Landlords responsibility - re: nuisance tenants

Jet

:hello: I'm the OP.

My "mate" is actually more of an acquaintance and having had terrible neighbours in the past I sympathise with his tenants neighbours if the tenant is indeed a nuisance.

However, having read the letter from the neighbour, I wonder how much of the complaint is based on accuracies rather than snobbery (lot's of comments on the fact that the tenant has children with 2 different fathers for example).

I just thought it would be nice to have a definitive answer for England that I could show to him.

Bungarm2001

Just a quick update on my correspondence with Salford Council on this subject; the Landlord Licensing Team emailed me a couple of links, one of them is THIS link to a Word document titled 'Selective license conditions.' (scroll down to 'downloadable documents')

The paragraph near the end of the Word document is the one that is most relevant. It mentions "The Licence Holder must take all reasonable and all practicable steps for preventing and dealing effectively with anti-social behaviour,.........." Again, when I get a bit of spare time, I'll phone them and ask them what they would consider to be 'reasonable and practical steps.'

Would love to have others views on this.

terryw

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

Just a quick update on my correspondence with Salford Council on this subject; the Landlord Licensing Team emailed me a couple of links, one of them is THIS link to a Word document titled 'Selective license conditions.' (scroll down to 'downloadable documents')

The paragraph near the end of the Word document is the one that is most relevant. It mentions "The Licence Holder must take all reasonable and all practicable steps for preventing and dealing effectively with anti-social behaviour,.........." Again, when I get a bit of spare time, I'll phone them and ask them what they would consider to be 'reasonable and practical steps.'

Would love to have others views on this.

Thanks for that link. The wording that the "Licence Holder must take all reasonable and practicable steps for preventing and dealing effectively with anti-social behaviour" is quite different from the point under debate which is that landlords are responsible for their tenants' behaviour.

I believe that these licenses are required only in some areas where there has been a great deal of anti-social behaviour - Salford looks to have been badly affected.


From a cursory glance at the Salford website, it looks as though "reasonable and practical steps etc" is liaising with the authority where there is anti-social behaviour, and acting upon their advice. It is not simply a case of the landlord being responsible for someone else's actions. Indeed I think it is against natural justice for one person to be responsible for another's actions.

The good part about this, is that the landlord is not on his own in trying to deal with this type of tenant.......indeed I would surmise that when the authority is involved, the
naughty tenant's behaviour is likely to improve, but if not, the landlord will have assistance in removing him.

terryw

TJ27

terryw wrote: »

The wording that the "Licence Holder must take all reasonable and practicable steps for preventing and dealing effectively with anti-social behaviour" is quite different from the point under debate which is that landlords are responsible for their tenants' behaviour.

I believe that these licenses are required only in some areas where there has been a great deal of anti-social behaviour.

In nearly every case, certainly in my area, the licence holder and the landlord/owner are one and the same. The licence holder must be the "person having control" of the HMO. i.e. the person who receives the rack rent. So in virtually every case, it is the landlord who is responsible.

Mandatory licences are generally required in HMOs of three or more storeys with five or more tenants. It makes no difference where they are, or whether anarchy prevails. I don't know if this is the case for additional or selective licensing though.

terryw

TJ27 wrote: »

In nearly every case, certainly in my area, the licence holder and the landlord/owner are one and the same. The licence holder must be the "person having control" of the HMO. i.e. the person who receives the rack rent. So in virtually every case, it is the landlord who is responsible.

Mandatory licences are generally required in HMOs of three or more storeys with five or more tenants. It makes no difference where they are, or whether anarchy prevails. I don't know if this is the case for additional or selective licensing though.

I hadn't been thinking of HMOs as I have had no dealings with them, but it does look as though the landlord must be licensed if an HMO is involved. In the case of other properties it looks to only apply to certain areas where there is ASB, and the local authority must nominate these areas.

terryw.

TJ27

terryw wrote: »

it does look as though the landlord must be licensed here. In the case of other properties it looks to only apply to certain areas where there is ASB, and the local authority must nominate these areas.

You might be right but if you ask me it sounds like the property in question is neither a HMO nor licensable. I don't think we can be sure at this stage though.

If there are areas with lots of HMOs AND lots of ASB then I guess landlords can be made to be held responsible. But it is the presence of HMOs, not ASB that is the key. In an area where, say, lots of families are running riot, licensing could not apply. Rented family houses are not even HMOs let alone licensable.

Edit: Actually Terry I've read a bit more and I think you're probably correct. Sorry.

terryw

TJ27 wrote: »

You might be right but if you ask me it sounds like the property in question is neither a HMO nor licensable. I don't think we can be sure at this stage though.

If there are areas with lots of HMOs AND lots of ASB then I guess landlords can be made to be held responsible. But it is the presence of HMOs, not ASB that is the key. In an area where, say, lots of families are running riot, licensing could not apply. Rented family houses are not even HMOs let alone licensable.

Sorry, my bad phrasing to blame. By "here" I had meant "in the case of HMOs" not in the case of the OP. My apologies for the ambiguity......I will edit my post.

I think, but I may be wrong, that in area where there is a lot of ASB, local authorities can apply the licensing stipulations on properties other than HMOs. Section 3 of the Act appears to cover this (but I've only looked quickly).

I agree with you the OP is probably not referring to a HMO or a licensable property.

terryw

TJ27

terryw wrote: »

I think, but I may be wrong, that in area where there is a lot of ASB, local authorities can apply the licensing stipulations on properties other than HMOs. Section 3 of the Act appears to cover this (but I've only looked quickly).

I doubt it. (Edit: Actually I think you're right. Shows how little I know about S3.)

Here's something which might help:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/rentingandletting/privaterenting/housesmultiple/hmofaq/landlords/compliance1/?id=465401#question

Bungarm2001

terryw wrote: »

Sorry, my bad phrasing to blame. By "here" I had meant "in the case of HMOs" not in the case of the OP. My apologies for the ambiguity......I will edit my post.

I think, but I may be wrong, that in area where there is a lot of ASB, local authorities can apply the licensing stipulations on properties other than HMOs. Section 3 of the Act appears to cover this (but I've only looked quickly).

I agree with you the OP is probably not referring to a HMO or a licensable property.

terryw

You are right terryw..the local auhorities can deem an area in their control as an area for selective licensing. Unfortunately for us, we have several properties rented out in one of these newly selected areas and are now waiting to be issued with the Licensing packs for each property.

Personally I think it's the thin end of the wedge and in time ALL privately rented properties will have to be licensed, regardless of where they are in the UK.

I wonder if any LL's who post here have had to apply for a license on a non-HMO property yet. I'll start a new thread...

terryw

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

You are right terryw..the local auhorities can deem an area in their control as an area for selective licensing. Unfortunately for us, we have several properties rented out in one of these newly selected areas and are now waiting to be issued with the Licensing packs for each property.

Personally I think it's the thin end of the wedge and in time ALL privately rented properties will have to be licensed, regardless of where they are in the UK.

I wonder if any LL's who post here have had to apply for a license on a non-HMO property yet. I'll start a new thread...

I am not an expert by any means, but the licensing requirements may well be good news for you. The attitude of the authorities appears to be one of conciliation and assistance and liaison, with the authority and landlord acting together against the bad guys. You will certainly get help in proving a case and the authority may well chip in with legal assistance and fees etc. Certainly from your point of view, this is better than the usual "landlord bad tenant good" attitude that local authorities have displayed for many years.

It would be nice to know if any authorities other than Salford have made areas subject to these regulations.

terryw