The Housing and Planning Act 2016
When the Housing and Planning Act 2016 came into force it created massive waves among the concerned housing community.
Housing rights groups focused on the extension of the right to buy for housing associations and duly protested. Quite rightly in my book.
But nestling in that piece of legislation was some very useful stuff for rogue landlord enforcement officers and tenants who were victims of the worst excesses of criminals.
Rent Repayment Orders
Back in April 2017 victims of rogue landlords and enforcement officers who support them received a much welcome addition in the form of the extension of Rent Repayment Orders.
Rent Repayment Orders have been around for well over 10 years, allowing councils who identify breaches to claim back 12 month’s worth of rent benefits paid.
Although tenants could claim back 12 month’s worth of rent under a Rent Repayment Order – where the property was unlicensed they could only do so if the council had prosecuted first. However, from April 2017 there doesn’t have to be a prosecution and Rent Repayment Orders are available for harassment and illegal eviction too, offering the luckless tenant a swift route to redress and compensation.
But what about Banning Orders?
Still waiting in the wings is the much vaunted and anticipated provisions, whereby rogue agents and landlords can be given a banning order and placed on a countrywide rogue landlord database.
All of us enforcement Greyhounds have been sitting peacefully in the pens, waiting for the rabbit to run by and the gates to open on the 1st of October 2017. But it didn’t happen.
Firstly…..
The anticipated banning order offences never got clarified, despite such luminaries as Andrew Arden committing themselves to hard copy print on what they were expected to be, in the recent LAG publication “Quiet Enjoyment – Protection from Rogue Landlords” that I reviewed a couple of weeks back.
Government also didn’t release any information as to why they hadn’t clarified the offences leading up to the implementation date of the 1st of October. In fact, they have gone completely silent on the matter.
Secondly….
The plan is, for a central database that will be populated by local authority enforcement types. And yet, it is my understanding that to date, Government haven’t even put out an invitation to tender for the software contract. Even though this part of the HPA was due in last weekend.
So officially, local authority enforcement officers are hot to trot, in the fight against rogue landlords. But in respect of banning orders and a rogue database, there’s nobody to chase and nothing to chase them with.
Why is this?
Are government so enmeshed in Brexit that they have no time for anything else?
Reading the news it certainly looks that way.
You rush through (and I sat on the consultancy panel at the Home Office so trust me, “Rush through” is an accurate term” ) a major piece of legislation that will affect and improve the lives of many tenants suffering under rogue landlords. And then just ignore it and hope that nobody notices?
I’ve never seen this before.
Meanwhile, London Mayor Sadiq Khan is this month to usher in his own rogue landlord database, which is likely to be titled the “Watchlist”, containing names of landlords and agents who have been prosecuted for offences in the capital.
Database v Watchlist
The big difference between the database and the Watchlist however, is that whilst only local authorities are to have access to the database and only for specific purposes, the Watchlist is going to be available to the general public so that they can check out their prospective landlord or agent before signing on the dotted line.
This was something I pushed for on the consultancy group meeting, along with Shelter and a handful of others but were shouted down by the NLA and other landlord groups also in attendance.
So at least there is some light for London renters anyway.
But will it be kept up to date?
Both the Watchlist and the Database rely on information being inputted by local authority enforcement officers. It remains to be seen how fluidly this will work in practice as the project rolls out.
Anyone who has seen the poorly populated Ministry of Justice map of housing prosecutions might find it difficult to stay positive – but I for one am.
Overall
I am feeling positive.
I think the Watchlist is a great idea for tenants and landlords alike. Landlords will be able to check out letting agents as well, making due diligence a little easier.
However, the lack of progress on the Housing & Planning Act database and banning orders is deeply disappointing.
What are the rules for making sure that the names on the Watchlist are correct?
As someone with a common name I am nervous about lists that let people look up by name which could harm me if someone else with the same name were on the list.
I dont know the details Peter but I’ll make some calls and find out
HI Peter,
I have just spoken to my contact at the GLA, apparently the plan is to include the home address of the perpetrator. not the full address but the street name and postcode, which is information anyone can get from 192.com or the electoral roll for a couple of quid.
That will stop people thinking that Peter Jackson, decent landlord is the Peter Jackson subject to a prohibition notice.
7 London authorities will be trialling it over the coming months for a London wide roll out next year
One thing I find funny is some people make a big deal about the £9 billion in housing benefit that goes to private landlords (although a even greatern umber think almost all goes to private) yet whether it is tories or labour everyone does nothing about protecting landlords from the bad tenants which according to some not very well known r eport said tenant damage costs landlords £9 billion a year. Whiche given 2/3rds of landlords n the basic rate of tax including other income (ie no more than around 45k is considerable.
Sam landlords do have enormous protection from bad tenants. Its called ‘Due process’. If you dont like your tenant you can evict them and thanks to s21 you dont even have to get a reason for doing it. I think that’s adequate protection enough.
