Croydon yet another area to introduce Selective Licensing

One of the most insidious ways that the statistics are being massaged is that the Council creates some random new regulation (such as putting in a rail where there is any outside step for example or not having a lock on the back gate - there are better examples, as sometimes these would be good things to do - but I'm sure you know what I mean) As many landlords would not have thought of that and where it is often not needed, their property fails an Inspection and is deemed to "require repair" - then when they comply, the Council and licensing have miraculously helped to raise standards. hmmm

Good landlords and councils share the same dislike of bad landlords and it would be far better to acknowledge that common ground and to work towards exposing the landlords who are either ignorant or criminal. In Wales they are having it all ways as landlords soon will all be licensed, accredited and registered and still there will be licensing of areas. (Same word - confusing I know)

It occurs to me that if we want to make it difficult for criminal landlords to let property, we need to begin at the source - how are these people managing to find tenants/licensees?

I'm sure a lot of it is word of mouth, through the grapevine, but this is limited as it depends on friends of friends always knowing of someone who needs somewhere to rent. Therefore, they must also be using advertising websites, ads in local papers, and the traditional newsagents' windows. While no doubt they most likely also use specialist letting sites, these are expensive and the ad needs to be of a good standard with quality photos for it to stand out. No doubt they sometimes use letting agents - the kind who are cheap and unregulated, but because of the expense and the degree of professionalism necessary, I doubt many rogue landlords use any kind of specialist letting service.

While no regulation can stop word of mouth advertising, could legislation not be passed to regulate the advertising of living accommodation, so that it can only be advertised through legally approved letting agents (both online and off), and before the property is put on the rental market, both the property and the potential landlord must satisfy minimal legal standards?

Something else the current licensing system is also missing is landlords who let part properties who would not be subject to HMO regulations, namely lodger landlords.

Most illegally rented accommodation isn't self contained and tenants and lodgers who have no choice but to rent from rogue landlords normally can't afford to rent a whole flat or house, so any kind of regulatory measures most take ALL types of residential landlord into account.

Hi,

This is a far more measured debate than usual when Licensing is mentioned, let's keep it up.

The points on linking ASB to Selective licensing are in part fair ones. The data is not collected for the purpose of regulating landlords, it is to measure the various types of ASB incidence so Police and Councils etc can be held to account if the number of incidents go up.

Now linking ASB to the PRS is not straightforward, because although the data collected for ASB is locational, in that an address or street is recorded, the tenure of the property where the incident occurs is not, so a direct link cannot be proved unquestionably.

But if say 75% of the properties in the street are PRS and the street has a high density of ASB incidents then we can expect there to be a link unless there is another factor, a football stadium or cluster of nightclubs.

I went to a meeting recently where the NLA rep suggested that he could prove that there was a link between the incidence of ASB and the density of trees in the area. Statistically you might be able to make that link and I did think it an amusing point. However trees don't fly tip, have noisy parties or call the Police much so the link is not actually correct in real life.

We do know that higher density of PRS (and social) occupation increases ASB because the profile of occupants indicates that the behaviour of renters in general will generate more ASB than owner occupiers. So there is a link but it cannot be quantified absolutely.

The Council however can act on what it thinks is unreasonable ASB and the legislation sets no actual test to pass. So although you, as a landlord, might think selective licensing is unfair or unreasonable, your neighbour the owner occupier or a PRS tenant might agree that the ASB is unacceptable and support licensing. The Council is obliged to balance all the views when considering the proposals for licensing.

As the current legislation stands licensing is one part of a wide range of powers. Councils might think that something needs to be changed but they have to work with what tools they have.

So it is fairer to say licensing is an existing power not a new one, it is just that there are more proposals going through at present than before. It has caught the sector's attention recently. We have after all had mandatory licensing for something like 8 years and the boundary between mandatory, additional and selective is a fairly arbitrary one.

I know that not all these proposals are politically driven, there is no 'profit' element (Hemming) and for some Councils the licensing proposals will allow reasonable levels of regulation to continue after budgets are significantly cut by central government.

It may seem unfair but food places, betting shops, pubs all have licenses paid for by the licenseholder, should the provision of homes for people be any different ?

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "10/07/2014 - 17:07":

But what is wrong John, was made in my first post here ....

that because the councils have no real idea how big the private rented sector (PRS) is, they cannot therefore use antisocial behaviour I(ASB) incidence figures to justify implementing a licensing programme.....there is no valid stats to show that ASB is higher in the PRS, so their statistical base is flawed.

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "11/07/2014 - 09:14":

Hi David,

This is not about absolute unachallengeable data, there is no such thing in the PRS or ASB. That being the case the parties have to draw conclusions from the data that is available.

Councils can make reasonable and supportable assumptions about the size of the PRS in their areas. Census data, LHA Claims, leaseholder addresses go together to give a good picture of what is where. However you are right and there is no way to identify all the PRS properties in any area. But there is also no duty to do so.

