Vision for an independent organisation to represent UK landlords

Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 18/09/2018 - 09:02
The NLA/RLA's remit *shouldn't* be confused...they've allowed themselves to become tainted by Government...or become greedy...or were always just stooges...

all sounds great Mark.

but I'm intrigued to learn how you will get the deposit providers to jump into line.

I take it you think they are the easiest to persuade of the interest groups you've identified?

Reply to the comment left by Kevin Thomson at 18/09/2018 - 09:45
I have no idea how to get any of them to agree, other than through volume of people suggesting it to them.

The reason they are target #1 is that landlords can not operate legally if they take deposits without registering them, so if Deposit Protection providers make membership a compulsory basis for doing business with them the vast majority of landlords will be compelled to join in order to operate within the law. There are a few who don’t take deposits, so that’s another reason to persuade the other sectors to follow suit. e.g. insurance, letting agents, lenders etc.

This sort of professional body who would really act on a Landlord's behalf is desperately needed. I laughed to myself when a comment was made that we already have the NLA and the RLA. I joined both in a naive hope that they would prove useful. However when I needed advice they were both totally useless, nobody available, no calls returned. It seems that there main reason for existence is to 'sell' products and take in more money. I do have to admit that the RLA did do one thing very well in fighting against selective licensing in our area a few years ago. That guy alone was worth the annual membership fee so I still remain a member. Anyway Mark, lets hope your proposal gains momentum and we see an animal created who actually has teeth and is prepared to use them!

I will send this to my accountant, my letting agent and my mortgage provider , the landlord registration scheme in Scotland and the local authorities of the areas my properties are in.

I think all landlords should be registered and have no relevant convictions and I think licencing should be abolished. If I didn't have to pay an other fees to any other organisation I would be willing to pay £30 per year to belong.

I am an optimist but can't see most of those groups wanting to be directly involved because of it's "political" stance. They won't want to rock their boat and may fear the Government would start on them in revenge!!. I personally would not want to be told I had to belong to a certain group in order to get a mortgage or insurance etc. on letting property. I'm all for a meaningful body and would support it but it ain't gonna be easy.because most people can't be bothered, head in the sand. Only got to look at the low numbers that comment here and usually the same people. Why not do a simple poll of all 118 members and see what kind of response, in reply numbers, all Landlords not possible. How many actual 118 members are there?

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 17/09/2018 - 18:55
Hi Mark
We don't often disagree but I must take issue.

Requiring landlords to join this organisation or else lenders, insurers, deposit takers et al won't do business with them is monopolistic. It's as bad as saying you can't be a dock worker or a miner unless you join the union.

Even if you could get round that issue, having all directors up for re-election every year and serving a maximum of 4 years in 8 means that nobody (even on £100K a year) will get to grips with this million shareholder business before they have to retire. If you are not happy with the NLA and RLA, why should a brand new outfit manage to do what those organisations cannot? I would rather lobby to put some backbone in the NLA when it does not stand up to Government.

This is tantamount to an attempt to establish a "closed shop" and would be a serious restriction of individual liberty to trade freely. I suggest that you ask Mark Smith to comment on the legality of the proposal ("Closed shops in Britain were made illegal following trade union legislation in 1990 and 1992: outlawing the practice of employers agreeing only to hire union members, and where employees had to remain union members in order to remain employed").
Best of luck trying to get solicitors, accountants, letting agents, banks, building societies and insurance companies to voluntarily restrict their customer base. As for the deposit protection schemes, Government approval for such a change would be required. It would make it impossible for non-members to comply with legislation.
It also presupposes that all landlords have the same views on the issues listed and that the directors would share those views, hardly likely in my view. A fertile ground for conflicts of interest - imagine there having been a senior employee of West Bromwich Building Society as a director a few years ago!
How are you going to establish what members actually think about all the issues? Will lobbying be based on the majority view and if so, how will this be established? Why should the funds supplied by the minority be used to press for outcomes that might not be in their interest?
Sorry, it's fundamentally flawed and not for me.

An interesting mix of views so far. A piece of kite flying born from another thread with perceived demand. If landlord registration and some form of accreditation by default was on offer by way of profile & demonstration of achievement or intentions; and not ridiculous counsel imposed fees; I can see how this would satisfy a perceived need. It could perhaps be another possible way to open up voluntary membership on a large scale. All we would then need to do is identify rogue landlords. Now if anyone has any suggestions how that may happen this could gain legs or even wings. My guess is they would wish to remain under the radar and so would not join anything. Bingo.

Hello all and thank you for your feedback.

Perhaps this wan't one of my best thought through ideas after all LOL

I hadn't considered Monopolies, closed shops legislation or restrictive trade practices and I should have run this past Mark Smith before publishing it.

So, where does that leave us?

It feels to me like we are back to square one of being an apathetic group of somewhere between one and two million landlords with no proper representation and an easy target for any Government authority to milk as cash cows whenever they see fit.

Anybody got an alternative solution they would like to propose?