Landlords are Pawns in Battle for Control of London

I'm afraid that although I count myself a "good" landlord, I will only be dragged kicking and screaming to join an accreditation scheme. I have too many bad experiences of existing schemes, which seem to me to be a way of corralling PRS landlords into a nice, safe, convenient box, where they can be controlled by a never-ending stream of regulations and "responsibilities". Once you sign up to an accreditation scheme, you and your property will be subjected to annual inspections, a generally disapproving attitude, the imposition of "improvements" and "safety measures" at the whim of an EHO, and you won't see a blind bit of difference in the quality of the tenants or any protection against tenant misbehaviour. If most councils, housing officers at universities and organisations like Shelter have their way, private-sector accreditation will be made compulsory, punitive in its standards (all in the name of "professionalisation" and "improving the tenant experience" until rental houses are of far better standard than most owner-occupied ones), completely oblivious to costs in terms of finance and landlords' time, and will end with the requirement to accept lifetime tenancies, rent control, and tenants being allowed to make most modifications to the property as they please.

I have to say Tony I am all for regulation and enforcement action for non compliance. Property standards in the PRS are pretty poor overall and there are still too many rogue landlords and agents operatinog out there who should be put out of business. Fixed standards and regulation are the way of both improving standards and eradicating behaviour that should have gone out with Charles Dickens.

BUT!!!!!!! I think those standards should be put together by views from all sides, Landlrods, tenants, EHOs, TROs banks....the whole picture, something that can work for everyone and make sense, that is then sensibily and pragmatically policed.

I would hate to see Shelter alone dictate the standards as much as I would also hate to see ARLA do it too.

Everyone involved in the PRS is in it together, it is our world and we should be working together. I am a fan of a single regulatory standard but I dont want a single body telling us what that should be

Accreditation based on property is a falling star. Most local authorities haven't got the rescources to deal with their statutory obligations never mind inspecting the properties of those who volunteer for accreditation. All of London, Kent, Wales, West Midlands, East Midlands and many other areas are now using accreditation based on the following, known as the LAS model. NLA have a national scheme based on the same model and are working with the smaller authorities who haven't the means to put their own scheme in place. We are fast approaching one national standard of accrediation which can be recognised by tenants, authorities and others as the "kite mark" of a good and knowledgable landlord. Most landlords who get it wrong do so because they don't realise what they should be doing.

1. A code of conduct
2. Fit and proper person
3. One day foundation seminar
4. Continuous professional development
5. Complaints & arbitration procedure

In a nut shell the landlord must be fit under the terms of the Housing Act 2004. He must sign up to a code of conduct. Attend a one day seminar. Attend CPD 3 hours seminars or, llandlords fora, or join a landlords association which has a support service, attend other seminars related to the business. Each of the above will give him 5 CPD points and he must collect 50 over 5 years for an automatic renewal for the next 5 years.

Landlords who know their business and keep up to date are trusted to get on with it unless and until their is a complaint. Complaints are arbitrated based on documents from both sides.

This is in line with many other respected professions and brings landlords into the "norm". In my opinion this is self regulation once a landlord has proven that he has the basis on which to self regulate

I was at the pre xmas meeting of the LLAS and aksed about the fit and proper person criteria and was pleased to hear a common sense approach being used. People with previous criminal records not being automatically excluded. I think that could only be managed through a local input, based on people knowing their landlords.

You are right Mary most council's lack the resources but this is the reason why the new lettings schemes are becoming popular. It is easier, cheaper and more effective to regulate your local sector thorugh relationships and support rather than enforcement.

The LLAS at the meeting decided to amend the CPD criteria to be 10 points per year, ongoing, this avoids the problem of accredited landlords garnering their 15 points all in one and it lasting for years when the laws have changed in the meantime. Emphasis on the 'C' (Continuing) of the acronym.

The thing is I think that enforcement and explusion does need to be in there too otherwise the scheme has no worth. and I say that as someone who as most readers will know I am defeniately not trigger happy when it comes to these things.

The real challenge is in raising standards and education through landlrods and tenants realsing it is in their interests to self regulate, not by threatening them all the time

What if the housing office was willing to pay a higher deposit if the agent (or landlord) was usefully accredited? E.g. the local government being willing to pay a bit more in exchange for less problems. Likewise if the landlord agrees not to put the rent up for a given length of time.

I think some gentle lavers could be used by local government to improve things without needing lots of new complex regulations.

Yeah I like the give and take of that Ian. Enhanced packages from both sides. This favours inducement over penalties

Ben The MLAS has a very robust complaints procedure and there have been explusions & suspensions - as you can see from the members list. We prefer to support the landlord so that a happy conculsion is reached with the complainant but if a landlord fails to work with MLAS or has broken primary legislation he will be expelled from the scheme. Where a landlord has made a serious mistake he will be suspended until her corrects that mistake.

The local authorities use the CPD to engage with landlords on a given subject. It might be that amenity standards are an issue for them and if thats the case an officer will run a CPD (for 5 points) to get landlords up to speed. We do not put restrictions on the amount of points a landlord gains each year because there are some years, like 2011 and 2012 where there will be a lot of changes and landlords need to attend and in other years there will be less change and they may not need to attend. What MLAS have found is that some landlords attend every CPD seminar regardless of the number of points that they need and I know for a fact that some MLAS landlords have over 100 points. These points cannot be carried forward to the second period of accreditation and therefore we are clear that these landlords are attending for the knowledge - this is great and speaks well for these good landlords - self regulation at its best.

MLAS offered CPD from day one where LLAS took a while to get it in place and this is why some of the LLAS landlords played catchup.