Evict a rogue Landlord - Shelter...

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

.....The definitions part of the 2004 Act was Really clear, and it was very simple, in its definitions of HMOS and Licensable HMOs - during 2003-2003 i went to a lot of consultation meetings and landlords meetings, and everyone was fairly happy at the clarity of the definitions......

within weeks of the Act coming into forced, landlords up and down the country were be-moaning local authorities individualistic interpretations of the law ... some draconian .. some very lax.. it was a nightmare..... if you wanted to buy property in one town, sometimes entirely different criteria applied than in the next door town, and staff in council offices themselves often did not know the answers..

Selective and/or additional licensing affords Councils the opportunity to address housing issues which are specific to their area: that’s a good thing, surely?

Areas with very cheap properties tend to attract LLs who are looking for quick profits, much of it funded by rent paid for by LHA, and for these LLs they see no gain in maintaining the properties , so a prevalence of poor housing exists. Parts of Manchester (as Clutton knows) are a case in point and the Council took the opportunity to be able to introduce selective and additional licensing.

I’m not sure I follow Clutton’s logic - with the cases of errant LLs that have been listed in the thread the LLs have had ample time to “mend their ways”. The Council’s Officers don’t just stroll in to the properties, look around and drag the LL to court within 24 hours, do they?

No, they !!!!!foot around, giving them time to sort the repairs issues and so on, usually with the T still in there coughing up their rent whilst sitting out the remainder of their Fixed Term. Yes, if a LL is convicted of having an unlicensed HMO a T can claim up to 12 months rent back ( or a Council can claim back the equivalent LHA payments) but the vast majority of Ts simply want to live in a decent, safe home in the first place.

If any LL is unsure which licensing may apply to their property then they should provide the info to the relevant Council dept and get confirmation of their obligations from the Council, in writing. It really is that simple.

This isn’t a case of “poor uneducated LLs” who didn’t know any better, who have “just made some sort of mistake” - we’re talking, in the main, about LLs who *choose* not to check out the extent of their legal responsibilities and persistently and defiantly flout the law.

These are LLs who expect to be able to receive rent for properties which fall way below the minimum acceptable standards and some clearly want to be able to plead ignorance of the law as a defence. “ooh, it’s way too complicated, guv”

clutton wrote: »

This dogs-dinner of a 2004 Housiong Act was poorly researched, badly drafted, rushed through, ... so is no wonder there are huge variations country wide...

My bolding. Rushed through ? The draft bill was produced for consultation in March 2003 and the Royal Assent was granted in November 2004. The HA2004 became effective from 6 April 2006.

Private sector housing initiatives were/are funded by the Government: across the country local events were held to raise awareness of the Act’s provisions, Councils offered private LLs free training and worked with local LL associations.

Let’s remember that those who live in HMOs tend to be the most vulnerable Ts in the PRS and the HA04 sought to improve their lot. The idea was that the worst LLs would be “persuaded” to either improve their properties or to leave the PRS altogether.

clutton wrote: »

Its a messy bit of legislation - written by folks unfamiliar with the nitty gritty of property management .

There was plenty of opportunity for consultation. It’s a very useful/key piece of legislation , the provisions of which need to be more rigorously enforced.

We’ll ignore the HIPs nonsense contained in the Act but here’s just a few of the important areas, other than HMO licensing, dealt with under the HA04 - HHSRS (replacing the HA85’s “fitness” definitions) , Tenancy Deposit Schemes, overcrowding, protection for those in Park/Mobile Homes, empty properties management orders, rights for travellers/gypsies, governance of social housing, refusing social housing exchanges /right to buy where there has been anti-social behaviour…..

Some LLs may be unhappy about the Act but many Ts have every reason to be grateful to the Act's provisions. I daresay other LLs will also be happy that the those who tarnish the PRS will be pulled up on their omissions and forced to comply with the current laws or to find another business sector in which to misbehave.

tbs624

tbs624 wrote: »

No, they !!!!!foot around, giving them time to sort the repairs issues and so on,.

