City issues more than 1,000 enforcement notices to landlords

Wow, so 90% were compliant.
So this 90% of ALL tenants had rent increases to pay for Selective Licensing when they already had nice house.

And u can bet the Council only chose houses they thought at more risk of finding faults, so overall, most probable factor is, more than 90% of houses were already good & now subject to rent increases to pay for Selective Licensing.

Cllr Gavin White is correct, Selective Licensing does improve properties, the correct words are SOME properties. We can improve EVERYTHING if EVERYONE pays more. Problem is most of society wouldn't accept that. Some being forced to have EPC C at a cost of £300pm more & brand new stairs carpets every 6 months at more cost.

OOh he says it again:
Mr White said: “Of course, we know that most landlords are good and work with us very effectively for the benefit of residents.
But we still gonna' charge you a massive cost & use your money to go after the minority bad ones. Where u getting the money from? Well where do u get ALL your money from that pays the outgoings on the house? The rent of course. Ooh are they paying cheap rent? Well u know what to do then don't u, you'll have to put the rent up, or don't do her that new kitchen u was just about to do.

So if you break down the figures shown above.
Only one in three properties in the selective licensing were inspected !
The Council will of course inspect any property where the tenant has complained about " issues " with their home.
A total of 15 landlords were issued with Civil Penalty Notices and this covers 3240 properties.
I notice also only 93 housing related improvement notices but 971 environmental issues such as litter ? Waste control and pest problems.
So how much will the New selective licence cost TENANTS when expanded across the whole of Greater Manchester?

All Councils have to do, is upon a complaint, inspect the property and require any improvement(s) to be carried out within a reasonable time.

There already exists more than ample measures to deal with any non-compliance.
In a Free market, in which our society is supposed to exist, tenants can vote with their feet and rent elsewhere.

Its not private landlords fault or responsibility that there is limited availability of Social or Council housing if a tenant wishes to rent in alternative sectors.
( not forgetting 83% of Tenants in PRS are satisfied, of course )

Common Fallacy: “Even something as simple as getting a new gas or electrical safety certificate means that home is safer than it was before.”
If I go for an eye test, the test on its own does not improve my vision. Nor does a driving test on its own improve my road safety.
*Testing the gas or electricity systems might *reveal faults and risks, but the testing itself does not *make them safer!

We need to see Selective z licensing for what it is.

The country is virtually bankrupt thanks to government incompetence. Billions wasted during Covid and billions more extending wars that are not ours to fight. Billions more spent dealing with mass migration caused by the EU’s open border policy.

When the country is bankrupt, central government can no longer fund incompetent local authorities. The LA need to find money from elsewhere. Introducing parking charges or charging for green waste collections that once were free are unpopular. So, they target landlords in the full knowledge that the only people that will be paying are the tenants. Politicians believe landlords have made billions from house price increases over the past 20 years. Well I haven’t. Nor do I charge high rents. I’d earn more by investing in government bonds.

I wonder what state their council houses are in? Hypocrisy at its finest!

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 28/12/2023 - 09:39
Not sure about your sampling point - target non compliant
If they have targets to meet, you can inspect say 4 compliant homes for the time is takes for one non compliant.

Reply to the comment left by Jim K at 01/01/2024 - 11:53
I think Mick's point is somewhat akin to mine. Simply put, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Micks point about the majority needless ( as over 90% of homes are compliant ) is that ALL tenants ( even those with 'compliant' homes) will have to pay the administrative and bureaucratic burden of selective licensing.
Similar to my point, in - inspect those you have reason to believe are non-compliant.
Much cheaper for Local Authorities to advertise via Tenant Council Tax bills etc, that if there are any concern, to report them. - than to inspect a vast majority for no purpose.
Tenants need to be awoken to the underlying factors causing increases to their rent.
Much of which stem from campaigning by Tenant support groups, and politicians, thinking they're 'helping' to level-up by Renters reform etc.
Take the shovel off them, Foot - Shoot.

Reply to the comment left by Jim K at 01/01/2024 - 11:53
Well if they say 10% of targeted properties where non compliant, I get the figures at 90% complaint. Council's constantly manipulate their figures when they ask the Govt for permission. Let's turn them figures round on them.

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 01/01/2024 - 12:22
Yes Chris, that's what Licensing does. It breaks the majority of houses & tenants that haven't got a problem. Something u can only experience when u live in a Licensing area.
At the start, we were all petrified of inspections on houses tenants had wrecked. And be made to spend £10,000 on stuff tenant had done. Now with experience, we see Selective Licensing just charges innocent tenants & places unbearable time consuming admin. I should have Licensed all my houses on 1 Dec. I've done 1. Council's web page was broke on the day I was going to do a lot of mine which they've admitted in email.

Yes everything these Renters groups call for, helps the current tenant, but then cuts supply for all tenants coming in. And makes it more expensive for ALL tenants.