Council Right to Buy

I'mcomingbackasaman

I agree some private landlords are just in it for the money, when it comes to repairs it's another matter. One friend waited 19 months for her landlord to replace a bedroom window on a main road, smashed by a drunk passer by.
She would love to buy a property but can't afford a mortgage. THe LA have sold all their housing stock left after 'right to buys' to a private housing group.

TJ27

clutton wrote:

""squalid hole"" - going off on my favourite quiet rant here for a minute or two - the local authorities have had draconian powers for years in terms of getting rid of "squalid holes" - but i have rarely come across such squalid landlords in court - i have seen several lists of works to be done whic have been issued by EHO's, but, then the local authorities seem to lose interest.

With the exceptions of Rachmann in 1960's and Nicholas Van hooooogstraten, (however he is spelt) - who can name a landlord that has been prosecuted ?

This 2004 Housing Act, was simply not necessary in my view - "squalid holes" owners, will still not register with the local authorites, and homeless families will still be housed in such appalling places.

Those that profiteer from central funds, with no intention of providing any sort of decent standards, will always find a way round the regs.

mini rant over !

Hmm. Well you're partially right. As an housing enforcement officer for a large council, I can confirm that landlords do indeed try to find ways around the legislation, often successfully. However I am certain that the new act will go a considerable way towards closing the loopholes. The act isn't perfect but it will definitely improve things.

You may not be surprised to hear that, in response to your question, "I can." In fact I could name you several dozen prosecuted landlords, from a single city. Indeed, one gent springs to mind who was a landlord and also a solicitor. In addition to receiving a hefty fine, he is no longer able to practice his profession. He seems to have realised that he will not be granted a licence under the new regime and one by one he is selling all of his houses. So he's been prosecuted, forced out of his profession and forced out of the rentals market. (Sure, he'll be a non working multi millionaire, but at least his houses will be brought up to standard.)

We're not faultless but where we are able to take action we generally do.

RHemmings

TJ27 wrote:

You may not be surprised to hear that, in response to your question, "I can." In fact I could name you several dozen prosecuted landlords, from a single city. Indeed, one gent springs to mind who was a landlord and also a solicitor. In addition to receiving a hefty fine, he is no longer able to practice his profession. He seems to have realised that he will not be granted a licence under the new regime and one by one he is selling all of his houses. So he's been prosecuted, forced out of his profession and forced out of the rentals market. (Sure, he'll be a non working multi millionaire, but at least his houses will be brought up to standard.)

We're not faultless but where we are able to take action we generally do.

Can you give some detailed examples of the kind of things you do? Because of the legal risk of identifying real people, could you make up some fictional case studies that give an illustration of the kind of problems that arise and the kind of actions you take?

TJ27

Well, I wouldn't wish to bore you with details of any particular cases but I can give you an idea of the work we do. Personally the bulk of my work involves bringing privately rented accommodation up standard. Sometimes we respond to complaints, sometimes we actively search for poor properties by mail drops or knocking on doors. Most of the properties I deal with have minor issues regarding fitness but larger problems regarding fire safety. I might typically draft fire plans and schedules before sending them to the landlord with a notice. A period of time is allowed to do the work, extensions may be applied but if the work is not completed then we normally instigate prosecution.

Because of the 2004 act we are now changing the way we do things quite radically. In common with many other processes, we now adopt a risk assessment approach. When we survey properties we are able to apply scores to various hazards such as, likelihood of falls, structural collapse, lack of heat, drainage, fire safety, lead, radon, etc. We are even able to take psychological effects of damp into consideration for example. Notices will still be served where necessary. The penalties for non compliance are much higher than they were previously.

We are also dealing with licencing. Mandatory licencing provisions probably don't go far enough, although discretionary licencing is also an option for us. Licences to operate certain properties will only be given to landlords or managers who can demonstrate that they fulfil certain conditions and have a good track record. So bad landlords will have no option but to place their properties in the hands of responsible agents. Again the penalties for not having a licence are pretty stiff. And as the fines are able to be imposed on agents, they will not want to have poor properties on their books.

A major loophole which will be closed relates to the classification of a house as an HMO. The definition of HMO remains unaltered but the definition of what constitutes a "household" means that the number of HMO's will rocket. Again I could bore you with detail but this basically this means that councils will have more powers to take action on a lot more properties, where previously landlords have found a way out. Student houses are mainly what I'm talking about, especially regarding fire safety.

Other stuff we do includes the compulsory purchase of properties which have been left vacant for long periods of time. Clearly it is a ridiculous situation to have empty houses around when there are homeless people on the streets. Most people I speak to don't believe that we are able to compulsory purchase houses just because they are left empty. We can and we do.

There will probably still be properties around which are flea pits but the new legislation will improve things.

Gosh is that the time??? I'm off to bed!

lynzpower

Excellent to hear that TJ27, thats a job Id quite fancy myself, how would I retrain for something like that, Id been thinking Environmental Health?

