Having the Rugg pulled out from under – ‘MOT Check’!

Admittedly I haven't seen the detail in this review, but the idea of an annual property MOT sounds terrible to me. There are various objective safety things one could check like gas, electrics, smoke alarms - but certification of these are already covered by specific criminal legislation (electrics about to be extended to all properties) AND tenants are told in the government's guide to renting to check those are given to them. AND if they are not handed over, a landlord cannot gain possession.

So, there's no point having a property inspector checking all those unless we believe that tenants should be devoid of all personal responsibility to even do that for themselves. And of course, vast numbers of properties are now subject to licensing regimes anyway and the LA already wants to see all those docs.

So, then there's the more subjective stuff - like the condition of the bathroom, the amenities in the kitchen, the state of the carpets etc. How will an MOT work there? One person's dodgy bathroom/carpet is another person's OK bathroom/carpet. And surely we can expect the tenants to judge that when they do their viewings?

Given the millions of PRS properties, we would need a very large army of new pencil pushers who, nine times out of ten, will produce a report of very little added value to the average tenant. Given that they would be looking at the entire property, I would also expect the fee to be potentially far higher than a gas check. I reckon anywhere between £75 + vat for a small flat to several hundred for a large house if the scheme is self-funding.

So, this is not really like an MOT in reality. Your car is checked against OBJECTIVE safety criteria - often covering things that it is quite hard for a buyer to spot. I see little equivalent to the dodgy bathroom or kitchen with inadequate amenities - and unlike the car, with rented property, a pre-existing certification process exists for the key safety matters.

I don't have to give specific proof to a buyer that my tyre tread depth or exhaust emissions or steering is ok, so the MOT helps (a bit) on that. I DO have to give a tenant proof that the usual safety matters have been checked and the rest they can check easily with their own eyes.

The real problem with the PRS is under-supply due to excessive rules, red tape, regulation and taxation, to which this will just add.

It won't surprise me either, if the likes of the RLA or ARLA support these so-called MOTs. They will sense a commercial opportunity here.

Good words Simon, U convincing me against my earlier thoughts, MOT might not work.
And like AA said, Council would probably do it in ADDITION to Licensing.
I was just thinking it might be an alternative to Licensing, as us in Nottingham have been subject to the brutal pricing & conditions of Nottingham Council Selective Licensing, so we saying come MOT us instead of Licensing, as they now admit they using our money to go after the bad Landlords. Whereas if MOT, we was hoping much cheaper cost for the good landlords.

In the case of a licensed HMO this would mean gaining entry
once a year for this so called MOT, twice a year for the smoke alarm check, gas safety check, once every three years for the
NIC certificate and every five years for the licensing inspection,
followed by needing access to complete the work required to
comply with the license and then the re visit to check the work has been done. Then the tenant sues the landlord because he hasn't had the right to the quiet enjoyment of his property.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 11/09/2018 - 16:50
Hello Mick. Totally share your frustrations with selective licensing, which is spinning out of control. But if there is one thing I learnt as a former senior civil servant - it's that red tape, once introduced, is virtually impossible to cut.

So, I would see this MOT thing morphing into a virtual licence for ALL rented property and requiring a yearly visit from a pen pusher instead of every 5 years under licensing. Even if its backers think it's a possible "light-touch" alternative to licensing, I would wager money that it would quite soon be turned into a bureaucrats' charter, with ever more bells and whistles being added to the checks every year - and rising fees to boot.

To the RLA and others who foolishly back this - I say be careful what you wish for.

Yet again another proposal which in reality is a complete farce. I can just see it now. An inspector with no qualifications, working for a private company, which also happens to have a maintenance arm has declared that a property is unsafe due to extensive damp. Sorry, I mean condensation. Where is the measuring stick and who marks it up??
Another blunt instrument with no link to the real world or any practical implications. I wonder what it is like to live in such an idealistic world.

Reply to the comment left by Ross McColl at 12/09/2018 - 12:00
If its in private hands, it'll be exactly as Ross describes. If its in the LA's hands it's just another source of revenue from the cash cow for the greedy councils.

It will help to fulfil the governments desire to increase rents. Loss of wear and tear allowance, S24, SDLT, EPC's etc were just the start of the government's drive to increase rents. There will be further attacks on the tenants for whom I have a great deal of sympathy.

And the criminal landlords would have one more piece of legislation to ignore with impunity.