Rogue landlords and licensing

Graham_Devon

Landlords should face tougher fines and more stringent licensing rules to stop them exploiting tenants and renting out substandard accommodation, the Local Government Association has said.

The LGA, which represents more than 370 councils in England and Wales, is calling for the courts to punish rogue landlords "proportionately" and "a consistent standard" when it comes to licensing.

LGA housing spokesman councillor Peter Box said: "The courts need to punish rogue landlords proportionately and there should be a consistent standard when it comes to licensing.

"We know that the majority of tenants in the private rented sector are satisfied with their accommodation, but that shouldn't distract from the fact there are far too many rogue landlords creating misery for people who often see themselves as having little choice but to put up with it."

Anyone actually disagree with either parts of this story?

I.e. A) that rogue landlords should face prison sentences and b) a standard licensing system should be in place for all to easier find those rogue landlords?

http://news.sky.com/story/1555399/rogue-landlords-should-face-prison-time

kinger101

It's mostly uninformed nonsense. A landlord can only end up in prison if they've committed a crime, or not paid fines. Using a vague term like rogue is not helpful, given that most of the offences will be of a civil nature.

Sometimes, even where there is a crime, the civil court is the simpler route, given the burden of proof.

Graham_Devon

kinger101 wrote: »

It's mostly uninformed nonsense. A landlord can only end up in prison if they've committed a crime, or not paid fines. Using a vague term like rogue is not helpful, given that most of the offences will be of a civil nature.

That's the whole point of this action by the Local Government Association.

They want too see this sort of stuff become more than just a civil offence, where the punishment is a fine based on the ability to pay (which often means it's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to conform to the law).

They want to see the ability to send landlords to jail straight away (obviously dependant on the seriousness of the situation). At the moment this is not possible.

Landlords can be jailed for illegally evicting tenants, but the highest penalty magistrates courts can impose for housing offences is a fine.

"Magistrates should be able to take the seriousness of the offence into consideration and jail rogue landlords who put lives at risk", Mr Box said.

"Fines must match the offence, rather than landlords' ability to pay - which is an open invitation for exploitation."

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

It's mostly uninformed nonsense. A landlord can only end up in prison if they've committed a crime, or not paid fines. Using a vague term like rogue is not helpful, given that most of the offences will be of a civil nature.

Sometimes, even where there is a crime, the civil court is the simpler route, given the burden of proof.

Agreed.

Apart from which, we've got enough people in prison as it is, without going down the route of inventing new crimes as an excuse for locking up more people.

LAs already have considerable powers available to fix any problems with housing.

http://www.emptyhomes.com/what-you-can-do-2/resources/local-authority-powers/

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's the whole point of this action by the Local Government Association.

They want too see this sort of stuff become more than just a civil offence, where the punishment is a fine based on the ability to pay (which often means it's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to conform to the law).

They want to see the ability to send landlords to jail straight away (obviously dependant on the seriousness of the situation). At the moment this is not possible.

The obvious solution would be to require the LL to remediate and if she fails to do so send her to gaol for contempt of court. IANAL of course.

cepheus

From that BBC link

The average fine for housing offences is £1,500, the maximum fine is £5,000. Gerald Vernon-Jackson, vice chairman of the LGA, told BBC 5 live: "For a landlord who owns hundreds of houses and he gets tens of thousands of pounds every month, it's like giving a premiership footballer a speeding fine of £1,000 - it makes no difference

I certainly think in such a case, the fine should fund searches of other properties owned by the same landlord with additional fines if neglect is found.

kinger101

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's the whole point of this action by the Local Government Association.

They want too see this sort of stuff become more than just a civil offence, where the punishment is a fine based on the ability to pay (which often means it's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to conform to the law).

They want to see the ability to send landlords to jail straight away (obviously dependant on the seriousness of the situation). At the moment this is not possible.

If local authorities can highlight a specific current deficiency in the current laws, then of course, this should be reviewed. But generally stating things should be made tougher, without demonstrating they are using the current system to it's limits, isn't helpful in my opinion.

As for sending people directly to jail (prison), I hope you were not suggesting someone should be incarcerated without a trial or conviction. As it stands, a LL might go to prison if they did not pay fine imposed by the court, or committed a serious crime.

Graham_Devon

kinger101 wrote: »

If local authorities can highlight a specific current deficiency in the current laws, then of course, this should be reviewed. But generally stating things should be made tougher, without demonstrating they are using the current system to it's limits, isn't helpful in my opinion.

As for sending people directly to jail (prison), I hope you were not suggesting someone should be incarcerated without a trial or conviction. As it stands, a LL might go to prison if they did not pay fine imposed by the court, or committed a serious crime.

No, of course I'm not.

Rather, instead of a fine, they are sent to prison, like in many other scenarios.

Glad you now believe (after previously claiming it was uninformed nonsense) that it "of course" should be reviewed.

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

From that BBC link

I certainly think in such a case, the fine should fund searches of other properties owned by the same landlord with additional fines if neglect is found.

Are there really that many LLs with hundreds of properties? It sounds like a non-problem to me.

kinger101

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, of course I'm not.

Rather, instead of a fine, they are sent to prison, like in many other scenarios.

Glad you now believe (after previously claiming it was uninformed nonsense) that it "of course" should be reviewed.

No, it's still nonsense. The "if" conditions hasn't been met by any stretch of the imagination. And it still blurs the lines (as do you) between the criminal and civil systems. A civil court cannot send someone directly to "jail".

"Rouge landlord" is about as meaningful a term as "naughty person". There is no such criminal or civil offence.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

From that BBC link

I certainly think in such a case, the fine should fund searches of other properties owned by the same landlord with additional fines if neglect is found.

An IOPN search only costs £11, you know.:)