Getting a bad tenant is like a farmer getting foot and & mouth, its an unfortunate risk and there is no protection from risk in any human endeavour.
A landlord quite rightly runs checks on prospective tenants, the Watchlist is an attempt to allow tenants to do the same thing before signing on the dotted line. To my mind that simply levels the playing field.
If you want a risk free life as a landlord, buy a house but dont let it out.haha
The average time for “due process” is almost a year.
The saying “Justice delayed is justice denied” comes to mind.
From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636890/mortgage-landlord-possession-statistics-apr-jun-2017.pdf
Since April to June 2016, there has been a slight increase in the time taken
across all possession actions (however all are stable fluctuations around
historic levels; 11 weeks (orders), 36 weeks (warrants) and 43
weeks (repossessions)
Peter I hear ya and I hear Sam too and I agree, possession times are far too long, especially when a tenant owes £5k rent but it is what it is.
We can sit like grumpy old lads around a pint bemoaning the state of things but that doesnt change anything.
I’m self employed and whether as an enforcement officer, a trainer or consultant, all my clients are local authorities who take eon’s to pay for work invoiced. I did a days training for a London council on the 21st June and just got paid for it last week.
I am regularly in the position that I have £4k – £5k out in outstanding invoices and yet cant pay a £200 electric bill until my clients pay me. Yes I moan and create merry hell but thats my job.
My best mate is a professional photographer, he earns good money but he still suffers the same problem with money owed from clients. we sit over a curry and pint ranting about the people who arent paying up.
Whats the alternative? a day job?????? not in this life,
Landlords need to build the parlous state of possession orders onto their business model and do what me and my mate Phil do, start eloquently ranting about the injustices, proceed, 3 pints in, to fascist ranting and fantasies about killing people and then, whack our cards down and go into overdraft on a jug of margaritas, only to regret it in the morning
The difference between letting property and most other businesses is that in other businesses if a client does not pay you you can stop doing business with them, but that is illegal for landlords. You have to let the tenant stay in the property racking up further debt which will probably never be repaid, whilst probably still having to pay a mortgage.
The idea that landlords have “enormous protection” from bad tenants through the law is a joke. It is tenants who have the protection. I accept that that is needed to protect good tenants from bad landlords, but it also protects bad tenants from good landlords.
I protect myself my having a large reserve and by employing good letting agents to vet tenants.
That is very true. But the ‘advantage landlords’ v. ‘advantage tenants’ arguments depend on how you look at it.
For example, an ‘advantage landlords’ point is that a tenant can live in a property for 25 years and then get evicted for rent arrears and have nothing, whereas at the end of that 25 years the landlord could have paid off his mortgage, due to the tenants’ payments and have an asset which has increased in value many times. Which (from the tenant’s point of view) is a sort of unfairness.
I think on balance the advantages are more with landlords but short term if a bad tenant is allowed in, I agree there are very big problems for landlords and the length of time it takes to evict a non paying tenant is a scandal.
I agree with Tessa there Peter and would add that the legislative protection of tenants is there in response to a century of problems created by rogue and slum landlords, not normal landlrods such as yourself.
This is unfortunate but that is why there are those protections in place, including the ombudsman registration of all landlords proposed by the government at this week’s Tory conference, its in response to current social problems, just as rent control has been on the numerous occasions during the past 100 years that it has been ushered in.
Providing homes for people is not the same business model as selling office furniture and for good reasons. People have the choice whether or not to become landlords and the problems of which you speak are part of that landscape, just the same as I wrote above for me as a self employed, zero hours contractor.
Its what I choose to do. The perils for me are people not paying me on time but thats the job. I could always go back on PAYE but I’d rather style it out. I’m unemployable these days anyway with my attitude :)
Looks like the Govt is on the case re possession claims as there is a proposal to set up a Housing Court with specialist judges so things don’t take so long. See the post here https://landlordlawblog.co.uk/2017/10/03/feedback-department-communities-local-government-housing-law-changes/
Mind you, it’s not going to happen for a while, if at all ….
The landlords I pity are the non london ones. What I mean by this is the expense of evicting and damage could be the same as London but with these costs it takes longer to make up the funds lost.
I think its swings and roundabouts though Sam. There are so many county court closures and in London the demand is so heavy that dates are getting set right back so the arrears go up faster than outside of London.
Bow county court closed a few months back and the cases all transferred to Clerkenwell & Shoreditch but they couldnt cope with the overspill, so now all the Bow cases are heard in a designated room in Stratford Magistrates court.
Lambeth has already gone and Woolwich is about to, leaving only Bromley and Croydon covering several square miles of south London. In North London its pretty much Edmonton.
My chief court used to be Bromley and on many days I’ve been there and its been standing room only, with advocates interviewing their clients on the stairs. None of this helps speed up possession times.