RLA stats on landlords don't add up..

theartfullodger

I was sadden & disappointed to receive a large, glossy, 44-page "Election Manifesto 2015" from the RLA - The Residential Landlords Association - of which I am a member: Can't have been cheap to do or print or mail. Not what I'd spend member's money on nor mail to every member were I in charge. However.... when leafing through it, it turns out their sums are wrong:

4.5.2 In 2010, the Department for Communities and Local Government’s “Private Landlords Survey 2010” found.

• 86% of landlords were private individuals responsible for 71% of all private rented properties.
• 5% were company landlords overseeing 15% of properties in the sector and
- 6% were classed as “other organisation” landlords, responsible for 14% of all private sector homes to rent.
etc etc etc....

When I did "O" level sums 86+5+6 added up to 97 not 100... (The error is not DCLG's)

Wonder how many other of RLA's claims are incorrect.

JimmyTheWig

Have any of those figures (86, 5, 6) been created by RLA by adding up percentages of sub-categories?

E.g. if the first category was made up of
Private individuals with mortgage - 46.4%
Private individuals with no mortgage - 30.4%
Private individuals with other arrangements - 10.4%

These figures could have been rounded by DCLG to 46%, 30% and 10%.
What choice would RLA have but to add up the figures given to get 86%, even though in reality it is 87.2%

A couple more subcategories somewhere and the full difference could be explained by such rounding errors.

theartfullodger

Not a rounding issue. DCLG figures are correct (please don't believe me, download the DCLG report & check yourself): RLA have quoted incorrect data (no checking, nobody reading, as I did, for "do these numbers look right")... sloppy.

£5 to an agreed housing charity says RLA don't fix the online version by CoB Monday 16th.
http://news.rla.org.uk/rla-election-manifesto-2015/

As before, wonder how many other of RLA's claims are incorrect.

Cheers!

JimmyTheWig

Oh, I see. It's a typo.
What's even crazier is that the 6% doesn't even seem to be quoted in the survey that I could see. They've calculated that themselves based on the correct 89%. And then put the wrong figure down. D'oh!

Not quite sure which way you are betting, but I'm not taking you up either way!

theartfullodger

I'm betting that RLA don't fix it by 17:30 Monday 16th (All the printed copies including mine will still be wrong). If they do I will donate £5 with gift-aid to a housing charity.. I feel my money is safe but am very ready & willing to cough up if need be.

Cheers!

JimmyTheWig

And do I have to donate £5 if they don't fix it?
Or is this a one-sided bet?

[I agree with you that I can't imagine they'll change it by Monday, but I don't know anything about them.]

theartfullodger

No, nothing for you to pay syr...

JimmyTheWig

That's alright then!

theartfullodger

But wait folk, there's more....that RLA document is riddled with errors & half-truths....

1.1 Membership numbers: The document claims

The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) represents 20,000 small and medium-sized landlords in the private rented sector (PRS) ...

- but their website today says

Owned and trusted by our members, we represent 18,000+ landlords ….

Why the difference, why the exaggeration - of one number??

4.6.4

A further noticeable feature of the private rented sector is the readiness of landlords to keep their rents down where tenants stay on long term. This, it should be noted, is already happening under the existing system and has not required legislation of the sort being proposed by some parties.

As the English Housing Survey states:
“Private renters who had lived in their current home for less than a year paid an average weekly rent of £175 compared with £154 for those resident for 5-9 years and £106 for those resident for 20 or more years.”

Talk about misleading: The main reason older tenancies are cheaper is that so many of them - pre-1989 - will be "Rent Act" tenancies where the landlord cannot get current, AST-type, market rent. Brilliant though, claiming it's all down to genrous-hearted landlords..

4.8.3

61% of private rented accommodation comprise houses, the majority of which are terrace
properties; 13% are converted flats and less than 4% are low-rise, purpose-built flats.

Err no: They misread the figures (see table 11 chaps!). Correct numbers are 61% of private rented accommodation comprise houses, the majority of which are terrace properties; 13% are converted flats and 24% are low-rise, purpose-built flats & 3% purpose-built, high-rise. (with rounding effects that adds up to 101%..)

4.8.9

Despite not enjoying the government grants received by the social rented sector, the proportion of private rented properties classified as non-decent has fallen from 47% in 2006 to 33% in 2012.

Failed to mention the huge subsidy provided by tax relief on mortgage interest "enjoyed" by private landlords.

5.5.10

Shelter claims it receive 85,000 complaints a year from PRS tenants – roughly 1% of all tenants. It also says that prosecutions in English courts amount to no more than 500 a year. Given that the English Housing Survey shows that 83% of PRS tenants are satisfied, or very satisfied, with their accommodation, why are resources being spent on the majority of compliant landlords when the
problem is with a minority?

Wrong: RLA are quoting numbers about complaints to local councils & prosecutions by councils, not statistics regarding Shelter & private tenants...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/previous_years/2012/october_2012/complaints_about_landlords_up_almost_30

Complaints about landlords to local councils have increased by 27% in the last three years, a Shelter investigation has revealed.

A freedom of information request submitted to all councils across England showed that more than 85,000 complaints were made in the past year alone.

Of those complaints, 62% were about serious and life-threatening hazards. In 781 cases, private landlord behaviour or neglect involved health services.

There were also 487 successful prosecutions against private landlords last year, an increase of 77%. However, they were mostly driven by a small handful of local councils including Newham, Leeds, Salford and Manchester.

5.7.2

At present, landlords can regain possession of their properties based on two key sections of the 1988 Housing Act.

And the rest: That rather ignores not AT tenancies, in particular common law & Rent Act: Sigh!

5.7.7

It is important to note that tenants already enjoy protection from retaliatory evictions under Consumer Law. In June, the Competition and Markets Authority issued guidance on the relationship between landlords and tenants. This guidance makes clear that under the terms of the 2008 Unfair Trading Regulations, coming from the Consumer Protection Act, it is a breach .....

Really?? £25 to an agreed housing charity if anyone can come up with a successful case where a tenant defended an S21 eviction using those grounds..

What p*ss*s me off is that these incorrect data and sloppy info were produced partly funded by my hard-working tenant's rent payments to me!

lily_livered

Thank you Artful these figures are very interesting. I hope you are going to submit a written response to RLA.

theartfullodger wrote: »

5.7.7 Really?? £25 to an agreed housing charity if anyone can come up with a successful case where a tenant defended an S21 eviction using those grounds..

Methinks your £25 is safe. You may have already read Nearly Legal taking the RLA apart over this but here's the link in case not. It's an entertaining read in any case:

Shome mishtake shurely: The RLA discover a defence to s.21
By Giles Peaker
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/11/shome-mishtake-shurely-rla-discover-defence-s-21/

theartfullodger

Thanks lily! Very interesting & informative.

No I wasn't planning on writing to the RLA (..yet..) but hoping someone from them might come on and explain where they are right & I am wrong... :rotfl: :rotfl:

We will see, eh!

Artful