LOL - I apparently can't type p-u-s-s-yfoot without being censored by MSE filters:D

tbs624

Brb wrote: »

Police sell cars they've taken from un-insured drivers don't they ?

I though they had 'em crushed? Either way the analogy is a good one

Quite why a Council should have to sit waiting for a LL to sell up before being able to recoup 55 grand spent on necessary repairs to the LLs property is beyond me.

Any LL who is that intransigent should lose the ability to let out property again, ever.

tbs624

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

No idea. I haven't looked at the site.

GG

Perhaps best to do so if you're going to comment on the campaign GG ?

theartfullodger

re my ..

etc. etc. etc... Out of interest (I like to keep up to speed on Landlord matters also) what was the course [I might wish to benefit from DH's trailblazing..] & did DH pass, please??

Cheers!

the reply came...

Ankatden wrote: »

Good for you and less of the sneering.

Any chance of an answer please Ank?? What sneering??

Ankatden

theartfullodger wrote: »

re my ..
Cheers!

the reply came...



Any chance of an answer please Ank?? What sneering??

Oh you pretty much well know what I am on about.

As for courses his response was "When the internet nerd posts his tax returns on line then maybe will even think about his question", somehow I don't think he is overly impressed.

I checked his details and its RLA who he registered with and uses for courses but he has spent time with Leeds City council on their HMO courses as well even though he doesn't have any at the moment.

theartfullodger

Ankatden wrote: »

Oh you pretty much well know what I am on about.

As for courses his response was "When the internet nerd posts his tax returns on line then maybe will even think about his question", somehow I don't think he is overly impressed.

I checked his details and its RLA who he registered with and uses for courses but he has spent time with Leeds City council on their HMO courses as well even though he doesn't have any at the moment.

(Weird comment, such flattery, but...) as it happens I have already done my tax return for 09/10 (17th May)


& paid tax owing about a month ago (21st August) ... so kindly pass this on to him & I'll be interested in whatever his views are..." then maybe will even think about his question "

I really do not

pretty much well know what I am on about.

but if you want to keep it to yourself, 'sfree country eh!

Yup, snapp-ish, I was a member of RLA, did their Landlord course, not bad! HMOs... been there, got one, doesn't require licensing though (... yet....)

Cheers!

Artful

N79

On a tangent to the point of this thread, that's the first time I've seen the tax return online screens and it looks quite good. What do people think? Is it easy to use and efficient? Should I keep dreaming of the days when I can finally stop having to fill out mountains of paperwork and do it online?

theartfullodger

Whilst recognizing that most landlords are responsible, herewith todays' Rogue Landlord case from the archives... probably my last new rogue on this thread.. time for something else..

I am indebted to the National Landlord's Association magazine, “UK Landlord”, September/October 2010 edition No 146, Page 20.. Their article does not mention if the landlords involved are/were NLA members...

Leeds Magistrates Court, Southwind directors Saleem Aslam and Zulfiqar Ahmed, fined over £21,000... on presumably Thursday 8th July 2010..

see
http://newsfeed.leedsvirtualnewsroom.co.uk/2010/07/house-of-horrors-lands-firm-with-21000.html
&
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-bedsit-landlords-fined-17000.6417923.jp


Small quotation...

…..Southwind directors Saleem Aslam and Zulfiqar Ahmed pleaded guilty to nine breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 regarding the conditions of the house .............

In court, Southwind Developments legal representative blamed the condition of the property on the tenants but magistrates said that it was the responsibility of the owners to maintain it.

Plead guilty but blame the tenants!!!

Cheers!


Artful

theartfullodger

The Residential Landlord's Association (RLA) give Shelter's campaign publicity in their most recent email newsletter..

Shelter launches new campaign against rogue landlords
An investigation by the homelessness charity Shelter has found a number of rogue landlords who treat their tenants appallingly.

It says that whilst the abuse is widespread, it is only by a minority of landlords in the sector.