Likewise when PRS density and ASB incidence are overlaid then reasonable conclusions can be drawn. These are not absolute because it is not possible to have that kind of data but it is reasonable to use this information in this way for the purposes of the licensing legislation.

If the legislation set a particular test then both sides would have a line in the sand to achieve one way or the other. However it's not like that and like a lot of legislation this is based on an evidence standard that is subject to interpretation.

I have to go back to the fact that the pubic sees that the Councils basic duty is try to take action to resolve the problems on their turf.

In London and a few other places the HMO and low end rental markets are clearly deteriorating from a public health viewpoint. This just can't be left because landlords don't like being regulated more actively. The opposition to licensing is playing into the hands of the real rogues and villians who are also undercutting and ruining the reputations of good landlords.

It is however the duty of Councils to try to draft a licensing proposal that addresses the problem without just going for a shotgun approach. Understanding both sides of the argument and drafting accordingly will cause dissatisfaction for both the pro and anti camps but a balance of everone's interest can be achieved and that is the solution to aim for.

We don't have a silver bullets and any legislation coming in the next few years is likely to push hard against the landlords basic interests. I have seen rent controls and universal registration / licensing rise up both parties agendas in the last year. Not a solution at all because rents are a supply problem not an effect of any landlord actions.

My personal view is that the RLA / NLA should recognise the way the wind is blowing and find a way to work with Councils to shape licensing so that it addresses the real problems without being a bludgeon.

John,

"In London and a few other places the HMO and low end rental markets are clearly deteriorating from a public health viewpoint. This just can’t be left because landlords don’t like being regulated more actively."

HMO's are already licensed, if that is where the problem area is, then licensing clearly isn't working or it specifically needs improving.

Low end rentals are, in the main, paid for by housing benefit. If that is the problem area, then specifically target that. Councils already know who the recipients and properties of that are.

The 'shotgun' approach (nice phrase!) is clearly incorrect, it should be specifically targeted at the problem areas.

"The opposition to licensing is playing into the hands of the real rogues and villains who are also undercutting and ruining the reputations of good landlords."

On the contrary, licensing plays into the hands of rogues and villains as they don't register anyway, it pushes rents up and creates a sub market for them to exploit.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "11/07/2014 - 11:56":

Hi Monty,

Only large HMO's are currently licensed, there is a growing problem of family letting being converted and subdivided into small HMO's often without building control or planning. The overcrowding, poor condition and management are getting much worse.

The LA knows who the HB goes to but unless the resident raises an issue then there is no cause of action. Bad landlords try to avoid attention and prevent complaints.

To address your last point the strength of licensing is that over time the LA gathers a far better picture of the market and who is operating. The number of unlicensed properties will reduce, particularly if the LA is active in enforcing the scheme.

Most of the schemes I have seen are a pound or two a week, certainly in London that's not really relevant when the cheapest rooms are at least £100 weekly.

Likewise the argument that people will take their investments elswhere, well what rational landlord will spend thousands to buy a property somewhere else to avoid a charge of less than £150 a year

A lot of the bad landlords will have 'previous' with some part of the LA and therefore recieve early attention with a visit to enquire why they have 'forgotten' to license. The early prosecutions for failing to license will be a clear deterrent particularly if the fines are stinging.

It all about reducing the number substandard lettings and increasing the compliance with the existing legislation.

I agree with John Daley that the PRS does need to be more organised - there could at the very least be data available that identifies ALL privately rented property, in whatever form. There is also a need for landlords to be better informed. However, rogue landlords need to be tackled at the grass roots level - they will never comply with licensing or registration schemes, are unlikely to use accredited letting agents, and their tenants and licensees are likely to be either ignorant of their rights and where to get help, and/or, most likely, in a position where they can't access help or alternative accommodation anyway.

However, I also agree with Monty Bodkin, David Lawrence et al - HMOs (for example) are already licensed (or should be) - why aren't these specifically being targeted where there's a problem (problem HMOs are quite visible in local communities)? The local council where I live, Harrow, recently carried out a one day blitz to route out various offences, during which they discovered several HMOs that had breached their licences - much more effective than simply introducing mandatory borough wide PRS licensing.

Local authorities such as Croydon aren't out to target rogue landlords - they're out to get ordinary landlords whose rental properties might not be 100% perfect (what property is, especially older ones?) or who might have unknowingly violated a regulation.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "27/06/2014 - 13:16":

Hi Mandy not sure if you have read any of my post re council intimidation?? There is a guy called Ian on there thinking of becoming HMO the info on here so I will direct him to your topic, Just want to say good luck

Regards

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "27/06/2014 - 13:16":

Hi Mandy not sure if you have read any of my post re council intimidation?? There is a guy called Ian on there thinking of becoming HMO the info on here so I will direct him to your topic, Just want to say good luck

Regards