FREE tenancy agreement
FREE landlord software
It's nice to blow your own trumpet sometimes!Last year Property Hawk was enraged by the then Labour Governments proposal to introduce a Landlord Licence, so we started up a petition at Number 10 against it.
The then Government was proposing that as a legal requirement a landlord would have to obtain a licence before they could do with their own private property what any Citizen should be able to do. Were we living in Russia, China....France?! Is this the land of the Free or are we a load of disenfranchised apparatchiks kowtowing to an over bearing state?
Landlord association capitulates
What was even more unbelievable was the attitude of the landlord associations who just caved in and said a licence was OK. It was the price to pay they said for keeping the government sweet and not regulating the sector even more heavily. Nothing like standing up for your rights of your members!
Our case against the Landlord Licence
Mandatory licensing would:
1. Undermine the private property rights of a citizen to do what they choose with their property including letting it to a willing tenant.
2. Not drive up standards in the residential letting sector as suggested.
3. Would duplicate existing methods of control and therefore is unnecessary.
4. Restrict the supply of rental accommodation.
5. Be a tax on the rental sector.
6. Be costly to implement and an added financial burden to the citizen.
Property Hawk has just receive a response from the new Government to our petition set up last year and now in receipt of 1,131 signatures. Our grounds for the original petition and the new Governments response are set out below.
Government response
The Government needs to strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. The current legislative framework delivers that balance. We, therefore, have no plans to implement the regulatory measures proposed by the previous Government in response to the independent Rugg review of the private rented sector. These measures included a national register of landlords and mandatory regulation of letting and managing agents.
The Rugg review acknowledged that the current legislative framework was delivering for the sector and that 75% of tenants are satisfied with their landlord. Local authorities have extensive powers to take action against landlords who fail in their responsibilities and we agree that the proposals for additional measures set out by the previous Government would have introduced an additional layer of regulation where none is needed.
In the past, over-regulation drove landlords out of the rental market and we would not want to introduce measures which would form a barrier to potential landlords. This would only reduce the number of properties to rent which would not help tenants or landlords.
HERE HERE & WELL SAID THAT MAN! ( or woman)
Landlord insurance - instant quote
Posts
15 comments:
Another blog post, another lack of comment...
I'm not going to address the continued assertion that the NLA was in favour of a National Register of Landlords. It was not.
The NLA could have seen a benefit of a low-cost, no hurdle register, yes. And we stand by that. However, Labour soon changed the goal posts.
As for the concept that because of your petition (only, 1,100 signatories) the Tory/Lib Dem Government had decided to park the register...that really is something from the land of make-believe.
I can assure you that Ministers will almost certainly have no idea about your petition. Whereas, the NLA has already had several meetings with the relevant characters in Government and their civil servants.
I also think we have to put another myth to bed. Landlords cannot expect to be able to conduct their lettings business with absolutely no interference from the authorities. That is massively unrealistic. I also think your comparison of the UK with Russia and China (and the associated human rights issues of those countries) profoundly stupid.
Put that in your trumpet and blow it.
Warning, Sense of humour license required.
Did we mention the NLA in the blog post Steve?
In your own words -
"The NLA could have seen a benefit of a low-cost, no hurdle register, yes."
"..that really is something from the land of make-believe."
Steve, I don't think you can knock the guy for trying to fight for what he and a thousand or so people think is right whether it was listened to or not that's what living in a democracy is all about. As for the little dig at the associations, well I can see why you would want to bite back but at the end of the day you guys have really got to start justifying your fees. I've seen far too many bodies that collect fees and do very little for them it just becomes an expectation that because your an association you have members and collect fees without real concern as to the value for money of the services you provide. I used to be a member but found that there was nothing you provided that I couldn't get elsewhere for free so saw little point in remaining a member. If a little dig now and again from sites like this encourages you to up your game and really focus on the value your providing your members I'm all for it!
Thanks Phil, For your defence.
I think Steve had a heavy lunch that had caused him a certain level of discomfort.
It strikes me the NLA blow harder than anyone on their trumpets.
(Ive changed this from the original post because I thought I sounded too antagonistic and we dont have any beef with the NLA - we actually quite like them )
But as you say Phil "If a little dig now and again from sites like this encourages you to up your game and really focus on the value your providing your members I'm all for it!"
Okay, okay...you didn't mention the NLA this time. But you slagged us off before and said we supported it...which was not quite the whole story.
Phil, you defender of the down trodden, I'm not knocking the petition. We like petitions.
But the connection between that petition and the change in heart on the register is not accurate.
Way before the Election we really were meeting with the Tories to explain the problems. And we hope it had some bearing.
As for fee levels, I think we should be charing loads more for what we offer. Have you used the Advice Line? Have you taken advantage of heavy discounts when protecting deposits? Those on their own pay for a year's fee.
I'm not going into rant mode though.
Thanks Steve for coming back to us.
We were purely reporting back on the Government response to "OUR PETITION"in a tongue in cheek way.
The NLA as you yourself stated were open to the concept of a 'landlord licence' of some kind initially
"The NLA could have seen a benefit of a low-cost, no hurdle register, yes."
Whereas we never entertained the concept in any form.
We could see from the start that it would be a costly useless bit of nonsense that would not improve standards.
The NLA presumably could see it as a potential way of forcing landlords into an association through some soft licensing/registration scheme and were presumably hoping to swell their numbers in some kind of forced accreditation managed by them.
