HMO in Scotland

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

My bolding. "virtually eliminating"? Any good source for your assertion? There are still plenty of 3 bed HMOs available in Scotland

A quick search of 3 beds in my local area finds there are just 12 HMO licensed properties to rent and another 60 that are not HMO licensed.

You have effectively removed 80%+ of that market from flat sharing people.

conscientious LLs are still able to make a profit by running them and getting the required license/achieving the appropriate standards to do so.

Ahhh, nice use of the emotive term "conscientious". As if to imply that people who disagree with this stupid law are not.

Which is of course a fallacy, as it's perfectly possible to be a conscientious landlord that provides a safe house for multiple people to live in without having an HMO license.

As we've already shown, 4 people in 2 couples can live in a safe house without an HMO license. But 3 friends sharing the same safe house would require an HMO license.

The house doesn't get any safer, nor does the landlord get any more "conscientious" just because people are shagging each other instead of only friends. Yet the law obviously assumes that is the case.

Absurd.

Think through what you have said - "demand for all the cheaper to buy 2 and 1 bedders is pushed up" and " the very properties that you can pick up at bargain basement prices" . If demand for such properties is high, more LLs would be competing to buy them which in itself pushes prices up.

Don't be so daft.

Privately rented houses as a percentage of all houses is just 15% or so of the market. Landlord demand to buy has only a tiny impact on overall house prices.

Whereas the impact of increasing renter demand for 1 and 2 beds because you arbitrarily remove 80% of 3 beds from the share rental market is significant.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

families are more likely to look out for one another

That's just nonsense though.

There is not one single shred of evidence to suggest that either the rate of incidence of accidents, fires, etc, or the survival rate of these incidents, is at all different between houses where 3 friends live together and houses where a couple lives with a singleton or two couples live together.

There may well be some evidence to suggest such incidents are more likely when you pack 6 or 8 or 10 people into a house, but that's what HMO laws should be for and that's not what we are discussing here

may only recently have met one another.

Or may be life long friends who care about each other deeply.

You're just making this stuff up as you go along now..... Why are you so desperate to defend the indefensible?

theartfullodger

Nice try Hammie

adouglasmhor

theartfullodger wrote: »

HMO regulations were started in bonnie Scotland after, IIRC, a terrible case of a fire in Glasgow. See..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_in_multiple_occupation

In my opinion quite right & I think Scotland has the balance on HMO better than Ingerlund.

If you go into business you accept the rules & laws ruling. You might not like them. If you really object, try another business or another country.

Nobody is forcing anyone Hamish to be a private landlord of a HMO in Scotland or anywhere else.

I do grant, however, explaining to (say.. as I have ..) 3 bright-eyed and apparently OK unrelated male students that you can't offer them the place as you are unlicensed gets looks of suspicion/doubt/b***ard he's lying....

That other landlords cheat, ignore laws, act dangerously is not a surprise & IMHO all decent tenants & landlords should shop the b****ards...

England could learn from Scotland on HMO, Landlord registration, PRHP, Homelessness & S11. Scotland could learn from England on something I'm sure.. England learnt from Scotland and introduced HMO licensing later..

For the avoidance of doubt I am not Scottish, sadly.

I think Scotland is going to introduce deposit protection schemes similar to England and Wales soon(ish).

theartfullodger

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I think Scotland is going to introduce deposit protection schemes similar to England and Wales soon(ish).

It already did, 2nd July: My deposits protected..

adouglasmhor

theartfullodger wrote: »

It already did, 2nd July: My deposits protected..

Good Oh. Good to know.

tbs624

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A quick search of 3 beds in my local area finds there are just 12 HMO licensed properties to rent and another 60 that are not HMO licensed.

You have effectively removed 80%+ of that market from flat sharing people.

I personally have effectively removed no-one. Have you researched how many 3 bedroom PRS properties there are in total in your area? Checked whether the figures for available sharer 3 bedders have significantly altered since HMO licensing came in, allowing for all other contributory factors? Checked how many 3 bedders are HMO license compliant and already let out to sharers? I repeat, do you have

tsb624 wrote:

Any good source for your assertion

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ahhh, nice use of the emotive term "conscientious". As if to imply that people who disagree with this stupid law are not.

You may draw an inference of your own from whatever anyone else posts up, however it's impossible for you to know that a poster is implying anything. LLs who comply with the laws which currently apply to the PRS are quite simply "conscientious" ( as in careful, meticulous etc) - that's a fact. You disagreeing with a law which you view as "stupid" is a mere opinion.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is of course a fallacy, as it's perfectly possible to be a conscientious landlord that provides a safe house for multiple people to live in without having an HMO license.

LLs may not just pick and choose which laws they will comply with and which they won't. There is more to an HMO license than the physical state of the property itself. It's noticeable how its often the LLs who fail to meet all their own legal obligations who subsequently bleat the loudest when any of their Ts try to renege on their obligations under the tenancy agreement.

The house doesn't get any safer, nor does the landlord get any more "conscientious" just because people are shagging each other instead of only friends..

You seem to have a bit of an obsession with house sharing Ts "shagging"/having sex - are you personally missing out?;)

Landlord demand to buy has only a tiny impact on overall house prices.

Keep digging Isn't it supposed to be BTLers who have priced FTBers out of the market?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

Isn't it supposed to be BTLers who have priced FTBers out of the market?

Nope. That's a myth, perpetuated by bitter crashaholics.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tbs624 wrote: »

LLs may not just pick and choose which laws they will comply with and which they won't.

Whoa there..... Nice swerve.

What I said was....

it's perfectly possible to be a conscientious landlord that provides a safe house for multiple people to live in without having an HMO license.

As we've already shown, 4 people in 2 couples can live in a safe house without an HMO license. But 3 friends sharing the same safe house would require an HMO license.

The house doesn't get any safer, nor does the landlord get any more "conscientious" just because people are shagging each other instead of only friends. Yet the law obviously assumes that is the case.

So, multiple people, ie, 4 people in 2 couples, can live in a house quite safely and legally without an HMO license.. But 3 friends cannot.

All the spin in the world won't make that any less absurd.

Mojisola

tbs624 wrote: »

Pretty major omission for a property let to unrelated Ts

I don't see why. Many houses have walls removed and the downstairs are open plan and yet these could be let out without replacing the walls and fitting fire doors.

In the property my relative was in, some of the doors were glass and allowed the light to spread throughout the downstairs. If these had been replaced with fire doors, it would have made the ground floor rooms quite oppressive.