BTL is in desperate need of reform

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Maybe you should revisit you list of compulsary landlord registration requirements
You could say that in some of the following LA's there is some "selective licensing" requiring the properties in certain areas are regisitered

The list of LA's using Selective Licensing was in reply to your question....

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Which coucils in England have BTL registrations?

As SL means that BTL Landlords within that designated area would have to register (or appoint a management company who would have to register), I thought the list may enlighten you.

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Because that's what it's called. In much the same way that you don't look for "oranges" by typing "Sheep".

Why would I search for selective licensing. It's so specific.
Surely simply searching for landlord registration in a specific area should be enough.

Playing devils advocate here, in these pilot scheme's, how are landlords to know they need to register. Unless they specifically search "selective licensing" their area may not show up.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And I've provided a list of LA's using (or soon to implement) selective licensing.

That's a positive step for those areas which fall under selective licensing, but didn't answer the question posed.

Why couldn't the LA's grow a pair of balls and require full LL registration?
Scotland managed to do it accross multiple councils

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Almost every piece of legislation is selective in some way. In this case, the only real "selective" element is in the designation of individual areas. But I assume it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to roll it out to wider areas until it becomes, effectively, a national scheme. Why re-invent the wheel?

Indeed, and why limit yourself in the first place to selective areas.
I go back to the comment above about requireing full registration

It's a positive thing to have. I'm a LL, I'm registered and I'm all for it.

What would also be good is required registration of tenants

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

As SL means that BTL Landlords within that designated area would have to register (or appoint a management company who would have to register), I thought the list may enlighten you.

Therefore when I asked the question

Originally Posted by IveSeenTheLight
In these area's your saying it's a requirement to be registered.
Who's governing the fines for those not registered?

It would have been far easier to say that in selective areas of those LA's it was a requirements, possibly with a link to one of the LA's showing their selectiveness

Your following post was not clear in that selectiveness and inferred the whole LA's required registration

Originally Posted by Wee Willy Harris
Middlesbrough
Manchester
Gateshead
Leeds
Neath Port Talbot
Bolton
Newcastle
Blackburn
Thanet
Stoke
Hundburn
Hartlepool
Durham
Salford
Newham
Southend
Burnley
Gravesham
Waltham Forest
Pendle
Oldham
Sunderland
Blaenau-Gwent
Rotherham

That should be enough to get you started. And it covers private rentals.

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why would I search for selective licensing. It's so specific.
Surely simply searching for landlord registration in a specific area should be enough.

As I say, because that is what it is called. I identified that with the very first link to the named legislation and in subsequent posts.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here, in these pilot scheme's, how are landlords to know they need to register. Unless they specifically search "selective licensing" their area may not show up.

Landlords are actively identified, sought and contacted directly.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That's a positive step for those areas which fall under selective licensing, but didn't answer the question posed.

Why couldn't the LA's grow a pair of balls and require full LL registration?
Scotland managed to do it accross multiple councils

Indeed, and why limit yourself in the first place to selective areas.
I go back to the comment above about requireing full registration

Because SL is intended to address certain issues which have to be demonstrated within an intended area. Having said that, it wouldn't take a massive change in those requirements to roll it out to a wider area (or even nationaly), but there would have to be the political will for that, and a commitment regarding the costs involved.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's a positive thing to have. I'm a LL, I'm registered and I'm all for it.

Selective Licensing is also much more rigorous than the Scottish system.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What would also be good is required registration of tenants

And buyers?

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Selective Licensing is also much more rigorous than the Scottish system.

Why do you believe that?
In what ways is SL more rigorous than the Scottish Landlord Registration?

https://www.landlordregistrationscotland.gov.uk/Pages/Process.aspx?Command=ShowHelpFitProper

Landlord Registration Scotland requires that : -

To be registered, owners and their agents must be fit and proper to let residential property. Local authorities must take account of any evidence that the person has:

• Committed any offence involving fraud, dishonesty, violence or drugs
• Practised unlawful discrimination in connection to any business
• Contravened any provision of the law relating to housing, or landlord and tenant law, and the person’s actions, or failure to act, in relation to any antisocial behaviour affecting a house they let or manage, and must take account of the fact and nature of any agency arrangement.

In addition to the information provided on the form, the local authority will also take account of any other relevant information they hold about the applicant. They will make a balanced judgement on the basis of all the available information, there is no automatic refusal.
If you let property in more than one local authority area, the authorities will share information to ensure they have all relevant details, but each authority will make its decision independently.

This would at first glance seem to cover the housing acts and more, including cross council collaboration.
Is SL so rigorous?

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Therefore when I asked the question


It would have been far easier to say that in selective areas of those LA's it was a requirements, possibly with a link to one of the LA's showing their selectiveness

Your following post was not clear in that selectiveness and inferred the whole LA's required registration

I'm happy that I have represented the position in the UK accurately in my previous posts. I have provided you with links and any other information you have requested. That you have not been able to understand the information provided, or the content of those links, is something which should concern you, not I.

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why do you believe that?
In what ways is SL more rigorous than the Scottish Landlord Registration?

https://www.landlordregistrationscotland.gov.uk/Pages/Process.aspx?Command=ShowHelpFitProper

Landlord Registration Scotland requires that : -



This would at first glance seem to cover the housing acts and more, including cross council collaboration.
Is SL so rigorous?

Well, for a start, the compulsory registration is certainly more rigorously enforced. Of course, that may have more to do with geography than legislation.

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I'm happy that I have represented the position in the UK accurately in my previous posts. I have provided you with links and any other information you have requested. That you have not been able to understand the information provided, or the content of those links, is something which should concern you, not I.

Now now, you know you haven't answered the questions.

I specifically asked you to show links to come of the LA's you listed and you declined to do so.

It's only after repeated questioning by me did you finally resolve to say it was "selective" and did not partain to the whole of the LA's

The LA's you listed, I have no vested interest in, therefore they are of no concern to me

IveSeenTheLight

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Well, for a start, the compulsory registration is certainly more rigorously enforced. Of course, that may have more to do with geography than legislation.

Hmmmmm, is that personal speculation or do you have some facts to back that up with?

Wee_Willy_Harris

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hmmmmm, is that personal speculation or do you have some facts to back that up with?

http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/189734/Landlord_registration_3_years_on.pdf