side step it.
I'm back!
I recognise that any form of regulation does not get rid of rogues. But I do believe any efforts which disable the very worst landlords from letting should be explored.
They are the very small minority that taint the whole sector.
Yes - target the abusers. That is music to the NLA's ears. But that has to come from Government. They must resource local town halls so that they use the very many powers open to them to punish 'rogue operators'.
And yes, I do believe that if tenants are able to check a register to see if a landlord is on there, that could help to push out bad landlords.
Thanks Steve,
'I recognise that any form of regulation does not get rid of rogues'
Can I ask what is the point of spending all that money on a licence scheme if it wont get rid of rogues then?
A landlord scheme would not raise standards, it would only root out landlords who are seen to abuse regulations to such a point that they would be banned.
But as you have just noted 'I recognise that any form of regulation does not get rid of rogues'
Logic shows there is no value in the licence scheme - but you guys are backing it?
Political but pointless then?
We are not blindly backing the Government's proposals. We are seeking to influence their decision-making so that the vast bulk of law-abiding landlords are not affected by regulation which does not achieve anything.
BUT we do believe that a no-hurdle, low-cost, register - if resourced properly at local authority level - could lead to rogue landlords being squeezed out of the market.
If a landlord needs to be on the register to get a BTL mortgage, and to get an EPC and to protect a deposit, and to issue a 'kosher' AST, and to evict tenants - then yes, it will make the environment in which bad landlords operate more difficult. That is an achievement. It won't affect good landlords as they already do everything properly!
Will any measure absolutely get rid of all rogues? No. We have to be realistic. There will always be crooks. But we do need to make sure it is harder for them to take advantage of tenants. In the same way, we need to - somehow - ensure that it is more difficult for tenants to take advantage of landlords.
Here's a question. Why are some landlords so concerned about proper regulation? Landlords are already massively regulated with a whole heap of things to do. So proper regulation, if it happens, would hardly be a great task. Landlords are already doing it!
Hi Steve,
Some interesting points. But.
The central question is as your Chairman puts it:
"It is possible to see some benefit to a 'no hurdle', low-cost, easy-to-use register for landlords."
What are they?
I believe strongly we should go for option A which is to do nothing. There are sufficient laws to protect landlords and tenants rights. Remember the tenant has the ultimate sanction as a consumer which is to not pay the landlord and move out.
The TV licence you appear to support would:
1. be unpoliceable (as the Scottish experience shows)
2. financially penalise the good landlords who have to pay the licence fee.
3. do nothing to improve standards (remember thats what the Rugg Report was all about)
4. allow vindictive tenants to exploit and coerce landlords by threatening with reporting them to authorities.
In essence lets get back to basics. Why not start from a position that landlords are generally good honest people who can go about their business as they see fit. If they break the law they should be punished.
Landlords don't need a licence, a badge or anything else to do what should be a right.
That why Property Hawk says the concept of a licence is fundamentally WRONG!
Come on Steve - why support a half baked idea. I can't believe that you would be that unprincipled!
Heres a few reasons Steve,
I think you partly answered your own question 'Landlords are already massively regulated with a whole heap of things to do.'
The Government are obviously attracted to the idea of a database of landlords for other reasons that raising standards in the letting sector.
In a country looking at economic meltdown - do we think wasting 1 or 2 billion on an initiative which will return little to no improvement as a good way to spend OUR money?
Do we feel comfortable with the Government extending its level of information on individuals alongside the heralded National Identity Card - Big Brothers watching you!
So in summary - regulations already in place, at high cost, invasion of civil liberties, for no change.
MMMMM - political then - it will be a good photo shoot for Gordon.
As I mentioned, the key benefit (and we would need to see evidence-based assurances) is that those rogue landlords who operate under the radar would find it more difficult to operate. It wouldn't eradicate them, but it would make their lives more difficult.
The NLA is standing up for the good landlords. We want good landlords to know they do a great job and rent good property. We believe the sector does an amazing job.
We also know that bad landlords give everyone a bad name. And the Government is now minded to do something about it.
If it is going to do something then the NLA is going to try and make it more workable for landlords.
When I read the Rugg Review and the Government response, I think it does start from the basic idea that most landlords are good.
The big question is: how do you deal with those landlords that are bad?
If the Government was going to throw an awful lot more resources at Town Halls to enable them to use their extensive powers then we would support it. But this is not on their minds. They are going to push for a national register. Not a licence.
Another question: do we scream from outside the tent or do we get around the table?
I think - and this is a personal view - that the time has come where it might benefit good landlords to have a badge or label so that the world knows they are good. I am massively proud of the vast bulk of amazing landlords in the UK. It's why I try my hardest to get a better image for them in the media.
It benefits YOU if tenants can identify who is a good and who is a bad landlord!
An aside: http://tinyurl.com/msfsfm.
NOMINATIONS CLOSE IN 46 HOURS!
