Council will use a third-party firm for inspecting rented homes

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 22/06/2023 - 14:53oh bl##dy great. Another battle on the horizon here then....

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 22/06/2023 - 15:36
That's a point. Advice needed please off people more qualified than me.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 22/06/2023 - 16:10
well even if the council claimed they would revoke your current licence (because of access not permitted by the tenant), it would not be lawful as the holder of the licence cannot themselves DEMAND the tenant give access. What grounds would they give for revoking it that would be legal anyway. Selective licencing does not overrule national legislation. The tenant has no obligation to comply to the licence requirements as they have not signed up to them. They are not the licence holder.

There is no lawful cause or reason why the LL could or even should give notice to the tenant if access is denied anyway. There is no right that the council could demand this from the LL anyway.

Access at the end of the day can only be granted by a court order and made by the person seeking the access as they are the only person that wants the access.

If British gas wants access to a property for example they give notice to the occupier/account holder/bill payer not the owner of the property if they don't live there.

I think this is one angle that has been over looked entirely by all councils who have introduced SL...but something again which could come back and bite them in the bum.

The landlord

Yes and we got to always remember it's the tenants home which Council & Govt are forgetting as u said earlier-Go ask the tenants that haven't got problems & paying cheap rent, what they want.

It's coming back to bite em in bum now, I've got many Landlord mates who's tenants don't want em in & know Licensing is one of the causes why houses are scarce & expensive.

I wonder if one can draft a note on the front door withdrawing implied right of access from XYZ company.
Ie a note on the door stating implied right of access is denied to XYZ company or its agents, however right of access will be given in consideration of the sum of £20,000. Ringing on the doorbell or knocking on the door will be taken as acceptance of these terms.

Or is that just freeman of the land type nonsense?

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 23/06/2023 - 14:37
Mick, it doesn't create a problem if the tenant denies access. One of my tenants is similarly furious about the Nottingham City Tenant Tax Scheme, and when the council asked me for the phone number of the tenant to contact them to arrange a visit, she wouldn't give me permission to provide them with it, nor would she allow them access. That was two years ago and never heard anything since.
Could they refuse a licence? Hardly likely as that would make the tenant homeless. It would actually suit me as I could then sell the property without being the villain.

Reply to the comment left by Jessie Jones at 24/06/2023 - 11:08
Brilliant. Fantastic Jessie. Yes the more we & tenants let them know, the more they learn.
Many others have done same as u & not heard anything.
Ha ha yes, suit a lot of us if they force us to evict. Not our fault then.

My tenant rang up the Compliance woman & told her what he thought. She was still begging him to come inspect at a time he can choose. He's spent 20k of his own money on house & he don't need them to inspect.
Compliance woman did say she's gonna take his comments onboard to see if they can change the wording Intended Entry.

My first thoughts are that the Peterborough plan seems like a good idea.
When the councils themselves do their own inspections, they are perhaps more likely to find faults as it helps to justify their schemes. Examples in Nottingham include misty windows, missing garden fence panels and uneven paving (not as bad as public footpaths). A private company is likely to stick to well defined criteria and give a more balanced assessment as they shouldn't have performance targets based on finding faults where no fault exists.
It would come as no surprise if a private company can do these inspections a whole lot cheaper than the Council, and they may well get round to inspecting every licenced property (where the tenant is happy to let them in) whereas in Nottingham the Council only inspect a tiny proportion.

Reply to the comment left by Jessie Jones at 24/06/2023 - 11:20
Not sure if Peterborough have a similar to the Southampton scheme I referred to.

Yes, the main benefit of the Southampton scheme is that it allows landlords to schedule several properties on the same day, allowing them to use their time efficiently, while ensuring that the property is inspected at before, or at the commencement of a tenancy. Landlords are happy to know that certification is in place at the start of the licence as this removes the uncertainty that mid-tenancy, unreported issues may be flagged up.

As the Chair of the Gt Yarmouth and Gorleston landlords association (Gygla) I can only sympathise with Peterborough landlords. Gt Yarmouth used this Company to carry out inspections upon introduction of Selective Licensing. They over promised and under delivered at every stage of the process. SL has made no difference to the area, drug dealers openly peddling their products on the streets, weeds growing everywhere, roads strewn with litter and bins over flowing. Homesafe are a difficult arrogant Company to deal with. No so called rogue landlords identified and properties failing for minor issues such as weeds in the gutter. This is simply a.means to generate income. My sympathies are with Peterborough landlords, you are facing a world of beaucratic grief.