Peterborough increases licence fee from £50 to £600!

They've realised that councils everywhere else are charging the full whack - so they can do but their arguments are ridiculous. The idea that the only factor to take into account is impact on rent levels implies that only tenants matter and landlords can be extorted from huge sums by the state just on a whim. To then say it is okay because it is tax deductible is disgusting. That is an argument for charging whatever they like. This really is theft from the state.

Highway Robbery! Most LL would struggle to see any benefit from a £50 charge, never mind the extortionate £600. And stating the fee is tax deductible is missing the point that still an additional expenditure and erosion of margin on providing homes for those in need.

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 19/12/2017 - 10:33
A modest increase when compared to the potentially infinite tax imposed as a result of section 24.

“Over the past 12 months we have not seen a difference in rental levels between landlords who have paid either the £50 or £600 fee...."
Mr Hill, I own properties in Peterborough and previously didn’t raise rents during a tenancy but since Sec 24 was announced in 2015 I have raised most of my rents every November from 2015 onwards to stay a little nearer to market rents. I’m sure this is the case with a lot of other Peterborough landlords as rents just continue to rise in Peterborough so your comment is slightly hollow as all landlords, whether affected by Selective Licencing or not, are seemingly raising rents!
When PCC decided to go against public opinion and commenced upon grabbing this stealth tax under the guise of Selective Licencing in some parts of the City I paid my £50 fee for each property affected. I paid for the associated costs of arranging for people to carry out the list of things you required, including the previously unnecessary inspections that you deemed necessary. I can promise you that as soon as you announced commencement of this disgraceful excuse to rip-off law abiding landlords all of those costs were already being taken into consideration when my rent rises were being calculated, however as promised to you in my long, detailed and (very predictable in terms of consequences) consultation letter I have now sold all of those properties as I refuse to allow myself to be conned out of further money by such an underhand practice.
None of the tenants were interested in purchasing the properties despite the very fair asking prices and of the three sold, none went to first time buyers for Mr Osborne’s info.
With Peterborough having one of the worst homeless/displaced tenant situations in the country, at vast expense to the Council and tax payers, it was lucky for PCC that two of the properties were sold to private landlords with tenants in situ and into the bargain you were able to charge the fees once again. However, the third property was sold with vacant possession to another nearby Council so they will be housing tenants from their area and not the massive list of those that you are putting up in hotels and B&B’s in Peterborough.
I own other rental properties in Peterborough so with Sec 24 seemingly here to stay and with your money-making exercise threatening to expand over wider areas of the City I need no further excuse to sell up those remaining Peterborough properties.
I will of course offer any such properties to the tenants first, however I’m fairly certain none of them will take up the option as they are all renting and haven’t purchased for good reason. This time around though I intend to sell at full market value to replace my small but necessary income and the unwanted side effect to that scenario is the probable need to evict my tenants.
So, I take it that you have suddenly found a never-ending supply of alternative accommodation for the further thousands of potential displaced people that you are condemning with your sounding of the death knell for Peterborough’s PRS??
I used to work with some of your colleagues and I had great respect for them in their previous jobs, however, whom ever thought that Peterborough should go down this route despite all of the warnings that countless landlords and letting agents gave you it would appear that somebody in PCC couldn’t organise the proverbial in brewery!
Please do yourself a big favour and end this Selective Licencing malarkey altogether before it really gets out of hand and causes mass distress to both tenants and landlords.
You have been warned – again!

Of course the rents didn't rise with a charge of £50 for 5 years. That works out to £1 a month! No-one is going to try and impose a rent rise for that. £600 is different and is likely to cause rents to rise by £10 a month! Eventually the tenants will end up paying and the impact on those 'just about managing' will be noticeable. All because councils cannot manage their budgets better!

£50 pounds a month just to rent out property? This is clearly a money raising move.
Local landlords should write a letter to their tenants explaining why rents have to go up - just re-use the s24 template.

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 19/12/2017 - 10:33
Theft, ' by ' the state.

Reply to the comment left by Sam Addison at 19/12/2017 - 13:17
I like to make a 30% profit on such charges, just to cover costs and void periods, so if such a charge were imposed in my area I would put the rent up by £13 a month.

When a tenant takes on a new tenancy we should be giving the tenants a breakdown of the rent listing any costs incurred and paid to the Councils and Government including income tax. All homes should be tax not just those homes provided by Councils and Housing Associations. The flack we receive that the rents we charge are far too high will then switch to the Government.