Private Member's Bill on revenge evictions to be presented to Parliament

jjlandlord

whalster wrote: »

licensing is just another money making scheme to create a few well paid public sector jobs with an even better paid public sector manager sat in an over warm office in an overpriced leather chair.

Not to mention that this bill means that councils would have to manage complaints from tenants, inspect properties to verify and assess them, deal with the landlords.
A real red tape paradise.

Of course, then they would say that this is why licensing is required for a nice second layer of red tape, with rubber stamps, in 3 copies, open from 10am to 10.30am only, every other day, if they're not on strike because they have too much work dealing with all these spurious tenants complaints.

mrginge

jjlandlord wrote: »

Not to mention that this bill means that councils would have to manage complaints from tenants, inspect properties to verify and assess them, deal with the landlords.
A real red tape paradise.

Of course, then they would say that this is why licensing is required for a nice second layer of red tape, with rubber stamps, in 3 copies, open from 10am to 10.30am only, every other day, if they're not on strike because they have too much work dealing with all these spurious tenants complaints.

This is just politics and as such you are playing on emotions and prejudice, not facts and reason.

jjlandlord

mrginge wrote: »

This is just politics and as such you are playing on emotions and prejudice, not facts and reason.

Nice rhetorical trick.

I am stating facts and asking reasonable questions instead of playing the emotional, and nonsensical, side of "protecting poor tenants from bad landlords":

This bill would bring a significant new amount of work to councils.

Would they not need to setup new procedures and to hire more 'resources'?
The game being what it is, would they (if only just the department's head) not try to hire as many new 'resources' as possible?

How would they fund this?
The game being what it is, would they not use this to push for licensing?

Wouldn't licensing, in turn, require councils to setup more procedures and to hire more 'resources'?

QED.

Furthermore, it is inevitable that if a new way to thwart eviction exists then some tenants will use it whether they have a valid reason or not.
It is already notorious that the disrepair defence is over-attempted in s.8 proceedings.
If a similar defence is available for s.21 it will be equally over-attempted. As the bill stands councils will have to assess all the claims.

SwanJon

jjlandlord wrote: »

I am stating facts

jjlandlord wrote: »

Of course, then they would say that this is why licensing is required for a nice second layer of red tape, with rubber stamps, in 3 copies, open from 10am to 10.30am only, every other day, if they're not on strike because they have too much work dealing with all these spurious tenants complaints.

No emotional assumptions there at all?

mrginge

Just because legislation costs money to implement or manage isn't a reason to not do it.

If the issue is that you expect it would be implemented inefficiently then that's a totally separate matter.

If you want a more efficent way of managing the rights of tenants and landlords then you should support a single registration scheme that could control deposit protection, tax compliance, H+S compliance (inc gas certification) and eviction processes.

princeofpounds

jjlandlord wrote: »

It is not a major issue for me.
Furthermore, some landlords do not want to maintain their properties to a decent standard [STRIKE]to change tenants every 6 months.[/STRIKE]

fixed it for you

anselld

mrginge wrote: »

If you want a more efficent way of managing the rights of tenants and landlords then you should support a single registration scheme that could control deposit protection, tax compliance, H+S compliance (inc gas certification) and eviction processes.

There are existing laws and enforcement powers to protect all those things if Civil servants could be bothered to enforce them.

[Deleted User]

As a tenant, this IS a serious issue. Its under reported (after all, no where to report when this happens) but it has certainly happened to me (yes I'm a tenant). I have been threatened with eviction after requesting a repair.., and have reluctantly asked for repairs to be done since as a result, the bigger the repair, the more stressful it is to ask.

jjlandlord

mrginge wrote: »

Just because legislation costs money to implement or manage isn't a reason to not do it.

True but this is a non-argument here since the bill proposes to tackle a 'problem' that only concerns a very small number of tenancies.

mrginge wrote: »

If the issue is that you expect it would be implemented inefficiently then that's a totally separate matter.

Even if it would be implement as efficiently as the rest of councils' services (without judging), it is evident that the cost will not be negligible.
All of that to tackle something that is not a real issue.

mrginge wrote: »

If you want a more efficent way of managing the rights of tenants and landlords then you should support a single registration scheme.

I don't see how a registration scheme would help in any way to solve any real or supposed issue.


I'm still waiting for actual arguments to support the need for that bill.
But of course this is politics (and elections are next year) and as such it plays on etc.

jjlandlord

princeofpounds wrote: »

fixed it for you

Please, don't take your own prejudice for arguments.

This is not a major issue: Fact. This only concerns a small number of tenancies.

Landlords do not want to change tenants every 6 months: Fact.

Now, you say that some landlords do not want to maintain their properties to a decent standard.
It is true for a minority, and legislation already exists.

Perhaps we ought to enforce legislation before create extra layers.