Croydon yet another area to introduce Selective Licensing

Anyone who is in the least aware will be able to see that the PRS is about to enter a period when regulation and intervention from Government is going to increase.

DCLG and all the political parties are all thinking about this. In London and several other urban areas the market is now so broken and demand so outstrips supply that landlords can offer anything in the expectation that someone will pay a substantial rent to occupy it.

In addition a lot of vulnerable people are in the PRS who might in the past have been in social housing. There are also more people raising families in lettings than before.

If a quarter of Londoners are now PRS tenants then the issue of standards and management in the PRS will have a profile it did not have before. In some ways the sector is about to become the victim of it's own success.

I can assure you that there is a substantial problem with the conduct of some landlords and the problems are getting worse as more properties are cut down into HMO's across all the Boroughs. There is a real and increasing public health issue in London.

Licensing is not a silver bullet, however the Scheme in Newham is having a number of positive benefits and it is, across the board, improving standards.

I would not expect landlords to welcome licensing but you must accept that the sector does not regulate itself in any way. I think a substantial number of landlords would like the unfair competition to be reduced and licensing can help with that.

The Hemmings v Westminster ruling is clearly in the public domain now and all these hackneyed comments about cash cows and empire building just illustrate weak thinking and political prejudice.

Local Authorities are facing substantial budget cuts imposed by Government and for the functions of the environmental health and trading standards teams to continue even as they are now then new funding must be found.

It is up to the Councils to draft a sensible and well thought out scheme for licensing and copying the Newham scheme is not the answer, its just lazy. Each LA needs to analyse it's own PRS problem and write a scheme to address that specifically.

The fees are only a few pounds a week and even if they are passed on to residents all tenant groups still support licensing strongly. LA's must take both sides into account and take a view on the community in general.

So use current legislation to weed out the 'bad' landlords and leave the rest of us to continue the excellent service we always have done.
Islington are piloting their licensing scheme and have 'checked' a number of properties, a proportion of which require improvements. As they've already 'checked' them they well know the landlords to address. No need to waste time, effort and money on chasing those who realise that their tenants are their customers and, therefore, the lifeblood of their business.
As with everything where money changes hand local and central government want a slice of the pie. We ARE seen as 'cash cows' despite your protestations.
As you rightly point out it's the councils that are displaying 'weak thinking' and it matters not what colour rosettes the councillors display on their lapels. Politics is not the issue here.

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "01/07/2014 - 12:53":

Good comment, John and I largely agree with everything you say - I personally believe in a national landlord registration scheme, possibly a national licensing scheme (after all, we have a compulsory land registry and we have credit data collected on us all the time) but only if it's applied fairly and evenhandedly. I also think landlord's knowledge and awareness should be increased and encouraged, or they should be compelled to use a reputable management agency if they lack the knowledge or availability to self manage.

Having said that, though, while I believe some local authorities have introduced licensing for the right reasons and applied it fairly, others have not.

I am not privy to the motivations of the new Croydon Council, but given the proposed blanket application, and the possible landlord fees involved (some sources are quoting £1000 per property!) I'm afraid I'm forced to believe that this is simply a stealth tax against landlords.

Don't forget, the government have made significant funding available for local authorities to bid for to deal with rogue landlords, "We have provided over £4m to a number of local authorities who bid for funds to help them tackle acute and complex problems with the small minority of rogue landlords in their area. This money will be used to build on the Government’s ongoing success in tackling ‘beds in sheds’. Backed by £2.6 million government funding,this initiative has resulted in the discovery of more than 900 illegally rented outbuildings and overcrowded homes since 2011. Action is now being taken against the owners"
> Source: "Review of Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283979/Review_of_Property_Conditions_in_the_Private_Rented_Sector__2_.pdf

Hi Mandy,

The funding the Goverment has made available is useful but it has been awarded to a small number of Councils. In the national picture it is not measurable.

Croydons existing additional licensing scheme fee structure is based on a charge per room for HMO's so I'd be inclined to assume the selective scheme might be the same. This seems a fair way to calculate fees, ie based on the income generation of the property.

