Leading landlord slams council’s plea not to put up rents

If, after years of licensing private landlords and mountains of additional admin. for those landlords, the Council by their own admission still has on their patch houses with no smoke alarms and/or no heating and hot water, then they should be ashamed of themselves and set their own house in order before embarking on a further licensing scheme. They are in effect admitting that licensing doesn't work since it has not achieved the purpose for which ir was (ostensibly) set up. If it costs them over £800 to issue a licence and check that a property is compliant, councillors don't have to be Einstein to realise that it will cost the landlord a far greater sum to actually do all the works and maintain the house in that condition. The landlords are facing rises in both mortgage interest rates and labour and materials costs, yet they are expected to keep rents the same. Does the Council's literature include directions to the nearest money tree?

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 24/01/2023 - 08:19
Information on the loction of the money tree can be obtained from any member of the cabinet.

From which Planet are these Nottingham Councillors from? 100% this additional cost will get passed on to tenants, if not straight from when the scheme is introduced but at the next rent rise review, it will get factored in.
About time these idiots knew there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Neither do we landlords believe that this scheme will actually improve anything other than its another excuse to extort money from the renters, indirectly, and blame landlords as they are in the front line. They also want Landlords to do their dirty work and deal with anti-social tenants, whereas it would have been a job of a council or the police to deal with anti-social occupants/tenants.

Should call it what it is, the tenant tax.
How they justify this extortionate cost and scheme is beyond me, all the while expanding the areas across the city making their orginal argument on concentration on troubled areas utter nonsense.
Landlords wont absorb all these costs with tenants that choose not to pay rent, court and legal costs, voids, services, refurbs etc without increasing the rent.
Its not rocket science.

It is true that all tenants should expect to be able to live in a safe property. The problem with licensing is that Councils see it as a gravy train funded by landlords. It really is ludicrous for Councillors to say rents shouldn't go up.
If you analyse what is actually required for a licensing scheme, it is the following;
1. a database of properties and their owners/managers.
2. an inspection to ensure that the property is safe for the tenant.
3. follow ups where necessary.
As Mick says, most houses are fine, it's the minority that aren't. The cost of 1, 2 and 3 above should be minimal. Landlords shouldn't have to pay for bloated bureaucracies. If the licence was say, £150, then landlords probably wouldn't complain and everyone would be happy. If we were running the system, I bet we could do it for £150 per property!
This is what the NRLA should be focussing on - tying down Council's costs to landlords to remove the profit element.

An EPC (including property measurements/dimensions) can be done for £50-75, so why should a few extra checks on GSCs/EICRS etc. cost so bloody much...?

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 24/01/2023 - 12:06
You only need to read the following report to know Licensing is not working .Only16% of additional HMOs signed up in 5 years of scheme and the council was trigger happy to put £1.2 million worth of penalties on them with a majority being trivial things. Bad LLs obviously stayed well below the radar of any scheme.

The good ones that signed up with good intent got clobbered with extra costs to improve

https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/downloads/file/6028/independent_review_of_the_additional_hmo_licensing_scheme

Government, MPs, councils, councillors, tenants, Shelter, Crisis, and everyone else, should realise that EVERY cost incurred by a landlord HAS to be recovered via the rents charged to tenants.

The higher the costs (including admin time) imposed on landlords, the higher the rental charge has to be. It's not rocket science, it's very basic common sense!

Enforcement of property standards can be paid for via the Civil Penalty system, i.e. the fines imposed on landlords for faults found with properties inspected, (the civil penalties go into council coffers), so there is absolutely no justification for selective licensing fees which, as Mick says, penalise the good landlords and ultimately the majority of tenants.

IF the powers at be REALLY wanted to make renting cheaper for tenants they would bring in an option for a german-style scheme. In Germany you can rent a TOTALLY unfurnished home - basically just the walls, windows and doors and a basic bathroom or shower - no decoration, flooring even often no kitchen. The tenant rents cheap but its up to them to add all fixtures and fittings, do minor building works, decorate etc. When they move out landlord can make them take out everything (even the kitchen if they dont want it!) and make them return the decoration to white walls. Also up to the tenant to pay all bills, do all minor repairs up to around €100 per incident (up to approx 8% of annual rent yearly), and are responsible for many of the legal certifications relating to the internal stuff. If/when the bathroom for example needs doing, landlord can legally put the rent up by up to 11% after its done because they've modernised the property and increased it's value. Our tenants don't realise how good they have it here!

Reply to the comment left by Raz at 24/01/2023 - 12:41
Don't forget the CGT breaks after holding for so long (10 years?)...