Last week, in this general series on housing law, I considered the recent report from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Research which analysed statistics on the housing sector over the past 20 years.
It is clear from that report that the private rented sector is growing in importance in our society.
The speed of its growth in the future will, so the report indicated, depend on the state of the economy, but things don’t look too good just now so a fairly rapid growth is indicated.
The importance of good housing
Housing is important. Very important. Poor housing can have a very detrimental effect in an area, and on the people who live in it.
They are more likely to get ill, which impacts on the National Health Service (poor housing is believed to cost the NHS some £600 million per year), and children living there are less likely to do well at school (and subsequently in life in all too many cases) – to name just two of the possible adverse effects.
It is important for all of us that our housing is in good condition, not just for the people living in it.
The housing providers
Yet this important function is more and more provided by people who know little about the various regulations that apply, considering their property to be merely a financial investment.
Some is provided by people who have no interest whatsoever in the well being of their tenants being purely motivated by getting a maximum return for a minimum outlay.
And a substantial minority of housing is run and managed by landlords whose actions are, or border on, the criminal.
Can we afford to allow this to continue?
Enforcing standards
Much of the property rented out by PRS landlords is in a good or excellent condition, but this is generally down to the professionalism of the individual landlord concerned.
Many landlords take a pride in their properties, look after them well, and generally have a responsible attitude towards things.
But the others? What happens about them? It is clear, for example from the Battersby Report, that Local Authorities are not up to the task of policing them and enforcing the law.
This is not (before you jump down my throat Ben) really the fault of the Local Authorities. They are underfunded, and do not have the staff.
False economy
The trouble is, can we afford to allow this to continue?
Are we not storing up problems for the future as well as, by default, allowing unnecessary suffering by the people unfortunate enough to live in the sub standard private housing?
As well as putting unnecessary strain on our public health services, which we all ultimately pay for?
But we have no reliable national figures on how big the problem is, where exactly the problems lie or who the problem landlords are.
At some stage we have to say the dreaded words ‘landlord registration’.
The case for landlord registration
Landlords (on the whole) don’t want a landlords register. They consider it to be a gross intrusion on their privacy.
I can understand that. But there is a strong argument to say that the needs of society should take precedence over the wishes of individual landlords.
It is very difficult for government to plan or do anything about improving standards in the private rented sector if they don’t know how big it is or where it is.
If we just had a record of how many landlords and properties there are in the private sector (as suggested here), then at least more accurate studies and forecasts could be made.
We would have a clearer idea of what we were talking about and of the potential costs in dealing with it.
The case for landlord licensing
Having a landlords register would also allow us to introduce some form of licensing – requiring landlords to undergo training and ensure that property is kept up to a certain standard, as a condition of being allowed to continue as a landlord.
I’ll be looking at this further next week.
Same old argument. Same old problem. Only the decent landlords will get registered while the miscreants won’t.
This raises the costs for those who don’t need regulating while doing nothing about those that do.
Manchester CC introduced Selective Licensing. In the cases that they did prosecute, not one was licensed. Did MCC prosecute more cases? No, most of the money collected went to administering the scheme.
This is why good landlords don’t wish to see licensing and bad landlords just make more money as rents rise to cover the additional costs.
The government already has a national register of landlords via our tax returns. Do you think the bad landlords are diligently filling out their tax returns? Why would a separate register be any different?
It is more enforcement of existing regulations that is required, not more regulations.
Landlord licensing? Please noooooooo!
We also operate in Scotland where licensing has been in place for the last few years.
As far as I can tell it has not led to any improvements in stock or a reduction in the number of dodgy landlords. What is has done successfully is create additional bureaucracy and costs for landlords and agents. Yes, agents must register too, even if it’s just a family member or friend who helps you to manage the property.
A criminal is unlikley to use a gun that’s registered in their own name. Likewise a landlord who knows they may have a dodgy history will simply transfer the property to family/company.
The registration doesn’t even even check your criminal record, it relies on you answering questions truthfully! Although they can request a criminal record certificate, I don’t know anyone who has ever been asked for one.
It gets worse. There is not even one central register – you have to register in every authority where you have property! This is £55 a pop plus £11 for each additional property in the authority. You can register in multiple authorities with one application and fee, but if you grow your portfolio over time this won’t help.
It’s a pointless nightmare and one which you have to go through every three years because that’s how long the license lasts.
Personally the only licence I think it provides, is one to print money.
Presumably this could be enforced straightforwardly by making registration a requirement to enforce a s21, much like protecting a deposit is now. That way there’d be no additional investigatory burden on councils to hunt down unregistered landlords- it would just be a question of register or be stuck with your unwanted tenants.
What about landlords who rent their homes for a short period?
People who go travelling often become landlords to ensure their home’s are lived in while they are away. Would they have to apply to be removed when they returned?
As deposits are now being controlled this gives a reasonable idea as to which properties are being rented. Although this doesn’t catch those that have chosen not to take deposits.
There is also the register of EPC’s
Gas Certs to name another register.
Landlord information has to be given for Benefit claims.
Landlords have to register in lots of places why not combine this information.
it took the DVLA a long time to combine all the information that was already collected but they finally got to it. Perhaps the same should be applied to housing.
The Government selective licensing schemes only seemed to create jobs within councils. They achieved nothing in the area I live. It was not thought out properly and badly administered, a waste of money all round.
Improvements in the area and increased rentals improved housing far more. When landlords realised that good properties got better tenants then the properties improved.
Reductions in rents by the LHA have once again impacted in the poor areas. Reduction in income = no money to improve properties as the meerkat says…. simples
Combining information that is already out there is a great idea Sandra. It would probably save money in the long run.
I think all landlords ought to be registered even if they are renting for a short time, but maybe there ought to be some special category for people renting their own home while working away (for example).
@Jonathan, yes I think if this came in registration probably would be added to the various conditions for using the s21 route for possession.
@JamieT – I think a central register is essential. Local Authorities have enough to do and, for example, in England the plethora of different license fees in licensing is rightly considered massively unfair.
Registration and licensing are totally different beasts.
If it’s just about registration for improving data, then the sensible option would be to make it a function of the Land Registry.
Licensing would have to be operated in a totally different way becasue of the additional information and decision making involved. Having been involved with large IT projects in the past, I know how difficult and expensive it will be to come up with the right solution. In my opinion the money would be much better spent elsewhere.
“Same old arguments” the opponents say. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – how come I cannot sell you a pension, MoT your car or carry out heart surgery on you and a million and one other things? Because I am not licensed/regulated.
WSo why when housing is such a basic necessity can I meet you down the pub, take money off you and give you the keys to a death trap?
As I have also said before all problems in life usually have simple and obvious solutions. The problems lie in the will to implement those solutions.
Amidst all the huff and puff postings above Jonathan makes the one really critical point. Make s21 and indeed the serving of any notice only valid from a registered landlord.
And of course make the penalty for unlawful eviction by any Landlord 2 years in jail and a £20,000 minimum fine.
See – simple. It’s the will to implement that is lacking, though heaven knows why.
If next Govt is Labour there will be licensing as it was in their last manifesto. If not Labour then it will not happen