43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap

ILW

Is there a downside to requiring landlord registration?

mj12_2

CarlosTheJackal wrote: »

In the future Landlords will need to be veted and have to apply for a licence!

Pure fantasy but just assuming your right for a second.....

Great, more houses standing empty..... but this time cos the owners been banned from renting them out

Or do you propose that a landlord who fails the check should then be forced into a mandatory sale of THEIR property?

What shall we do if someone wants to invite in a lodger to rent a single room in THEIR house, vet the whole family, if the teenage son got done for vandalism we can turn the owners out on their ears and just leave the house with the lodger... sounds fair.

Maybe we could have a CCTV camera on every street corner to help cut crime in the local area too.... oh wait we do.... and that didnt work either.

Vetted by whom, an imaginary quango?
Paid for by whom... the tenants, the landlords?
Administered by whom... the government - that should work out really well then.

How about a landlord with existing tenants that then gets convicted for one of the naughty naughty no no's that nanny has said you musnt do to be a landlord. I suppose their tenants can be funded to find somewhere else by the state... or just given the landlords house.

Maybe tenants should be forced to take an exam before becoming tenants after all there are tens of thousands of people in this country without the first clue of how to be functional citizens, problem tenants are a far larger problem than are problem landlords and they terrorize entire communities while the police stand back and do nothing.

mj12_2

BixWier wrote: »

There is no escaping the fact that many families on low incomes getting housing ben will have to move away from nice areas. This will lower the average rents of the UK and with rents house prices will fall soon after.

While there are still homeless people the government has no business paying for people to live in 'nice areas' how about concentrating on everyone having a roof first and then a nice lawn and white picket fence 2nd.

Shakethedisease

mj12 wrote: »

Pure fantasy but just assuming your right for a second.....

Not soooo much of a fantasy since Scotland already operates a central Landlord registration system ( since 2006). This also includes a section on 'Fit and Proper Person's'..

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

Under Part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004, almost all private landlords must apply for registration with their local authority (see "Who has to register"). The local authority must be satisfied that they are fit and proper persons to let property, before registering them.
The system will make sure that all landlords meet minimum standards and will remove the worst landlords from the sector. It will allow tenants and neighbours to identify and contact landlords of private rented property, and provide information on the scale and distribution of the sector in Scotland for the first time.

"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. "

I get the feeliing that Local Authorities aren't so hot on enforcing and the referencing that goes on. But, it's a start at least and something that's not so much of an 'OMG it'll never work, it's pure fantasy' type stuff as some on this thread are trying to paint. It's a good thing imho and hasn't exactly had the effect of reducing landlord numbers very much up here.

mj12_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not soooo much of a fantasy since Scotland already operates a central Landlord registration system ( since 2006). This also includes a section on 'Fit and Proper Person's'..

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






"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. "

I get the feeliing that Local Authorities aren't so hot on enforcing and the referencing that goes on. But, it's a start at least and something that's not so much of an 'OMG it'll never work, it's pure fantasy' type stuff as some on this thread are trying to paint. It's a good thing imho and hasn't exactly had the effect of reducing landlord numbers very much up here.

http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_library/policy_library_folder/landlord_registration_in_scotland

A report on the effectiveness of the system 3 years on - and i quote:

"We found that there were a number of examples of ways in which landlord registration has been used as impetus for improving private renting, however there are also many concerns.
We conclude that landlord registration is not yet fulfilling the expectations placed upon it; indeed, that it may not be able to do so. Finally we make recommendations to both the Scottish Government and local authorities on what could be done to improve the situation."

Note in particularly "that it may not be able to do so" - it isnt working and (in my opinion, won't - time will tell) those who ignore it are the same who ignore existing laws - which is why better enforcement not new laws are needed.

Shakethedisease

To be fair I didn't say that it was a raving success and the quote from Shelter does say "We found that there were a number of examples of ways in which landlord registration has been used as impetus for improving private renting".
So it's not been all bad and at least it's an 'attempt' at some sort of further regulation. Especially regarding the kind of people who should be allowed to become landlords and who shouldn't. This is a little better than the current regulations elsewhere in the UK which currently have none at all.

The overall point I was trying to make however, was that a system is there and in place. And it IS a sort of 'license and vetting' system.. which you suggested was complete 'fantasy'.:)

those who ignore it are the same who ignore existing laws - which is why better enforcement not new laws are needed.

Agree with you there.

Shakethedisease

Eric Pickles (of all people !!! ) leaked letter might make it more likely that they may do a bit of back pedalling. Seems some in the cabinet may be catching on that the proposed benefits cap may ultimately cost more re housing homeless families, than it saves ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/02/eric-pickles-david-cameron-40000-homeless

David Cameron has been warned by one of his most trusted cabinet ministers that his welfare policies risk making 40,000 families homeless.
The extraordinary claim, in a letter to the prime minister from the office of Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, exposes deep splits at the heart of government over plans to cap benefit at £500 a week per family.
The letter, leaked to the Observer, reveals Pickles's belief that the cap – announced with great fanfare at last year's Tory conference – will increase the burden on taxpayers, because thousands of families will be unable to pay their rent and will have to seek local government help. It blows apart the government's public insistence that a limit on benefit payments will have little impact on homelessness and child poverty....

... "We are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m [per year] from 2014-2015, does nottake account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost."

Well a 'net cost' in trying to save money isn't exactly what they were after is it. Even temporary accommodation, especially for families COSTS a lot ! I wonder when it'll eventually hit them, like a big light-bulb moment' that high-rents = high housing benefit bills ? And that's what actually is the problem for everyone.. working or not. Rents take up too much income whatever your situation. Privately funded from your own pocket trying to save up a deposit, or funded from the state to landlords. It's, rather tellingly, starting to cost too much...and they're still rising...

Rochdale_Pioneers

Here's a radical idea. We could have local councils manage a pool of property with reduced rents. This will have the desired effect of reducing private sector rents and thus housing benefit payments.

We could call them "council houses".

JWF

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Here's a radical idea. We could have local councils manage a pool of property with reduced rents. This will have the desired effect of reducing private sector rents and thus housing benefit payments.

We could call them "council houses".

That's what I call thinking outside the box - you'll go far.

drc

How many taxpayers would you need to take tax from in order to cover a theoretical benefits "income" of £26k per year?