1 in 10 landlords failing tenants on basic legal requirements

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They need someone to complain to, who isn't their landlord or rental agent. I.e. someone who won't take an action of eviction against the tenant for complaining. Indeed, regulation needs to make sure this cannot happen.

At the moent however, the tenant can be removed outside of the 6 months at the drop of a hat. hardly an incentive for many to complain to the very person who can evict them with ease.

Why does it have to be a complaint? Why not just have a conversation?

When looking at new places I'd want to see the certificate before agreeing to let. If the certificate subsequently went out of date I'd remind the landlord and ask him when the certificate would be renewed. I'm sure most landlords would be glad of the reminder - it's less than £100 per year - a small price to pay to stay within the law and keep a tenant happy.

If the landlord refuses then start looking for a new place and complain to someone (google would tell you who - trading standards?, H&SE, council) once you've moved out.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

Licensing landlords would solve many of these problems. If proof of complaince had to be submitted annually and failure meant a real possibility of a fine and revocation, it may just focus the minds of some of the amateurs.

Or the existing legislation could just be enforced?

If a landlord has scant regard for the law what makes you think they'd be joining a licensing scheme?

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

Or the existing legislation could just be enforced?

If a landlord has scant regard for the law what makes you think they'd be joining a licensing scheme?

Fine of say £10,000?

The sort of thing most business face for non compliance.

Sampong

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Jeez, give it a rest Pong.

Just to jog your memory Sicklypants you were the one who started attacking me for no good reason on here a while back so don't expect me to be giving it a rest anytime soon;).

For an example of this;

Sampong wrote: »

.
Pricklepants will be along shortly to call me racist for mentioning migration again but before you do you may want to consider that what I have pointed out there is lack of any action by the authority to tackle exploitation of migrant workers.

See this;

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

The thread is about rental regulation, not Lithuanians or other migrants. I'm surprised your so-called 'friend' didn't mention they all poo on the carpet and slurp vodka all day.

I am in fact quite stunned at my ability to predict the future.

Actually rental regulation is very....very closely related to matters of immigration. Since migrants are likely to be the ones who find it difficult to complain about conditions. Their landlords are also the gangmasters who supply them with work. If they complain, they lose their income and their home.

ILW hit the nail on the head when he said the inductry needs licensing. In my opinion this is inevitable due the gross abuse of the system that is going on. You a landlord? Not looking forward to this potential red tape? You will be able to thank, in part the unscrupulous individuals who traffic people into the country under the promise of work. Once they have them here, and living in their properties, they have them exactly where they want them.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Rental regulation and control should apply in all cases, no matter what nationality the landlord or the tenant is.

Go on then? Point out where I said otherwise?

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

Fine of say £10,000?

The sort of thing most business face for non compliance.

The way to deal with lawbreakers isn't to introduce a law that makes it illegal to break the law but to enforce the existing legislation.

£10,000 gets my vote but I'd fine them for not having a gas certificate in the first place.

Easy to enforce; we all know exactly the part of town where these properties will likely be found. Trading Standards could knock on a few doors - easy conviction - it's an absolute offence. Word would soon get out.

Sampong

wotsthat wrote: »

Why does it have to be a complaint? Why not just have a conversation?

Why does the tenant have to have a conversation? Shouldn't gas safety and living conditions be a pre-requisite for anyone renting a property?

Some aren't in a position to argue. I'm not just referring to migrants either before P/Pants pipes up. The market is entirely in favour of landlords at the moment which is why rents keep rising. People find it diffucult to find suitable properties.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

The way to deal with lawbreakers isn't to introduce a law that makes it illegal to break the law but to enforce the existing legislation.

£10,000 gets my vote but I'd fine them for not having a gas certificate in the first place.

Easy to enforce; we all know exactly the part of town where these properties will likely be found. Trading Standards could knock on a few doors - easy conviction - it's an absolute offence. Word would soon get out.

Does strike me that enforcement would be rather simple and pretty cheap. Could be handed to the private sector who get to keep a portion of the fines.

wotsthat

Sampong wrote: »

Why does the tenant have to have a conversation? Shouldn't gas safety and living conditions be a pre-requisite for anyone renting a property?

It doesn't have to be a conversation but Graham was worried the landlord's feeling may be hurt if the tenant complained.

Don't think I'm arguing for the landlord here - chuck them in prison for non-compliance as far as I'm concerned. The issue, if there is one, is that apparently some landlords don't think the law is something that concerns them.

A few prosecutions would be more effective than a licensing scheme which will just add cost to the rental chain when the majority are above board anyway.

sheffield_lad

I often try to access properties for landlords and some tenants can be a nightmare. You tell them a time you get there and their out, you leave a card for them to call you zzzzzzzzz, you call again they don't bother answering, you call at a time you know they will be in (early evening), they tell you they can't do it now as their having tea, you ask if you can wait 20mins they tell you to come back the following day when their out again grrrrrrr.

I wonder how many gas safety checks in this survey failed in this way?

Sampong

wotsthat wrote: »

A few prosecutions would be more effective than a licensing scheme which will just add cost to the rental chain when the majority are above board anyway.

Trouble is, I don't think it would be as effective. I don't think it would be anywhere near as effective.

There will always be ways around the law not just limited to whether someone is willing or unwilling to accept the risk of geting nicked. This could mean organisation, or simply chancers willing to sail close to the wind.

I don't think the risk of prosecution would be a big enough deterrent.

Licensing on the other hand would require properties to be up to standard as a pre-requisite. Some may go underground of course to try and avoid this - but in a licensed environment they would be sniffed out easily and quickly. The penalities for this should be severe.