Mick Roberts on BBC Radio Nottingham

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 25/02/2018 - 06:55
Hi Mark
I agree maybe not insurance but if the council wants to work closer with us and take their HB tenants maybe they should have a separate pot of cash to pay for this kind of incident .
They could do an inventory at the start with photos/ video then once a year do a house check for the mandatory stuff but also check condition from our point of view as well and we pay if the mandatory stuff needs doing and they pay for the cat 2 / 3 level stuff which the tenant has contributed to it becoming that way

If they stay say 10 years the deposit is not the right tool to deal with what maybe happens in that 10 years inbetween

I am all for be held to book if big stuff goes wrong which is down to me but so should tenants take responsibility for ongoing minor stuff and specifically for not reporting stuff .

No tenant has ever rang me up and said sorry I punched a hole in your door last night or my jimmy spilled some oil based paint on you nice new carpet . When a house check comes they strategically place things temporarily to cover the offending stain or hole

We both should up our game and be accountable

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 25/02/2018 - 07:21
Agreed

Very good interview Mick. Well done for putting your point across.

That would be brilliant idea Jonathan, I'm gonna put that to the bigwigs next few weeks.
They want us to now have inventories and checks and this.
They checking the house.
Why don't they do the photos to then check us and also the tenants and ACTUALLY see what the tenants do damage and what the landlord has to repair that the tenant has broke.
Sherrelle, I wanted & need to say about 198 different things. I've got a lot of Freedom of Information requests to send to the council next few weeks when I get time.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 26/02/2018 - 18:45
mick where do you get acredited so as not to have to pay the full price to council ? regards ts

Reply to the comment left by tony tony at 05/03/2018 - 13:01
If that option exists, the accreditation usually has to come from one of the Landlords associations which is supposedly fighting against the Selective Licensing. This is why I raised the question of conflicts f interest in my article linked below

https://www.property118.com/another-council-abandons-selective-licencing-proposals/

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 05/03/2018 - 13:27
We've put our own local landlords accreditation scheme together that three neighbouring councils have accepted. We've even invited the social housing providers to join, but know they can't because they can't match us on things like decorating and the supply of carpets (not standard in 'council' housing). It doesn't cost anything and keeps the NLA/RLA at arms-length.

Reply to the comment left by tony tony at 05/03/2018 - 13:01
https://www.dashservices.org.uk/Accreditation

But the feedback I'm getting at the moment, the accreditation checks are finding roughly £700-£1000 per house work needed to do & people are saying their Inspections could be finding more work to do than the License official checks, so tricky one what u do.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 05/03/2018 - 14:16
I don't think they check every property a landlord owns. For one thing, how would they know how many a landlord owns?
You do the accreditation test (takes about an hour) and give them one property to check- not the entire portfolio.
Its accreditation per landlord not per property.
The details of Nottingham's licensing scham have yet to be seen but the information so far is the discount is for accredited landlords.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that councils cannot use selective licensing conditions to impose new standards on PRS homes.

In essence, the Court of Appeal unanimously decided any selective licensing condition that requires the provision of new facilities or that requires works, which go beyond normal non-structural repairs, were imposed by a local authority in their discretion is unlawful.

There were a number of licence conditions where we raised concerns which we now consider to be unlawful in the light of this Judgment and therefore need to be removed from any licence which will subsequently be issued should the scheme be adopted.

RLA's analysis of 21/02/18 Jugment of Brown -v- Hyndburn Borough Council:

https://news.rla.org.uk/appeal-court-win-highlights-illegal-use-licensing-scheme/

Here's the Judgment itself:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/242.html

Incidentally, my local association also use Bury & Walkers LLP for our legals and we have been following this case closely with interest.