Rogue landlords and licensing

Mistermeaner

I think that's already the case - criminal negligence.

The argument as I understand it is to criminalise aspects of the letters responsibilities to make non compliance a criminal offence. Eg fail to change a broken light bulb = 2 days in the stocks etc.

What is it that civil code is failing to deal with?

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I think that's already the case - criminal negligence.

The argument as I understand it is to criminalise aspects of the letters responsibilities to make non compliance a criminal offence. Eg fail to change a broken light bulb = 2 days in the stocks etc.

What is it that civil code is failing to deal with?

TBH I think part of the problem is that people accept that the LL isn't going to fix the place rather than pursuing it with the Council or courts. If you take your LL to court to fix the boiler and she doesn't do so having been instructed to do so by the court then she's going to end up in contempt and going to gaol until she fixes it.

There seems to be a general idea that all the world's ills can be solved by more Government. It ain't necessarily so.

Thrugelmir

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Totally lost me there; tennant:landlord vs manager:employee is a totally different relationship and what do the hse have to do with landlords?

Precisely. LL's should be held accountable for their actions. Few LL's even know their legal responsibilities towards their tenants.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

I think that the point is that if you run a company that bodges vehicle maintainance and someone is killed you have a criminal liability. Similarly, if as a LL you bodge a boiler repair and a tenant dies you have a criminal liability.

That seems like a reasonable analogy.

Unsafe property conversions sprang to mind.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unsafe property conversions sprang to mind.

wouldn't that already be a criminal offence?

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

wouldn't that already be a criminal offence?

You tell me. What's the offence?

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You tell me. What's the offence?

if 'unsafe' means likely to kill or cause serious injury then I would speculate that there is some catch all criminal offence.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

if 'unsafe' means likely to kill or cause serious injury then I would speculate that there is some catch all criminal offence.

I would imagine that Corporate Manslaughter and Criminal Negligence would cover it between them.

cells

plenty of owner occupiers and social tenants live in squalid conditions. its more often down to the individual than anyone else.

If a landlord is responsible for a repair and its not done to a reasonable time frame then just withhold rent until it is done. Or have it done and deduct from the next rent payment the sum it cost.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

if 'unsafe' means likely to kill or cause serious injury then I would speculate that there is some catch all criminal offence.

Doesn't appear so.

In one of the cases in the article I linked to, there was a set of flats with a fire exit.

That fire exit just opened onto a sheer drop of 3 stories.