When they realised this was not going to be the case they 'changed their tune', so to speak.
The organisation is more important than the individual.
We prefer individuals.
As to having 'slagged you off before' maybe you should counter balance that by the numerous times we've 'bigged you up'.
We are free to give our honest opinions, unclutterd by management policy, PR and political aspirations.
I'm guessing you're not.
Cheers...
but that's where we part company.
If the Licence idea had been "a low-cost, no hurdle register" then the NLA could see benefits. That doesn't mean we would have wanted it but we COULD see benefits.
It was intentionally ambiguous and not a fully supportive statement. There was so little detail at that stage to make much comment. But then things changed...the rest is history...
As to the rest of your post, I think you're nuts!
Your blog is the usual thing. A combination of opinionated facts, rumour and speculation which sometimes addresses the issues and sometimes does not. Like most of the web. And that is absolutely fine and we enjoy the engagement. But let's not try and suggest that you - with advertising income for the site - are much more free than the NLA to comment.
I mean, what happens if you slag off Alan Boswell Insurance who advertise with you. Or Rentguard. Or Landlord Direct.
Are you really entirely unencumbered?
The NLA doesn't have some sort of 'take over the world' agenda and knows its limitations. But we're trying.
As for control and PR etc.
Yes, I'm the Media Relations Manager.
Yes, unsurprisingly, I think the NLA is doing a good job (I know you think similarly).
Yes, I am paid to rebut and defend the NLA's reputation.
But I am pretty upfront and I think our line on the Register was the right line at the time.
We did not "change our tune" because the Register was not going to be. In fact, as soon as the Labour Government started adding bells and whistles we were highly critical. And were criticised by leasehold and tenant groups for our lack of support.
To recap. We were sceptical at the start but we had yet to see detail. Our line reflected this.
Soon after, it was right to be critical and lobby for the Tories to ditch it.
Individuals, politicians and the media actually listen to what the NLA says about issues. So we are not able to be quite so...robust as you say you are!
Hi Steve,
Rather than the trumpet I'd thought I fire up the vuvuzela for a change.
I'm confused.
Are the NLA for a landlord licence or against it? It was always going to be a low cost low hurdle political sop. That's exactly why it was so pointless. How having a piece of paper that costs you £50 saying I'm a landlord does anything to drive up standards in the private rental sector - I don't know. Surely you can see that.
Do you believe in the rights of private property Steve? Do you believe that you should be able to do with your property with it what you like as long as you are not harming others and complying with the laws of the land. I do. The option to let out your own property should be a right not a privilege granted by some misguided bureaucrat.
On the point of influence Steve. When you sat down with Ministers. Did you tell them that a licence was a bad idea. If so 'fat lot of good' your representation did.
Or maybe it was a case of the power and the kudous just went to the NLA's head.
When the Minister asked: "More tea Steven & a 'landlord licence'? Oh YES MINISTER!
Okay, a quick reminder.
The initial recommendation for a Register was in the Rugg Review that was simply going to be £50, your name and address on a list. Hardly a great burden on landlords and if it parks further regulation, all the better.
Labour then started adding more on and on and on...as soon as this happened we said 'bad idea'. The key issue was a list of rental properties which we think would be unfair and unworkable.
Therefore, the low cost, no hurdle option (from Rugg) was ditched in favour of the bells and whistles version.
We could see some merit in the first if that was as bad as they wanted to get. I.e. Labour ministers would then get off the back of landlords and not demand further regulation. It was the lesser of two evils.
Is the NLA in favour of any further regulation? No.
BTW, 'see some merit' does not mean in favour. Things are not black and white.
You ask:
"Do you believe in the rights of private property Steve? Do you believe that you should be able to do with your property with it what you like as long as you are not harming others and complying with the laws of the land. I do. The option to let out your own property should be a right not a privilege granted by some misguided bureaucrat."
The NLA agrees with this point of view, yes.
Yes, the NLA told Labour Ministers that even a basic no frills Register was of little use in driving standards. We told Tories the same.
And it isn't me who sits down with them but our lobbyists.
I repeat:
"Individuals, politicians and the media actually listen to what the NLA says about issues. So we are not able to be quite so...robust as you say you are!"
The bottom line is that organisations such as the NLA have to be nuanced at times. This is not exactly rare. You are more free to be bolshy and see things in dogmatic terms. Politics is simply not like that.
Bolshy and proud of it.
Fair and honest response, thanks Steve.
Have a good weekend.
BTW, you haven't expanded as to why you think we're the best landlord association?
Our egos need more grooming. :-)
Judging by the above it would appear most fair-minded persons might very well consider the NLA need a new media relations manager.
I recently joined NLA having been in RLA. I am also in SaL (in Scotland we have Landlord registration by law & know a thing or 2 about it..)
On the basis of what I've seen here recently & elsewhere perhaps I made a mistake with my membership subscription.
If the NLA wishes to expell me for using free speech, be my guest!
Cheers!
I think you've probably blown your trumpet enough Steven.
theartfullodger
and which bit did you find so very offensive?
If you would like a refund, then I'd be happy to investigate it. We'd hate you to think it was not money well-spent or you made a mistake.
Or you could always re-join the RLA, if you consider they do a better job?
Please advise.
Dear Steve ...
You asked...
"""and which bit did you find so very offensive?"""
I'm confused: What made you think I found anything offensive, pray???
Suggestion: when in hole, stop digging....
Cheers!
Lodger
Post a Comment