Puts me in mind of a property that I signed a AST with 9 of my freinds in inner newcastle whilst at uni. Due to the sheer size of the place and the amount of stuff in it, we didnt really realise when we signed the AST that there were erm a few things wrong with it. Some of the things included, live wires to touch together to turn lights on, gas smells seeping from the fireplaces, bulges in the ceilings under the loos filled with human sewage, you name it, the place was an absoute hole.
We approached the council. EH came round and condemned the place. We were told LL should put us up in hotel accom until it was brought to standard, he didnt, and refused. We advised EH, nothing we could do. So we lived there, with no electricity for 3 weeks, no running water for 1 week and the village idiot undertaking all the elctrical & gas work, he didnt even know what Corgi was, never heard of it. I could ramble on, as im prone to do, but you get the jist.

We were told that EH would prosecute. They dropped thier case as the uncle of the LL was a councillor for the ward and lo and behold no further action.

Its not even so much the private rented places that Ive had to put my clients in via the councils, its the bed & breakfast acccomodation that makes me wonder, I mean we the taxpayer is paying 600 a week for a room, with filthy furniture, broken windows if any window at all and foul carpets, reeking little mank-pits. And we cram in our most vulnerable cheek by jowl.

For 600 a week, which I KNOW we pay for one room, we COULD be getting much better value for money by letting something like this

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-4925535.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=rent

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-12772940.rsp?pa_n=2&tr_t=rent

BUt alas, the system just doesnt work like that :wall:

clutton_2

i am so pleased to hear that such dreadful landlords may at last be brought to book - trouble is, its us good guys who are also suffering additional unnecessary expense because of it. As a result of this act, i can almost guarantee that the total provision of private rented property will have dropped by a significant percentage over the next 2-3-4 years - and who will suffer because of that ?

The terms of the Act re definitions of HMO and households were very clear in the legislation, trouble is, many and various councils are reinterpreting these definitions - why shouldn't they when more licensing means more income for the council, and no ceiling was put on the cost of licenses by ODMP ? Another tax on landlords - thats how us good guys (who have alreadybeen doing what the Act says for years) see this Act.

TJ27

I don't think that councils are actually allowed to make money out of it. I believe that we were required to calculate how much licencing was going to cost us, and base licensing fees on those costs. One side had to balance the other, the fees were required to mirror the costs. If anything, I suspect that we may actually lose money. So capping fees would have been pointless really.

The definition of HMO has always been clear. I would have to say that the definition of household has been far from clear. Many landlords believed that simply putting several tenants on the same contract meant that they were deemed to be a single household. This was absolutely not the case, although it was a major part of it. There have been several precedents in case law, notably Barnes versus Sheffield, but in fact the definition was never really very clear. We now basically define a household as blood relatives, with a few exceptions. So now students in the same house, who know each other, share facilities, are on the same contract, socialise together, etc. will be living in an HMO, whereas previously they were not. That will create a lot more work for many of us probably!

Having spoken to several good landlords in my area, most are absolutely delighted that licensing has at last arrived. Yes, it will cost a few hundred quid for a licence but to be fair it does last for several years. (Five I think.) And if it means that bad landlords are pushed out of the market then that can only be of benefit to the good ones can't it? Sounds like money well spent if you ask me.

The provision of privately rented accommodation may well drop, as poor houses are taken out of the rentals market. However, if poor houses remain empty and unsold we can eventually use CPO's to gain control of them, renovate them and bring them back into occupation. They usually end up in the hands of housing associations and are often used to accommodate the type of vulnerable people who lived there originally. Except now it's a nice house and not a flea pit. It might be a bit utopian but it works in theory.

It's never going to be perfect and we're never going to please all of the people all of the time. Nor is this going to happen overnight. But we are moving in the right direction.

RHemmings

TJ27 wrote:

Well, I wouldn't wish to bore you with details of any particular cases but I can give you an idea of the work we do. Personally the bulk of my work involves bringing privately rented accommodation up standard. Sometimes we respond to complaints, sometimes we actively search for poor properties by mail drops or knocking on doors. Most of the properties I deal with have minor issues regarding fitness but larger problems regarding fire safety. I might typically draft fire plans and schedules before sending them to the landlord with a notice. A period of time is allowed to do the work, extensions may be applied but if the work is not completed then we normally instigate prosecution.

Thank you. That was a very interesting and informative post.

TJ27

Lynzpower, I agree totally with what you're saying. It never fails to amaze me how much can be charged for a grotty bedsit, although rental values are not something which I know that much about.

I'm not an EHO myself, although I do work with many. I got into the job as somebody with a building degree and experience of building faults and repair. If I'm honest, the EHO route is probably a better way to go. They are better paid and get better positions, with more chances of promotion. Don't get the illusion that it's a fabulous job but you could certainly do worse.

I too have heard of dodgy things going on where councillors have been involved, back handers have been offered and such. However it really isn't something which I've ever come across myself and certainly in my authority I think it's very much a thing of the past. Mind you, there have been times when we've not received the backing of various people and we've been extremely suspicious!

BobProperty

Very interesting stuff, especially from TJ27.
Couple of points from what has been said:
Agree that some people think they can get round HMO regs with shared student type houses, when they can't.
Landlords' fears about the charges for a license were that they could be anything the Local Authority came up with and charges of £1200-1500 were being talked about in Scotland. Then there were arguments about per property or per landlord ! I'm no longer a landlord so I'm out of touch with the current situation, so maybe some realism has crept into the system since it was first talked about.
"blood relatives, with a few exceptions" for a family unit? I hope the few exceptions cover people living together (same or opposite sex) and adopted children.