1 in 10 landlords failing tenants on basic legal requirements

wotsthat

Sampong wrote: »

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

I know a few Slovak families that live in 'that' part of town. They neither know nor care about gas safety so aren't complaining. I know less of the landlords but they don't know or care either. They'd all be oblivious to licensing schemes too. Ignorance of the law isn't a defence so a few convictions are needed.

Sampong wrote: »

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.

It's fairly simple. No housing benefit should be paid out unless the tenant or landlord provides a safety certificate. We all know that's the end of the market where the problems will be rather than Graham's rose covered cottage near the best school in the area.

Can't really see that as a big issue. My wife has to prove her car is safe and insured before the NHS will pay her expenses - what's the difference?

John_Pierpoint

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.

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.

It is not that easy, the tenant can sit tight, probably for 3 months, before the court process can get him out on the streets. I can see the problem for those with a family, but a singleton can treat this time as a handy rent holiday.

CKhalvashi

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.

Regulate us by all means, just don't give us bounty hunters to deal with; the government ones are bad enough!

Sampong wrote: »

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.

I mentioned above, that I am a landlord. I am also a landlord to several of my employees.

Their landlords are also the gangmasters who supply them with work. If they complain, they lose their income and their home.

My company, along with probably 99% of other businesses in the UK is perfectly legal, above board, paying tax etc.

I am certainly not a gangmaster, and neither are any of the other Company Directors that are also LLs, as far as I'm aware. This is a huge over-generalisation that is, to an extent, dangerous. I have a legal duty to protect the 250-odd staff I employ in work, and by doing this, it may also be considered in my best interests to look after them outside of work, too (for instance, room/flat/house rentals with more security than some). All my tenants are entitled to stay in the property after any contract with my company ends.

Some 30% of my UK-based staff are also my tenants, and as we tend to employ those from the same cultural backgrounds, it can also be nice for the tenants to spend some time with each other in these circumstances.

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.

I don't mind a little red tape, however as several people have suggested, it may be best to enforce the regulations we have already, than bring new ones in.

The abovementioned examples are a very small minority of properties, many of which probably wouldn't be licensed anywhere.

I'm happy to register any properties I own should this become law, however I can think of many people within my own community in the UK, and also several others that wouldn't do this.

CK

Mr._Pricklepants

CKhalvashi wrote: »

My company, along with probably 99% of other businesses in the UK is perfectly legal, above board, paying tax etc.

Sam Pong prefers to focus on the immigrant-owned illegal ones....something like 10% of that 1% maybe.

I wonder why.

CKhalvashi

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Sam Pong prefers to focus on the immigrant-owned illegal ones....something like 10% of that 1% maybe.

I wonder why.

I understood that perfectly.

It was just the tone of the post (and I am from an immigrant background) that set me off a little in rant

I work hard, I pay my taxes, I pay my mortgage, bills etc, along with many of the other legal immigrants. I've been a British national for 15 years now.

CK