All fair comments, Anon.
But it's going to happen. They are going to do this. And I would bet money a new Conservative Government would do something similar.
And, yes, it's in the Impact Assessment: "more efficient tax assessement and collection."
The NLA is determined to try its top notch best to influence the Government. As I have said, if anyone would like to come to our Head Office and meet the policy staff who work on this, please get in touch.
I'm afraid I have to go and get some lunch!
Thanks Steve, For your time and responses.
Maybe we should find out what the Conservatives think of all this, lets face facts unless this Government blasts this thing through quick sharp, then it will be down to them to decide this.
Lets hope they are after spending the Government purses in a more value focused way and not big noise, big budget but small change initiates like this Government.
Is the registration for landlord free? What advantage does the landlord have by registering?
When a tenant move out, the house have to be refitted for the next tenant to move in and this cost a lot of money.
Most people perceived that landlords are the bad guys. I do agree that there are many unscrupulous ones out there but I have had my house "sledge hammered", even the gulvanised metal shed was broken. The sealant in the shower was deliberately removed again and again, the oven was smashed-in and gas leaked and worst of all, rent not paid".
What is the advantage of being a registered landlord, would it mean that the scheme will cover all these repairs for the landlord.
Dear Anon,
The proposed landlord licence would be charged to the landlord. The Government would enforce that all individuals letting a property would have to pay for the licence, ie mandatory , no choice, pay for a license or don't let your property.
Much like a driving licence - I hope that clears up your question.
...and without wanting to do the Government's job for them...
They do say in their proposals that landlords would be offered various services in return for the fee. They 'could include' a starter pack for new landlords, standard forms (ASTs etc) as well as e-updates on regulatory changes.
Further to the question about whether the Tories would do anything similar.
If anyone is of the view that come the revolution, a Conservative Government will be naturally more inclined to leave landlords alone, they need to think again.
I would imagine that whatever happens, we are going to see some kind of similar reform in this area. The big question will be how far any administration will actually go.
Thanks Steve & the editor for allowing this debate.
I fail to see the benefits for 'good' Landlords and feel they are getting penalised to enable the government to fish out 'rogue' landlords ( which I don't believe will happen)
As a good landlord I already pay out tax, landlord insurance, gas & electric safety certs, annual maintenance, and a premium for plumbing/ gas/electric and appliance care. A bad landlord would not have this outlay so £50(or whatever its going to be to be) is nothing to them(if they are even on the radar to begin with)
Plus if as many suspect it is unregulated/checked/followed up on it is another tool for bad landlords to fool people, i.e. we are licensed so we must be good.
I also do not believe that a tenant would not rent a property if they aren't provided with a registration number if its the right property/price/location unless they are told that they have No rights or protection if they choose to do this. If that is not going to be the case then they will be protected either way.
We are already regulated and if councils and gov bodies who we already fund are not doing their job in enforcing these regs then penalise them, make them accountable.
In my experience house prices and buy-to-lets have been made out to be the root cause of the current financial crisis and the meltdown of the banks. Would personal information about me, such as the number of buy-to-lets I own, be made public? That is a serious infringement of my rights. I am a responsible landlord who put down a hefty deposit. I treat my tenants fairly. Tougher regulations on rogue landlords are what's needed. This is going to be as useful as the Hip's and the EPC's.
Also, I own HMO's and already pay a hefty licence fee for the right to rent it out and to ensure it meets standards. Would I have to pay out for another licence fee? How on earth is that meant to improve matters for anyone other than the Govt coffers?
Introducing this kind of legislation,which would put people off renting out their properties/rooms in their homes etc, and this would only serve to make existing rentals more expensive. In this climate, under untilised homes are the last things you need.
I had one of my properties accredited by the local councils accreditation scheme 7 years ago. The accreditation was only valid for five years, so last week i rang up to ask about re-applying to the scheme.My thinking was get accreditated now and be as ready as possible for the full blown licencing scheme when it is launched. However when i enquired with the local council i was told they had stopped their accreditation scheme some 3 years ago, due to lack of staff and resources. Shows that some of us are wanting to raise our standards and be as professional as posssible, only to be let down and held back by the authorities. I cant wait for my local MP to knock on my door!
Leeds Selective Licensing Scheme Cross Gates East End Park - The license fee is £520 for 5 years, they seem to have gone for the same amount as for HMOs.
My house is small with the rent only being £365 (current tenant newly unemployed only paying £260 right now!) - £520 license fee for this is just brutal.
Is there any way out of this???
I don't mind to follow their safety standards.
No I'm afraid not as far as I know there is no right of appeal. In our view this HMO licensing is a landlord licence through the back door and unecessary. Have a look at this recent example of another local authority Nottingham that are looking to introduce licensing using powers granted to them under the Housing Act 2004. http://blog.propertyhawk.co.uk/2009/12/nottingham-seeks-further-licensing.html
Post a Comment