Hello John,

Glad you mentioned Newham.

"the Scheme in Newham is having a number of positive benefits and it is, across the board, improving standards."

Can you name one?

A specific, quantifiable, positive benefit, not a wishy-washy "building good relations", "establishing communications", "raising standards" etc council speak 'benefit'.

If there had been any positive benefits whatsoever, I'm sure Sir Robin Wales would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops.

Since it was introduced, around 32,500 license applications have been received for the 40,000+ rental properties in Newham.

Leaving around 10,000 unlicensed properties.

Where do you think the rogue landlords are?
How much time, effort and resources is spent chasing the rogue landlords?
How much time, effort and resources is spent administering good landlords?
Not forgetting Newham had over a million £'s of DCLG funding for this as well as huge revenue from the scheme, on top of their normal budget.

As it stands, Out of 10,000+ unlicensed properties there have been just 134 landlord prosecutions (up to the start of this year)
-Which could probably have been carried out using existing legislation anyway.

How many good landlords have left Newham or avoided investing there because of this?

How many rogue landlords have stepped in to take their place?

For improving the lives of Newham residents, it has been an abject failure.

For revenue raising and council empire building, it has been a blinding success.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "01/07/2014 - 14:31":

Very well put, Monty.

I would seriously consider selling up and moving my rental business to another borough except it would seriously inconvenience my tenants (assuming they would be prepared to move to another borough) and even if I was selling one rental property to replace it with another of same value I would still have to pay CGT (capital gains tax).

Finally Landlords have been recognised as the superbeings we all are!
I can use my mind control powers to prevent my tenants parking incorrectly, having loud parties and being difficult. I can use my powers of supersight to see into every house I own and root out undesirables using telekinesis. I dont know how the council found out , but the truth is now out there! No need to pretend anymore that we need better court processes to manage our businesses.....

Hull council (where I had a medium portfolio) introduced licensing in some areas which basically consisted of writing them a cheque, with no further action required or taken. A friend of mine has been licensed for two years (two cheques) and is yet to recieve a licence! Its simply a moneymaking procedure with them. Also note that Hull council themselves fail to maintain their own decent homes standards on their own stock
I also rent out houses in Croydon (where I plan to increase my portfolio) and dread the Labour councils input into my business.
Wanted to sign the petition - couldnt use the link- not a IT superbeing.

Great stuff, David - or is it - SUPERLANDLORD!! When recently I tried out my powers of witchcraft on one of my flats, I only managed to zap a fusebox and flood the downstairs neighbour... I think I might also have inadvertently summoned a load of demons...

If we did possess such powers, I think we know exactly where we would be using them... Anyone out there got any knowledge of voodoo??

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "01/07/2014 - 12:53":

Some good comments there. One thing I take issue with Newham is the data on antisocial behaviour in the private rented sector in Newham ever being higher than other sectors.

See my blog for more about when I challenged a Newham Council executive on the figures at a Chartered Inst of Housing event where I spoke earlier this year:

http://www.lettingfocus.com/blogs/index.php/2014/01/newham-antisocial-behaviour-and-private-landlords/

I would also like to see someone explain why Newham got a quarter of the extra govt cash allocated for the whole of the UK less than year ago to root out rogue landlords. If the scheme was such a success as claimed, why did they need a quarter of the money for the whole UK? Certainly very odd.

The reality is that Newham has achieved some success by sharpening up its act and using the powers it already had available, as well as working in concert with other agencies. It has little to do with the licensing scheme.

One thing I will agree on Newham is that the penalties imposed on criminal landlords are nowhere near sufficient and the local auths should be able to keep more of the cash from fines on criminal landlords and their activities.

David Lawrenson

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "03/07/2014 - 17:15":

I'd be very interested to know what Eric Pickles makes of the "data" supporting the "evidence" that anti social behaviour is correlated with privately rented property, and Newham withholding that analysis from you when you requested it...

Having said that though, the Local Government Association (LGA) is pushing for licensing without having to "prove" any association with any social or housing problems, and there is a general election next year...