1 in 10 landlords failing tenants on basic legal requirements

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

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.

I think it's an absolute offence i.e. if you're renting out a property and don't have a certificate of gas safety then you're going to be found guilty.

I don't have a strong view on whether the public or private sector should be dealing with this but if you can prove a) a property is being rented out and b) it doesn't have a safety certificate then that's all that's needed. Easy peasy.

Graham_Devon

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?

Well you appear to think they would just send someone round to do a safety check after a nice little rosy conversation.

So why wouldn't they join a licensing scheme? You appear to be tripping over yourself to say one way it's all rosy and up to the tenant, and in another sentence, using rogue landlords to avoid regulation schemes.

One foot doesn't know what the other is doing.

Sampong

wotsthat wrote: »

I think it's an absolute offence i.e. if you're renting out a property and don't have a certificate of gas safety then you're going to be found guilty.

I don't have a strong view on whether the public or private sector should be dealing with this but if you can prove a) a property is being rented out and b) it doesn't have a safety certificate then that's all that's needed. Easy peasy.

It should be public sector, trouble is recent examples of certain public sector organisations have been very poor. I hate to say this as I will get accused of bringing immigration into it again but........for example......UKBA. What an absolute farce.

wotsthat

Sampong wrote: »

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.

Come on. You know the type of property we're talking about is likely already underground or at least at the shady end of the market.

They seem not to care that they're at risk of manslaughter charges - but a bit of form filling would lead to reformed characters.

We're not talking about middle-class income seekers here.

Mr._Pricklepants

Sampong wrote: »

ILW hit the nail on the head when he said the inductry needs licensing.

I agree with that also.
But it has nothing to do whether they are native or immigrant.
They all need licensing, regulation and severe penalties for non-compliance.
Don't try to turn this into an immigration issue, because it's not.

Sampong

wotsthat wrote: »

Come on. You know the type of property we're talking about is likely already underground or at least at the shady end of the market.

They seem not to care that they're at risk of manslaughter charges - but a bit of form filling would lead to reformed characters.

We're not talking about middle-class income seekers here.

LOL I do but if I come out and say it I would get insulted by the usual suspects wouldn't I.

You would have thought though, if you had a licensing scheme, combined that data with land registry ownership info and electoral roll information, then that would highlight suspiciously vacant propeties. I guess that would be beyond the public sector to set up though.

I don't really know what the right answer would be.

But what I do know is that genuine property investors, the middle class income seekers as you put it - are having to compete with these crooks on unfair terms.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well you appear to think they would just send someone round to do a safety check after a nice little rosy conversation.

So why wouldn't they join a licensing scheme? You appear to be tripping over yourself to say one way it's all rosy and up to the tenant, and in another sentence, using rogue landlords to avoid regulation schemes.

One foot doesn't know what the other is doing.

What's wrong with discussing with the landlord in the first instance? You know like humans do? I didn't know it was going to be a rosy conversation - maybe I'll arrange some cucumber sandwiches with the crust cut off.

90% of landlords already comply according to this survey. I bet a 'rosy' conversation would deal with another few percent.

That'll leave a certain number of bad apples - they aren't planning on getting safety certificates or joining licensing schemes either.

Sampong

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I agree with that also.
But it has nothing to do whether they are native or immigrant.
They all need licensing, regulation and severe penalties for non-compliance.
Don't try to turn this into an immigration issue, because it's not.

EH?

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I agree with that also.
But it has nothing to do whether they are native or immigrant.

Once again - please show me where I have suggested that it does?

What I have said is that the immigrant section of our society are particularly vulnerable to this type of thing because of the reasons I have detailed in prior posts. So dangerous standards in rental properties are going to be widely connected to the rouge landlords and employers who are involved in this activity.

I am not trying to turn it into an immigration issue. It already is one in part. I'm afraid uncontrolled immigration brings more problems than you care to acknowledge. These problems are often opportunistic - one of which is exploitation.

I ask you to note that at no point I have said this is the fault of the immigrants like you often try to claim. This is a failure of the system. If, in the future rental properties did become licenced - this wouldn't be great news for genuine above board landlords who would have to suffer extra costs and red tape. This would partly be due to the individuals I am describing.

System

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Looking at it another way, at least the average tenant is probably safer than a homeowner - do you think 9/10 homeowners have their gas boilers serviced and checked every single year?

I very much doubt the average tenant gives a !!!! either but why miss a chance to display some faux rage.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I very much doubt the average tenant gives a !!!! either but why miss a chance to display some faux rage.

Your definition of rage is interesting!