Although the majority of landlords are decent and do a good job, we all know that there is a substantial minority of bad landlords. Even some criminal landlords.
These cause misery and heartbreak to their tenants and blight the reputation of the good landlords. One of the objectives of the Renters Rights Bill is to attempt to eliminate them.
At the moment, the only way that tenants can claim against bad landlords is to bring proceedings in the County Court. Otherwise, they are bound by their fixed term and legally must continue paying rent until it ends.
If they want to
- end their tenancy, which they can do under the ‘unwinding’ provisions in the consumer legislation. Or
- claim compensation for the poor (or shocking) condition of their home
they need to bring proceedings in the courts. Something many tenants shy away from as
- They are unfamiliar with the procedure
- They can’t afford solicitors to do it for them, and
- They find the prospect intimidating, and
- Court proceedings can be expensive and take a long time
There is also the alternative of asking for help from their Local Authority. However, most Local Authorities do not have the staff to help the large number of tenants who need it.
So, although tenants do have rights, in most cases, they feel unable to enforce them.
How the Landlord Redress Scheme will help
At the moment, there is an imbalance. We have two redress schemes for tenants whose landlord uses a letting agent, and the Housing Ombudsman who helps tenants of mostly social housing landlords. But there is no scheme for private sector tenants of self managing landlords.
Bearing in mind that often the worst conditions are found with self-managing landlords, this is unfortunate.
It effectively leaves tenants of self-managing landlords with no redress at all, other than the court system, which, for the reasons given above, most tenants will not want to use.
However, Redress schemes are far less intimidating. Tenants can often speak to someone from the scheme, before making their application, to get guidance, and the service is relatively quick and inexpensive.
The scheme Ombudsman can award financial penalties but can also make an order that the landlord apologise to the tenant or that he carry out works to the property.
The Renters Rights Bill provides that the Ombudsman decision may be enforceable as if it were a court order, which will help tenants whose landlords refuse to comply with orders made.
More about the proposed redress scheme
Landlords will be required to be a member of a redress scheme before they can market the property and must remain a member for a specified period of time after they have ceased to be a landlord.
It is likely that regulations will provide that landlords failing to join a scheme will be committing an offence and/or that Local Authorities will be able to impose penalty charges of (probably) up to £7,000.
There will be a fee for being a member, and landlords fear that this may be higher than anticipated. At the moment, the Property Redress Scheme fee for letting agents starts at £160 pa, and the Property Ombudsman charges £262 per office.
It is anticipated that the current Housing Ombudsman (Richard Blakeway) will be appointed so there is parity between social and private sector housing. Plus, as the Ombudsman service is already in existence, it should be quicker than setting up an entirely new scheme.
And finally
A Landlord Redress scheme will give tenants of self-managing landlords the same right to use a redress scheme as is currently enjoyed by social tenants and tenants whose landlords use a letting agent.
It will allow tenants of substandard and rogue landlords to bring a complaint without having to go through the intimidating court process. It will also help tenants enforce their rights – for example, to keep a pet, to get repairs done to their property or to complain about unauthorised landlord access to their home.
Hopefully, it will help to eliminate the bad and rogue landlords and so create a more level playing field for the many good landlords.
It is something that is well overdue.
landlords who seriously intend to act outside of the law have always found ways to avoid being caught out.
As a landlord who tries to do his best for both myself and my tenants, redress schemes are not the answer.
When I’ve been on the other side of redress schemes they have always had their own agenda and it wasn’t to help the victim.
all this will do is add to the bureaucracy and put another nail in the coffin of the PRS.
Utter nonsense of an article
I agree.
I don’t have any issue with tenant’s having a straightforward redress process against bad landlords, but it needs to be a 2-way street where landlords have the same rights against bad tenants.
All your points (unfamiliar with the procedure, can’t afford solicitors, intimidating, long and expensive court process) equally apply to the majority of small private landlords. MCOL / CCJs are available but enforcing these are totally another matter.
On both sides enforcement has always been the biggest issue, and it’s still unclear to me if anything in this bill will genuinely address the issue.
I tend to think that ‘Rogue Landlords’ are the new Buzz Words these days!
There are about 200 rules & regs (as I understand it) for tenants and especially councils to use to catch rogue landlords – so why are these used much more instead of all the bleating from Tenant organisations et al.
Also of course there is Selective Licensing – another big sham if there ever was one – to supposedly catch rogue LLs, but in fact is just another Tax on LLs
The Renters Rights Bill is totally unnecessary – unless one is a socialist whence they will think it’s great to catch more LLs.
This is the biggest “Charter For Homelessness” that has ever been devised – so God Help the tenants it’s supposed to protect.
I’m selling up as 000s of other LLs are as well
Courts are always a backstop to resolving disputes. Resolution through mediation prior to a hearing is encouraged. Just because someone is not familiar with the process is not a reason to promote another scheme.
A scheme in the form proposed will be free for tenants to use. This encourages individuals to complain and there does not appear to be any penalty for vexatious complaints.
The system creates an imbalance of power and is completely one sided. If there is a redress scheme then both landlords and tenants should be able to use it.
The Housing Ombudsman is snowed under with complaints. It’s taking up to 12 months for them to make a determination. And it is only accessible after you have exhausted the Landlord’s complaints process.
It is unclear if PRS landlords will have to draw up a complaints process and much less clear if there is any threshold regarding seriousness of complaint which will be amenable to adjudication.
It is also unclear where the names of landlord who have a dispute will be named and if the determination will be made public.
It is objectionable that Landlord details might be published regarding their property ownership? It is unclear who will have access to the database and if it will be searchable by the public. Frankly, it will be a snoopers paradise.
Finally, to the point on enforcement of judgments there should be a rogue tenants database with details of undischarged debts (just like CCJ). As the RRB expects landlords to take far more credit risk and because the TFA limits deposits to 5 weeks it is vital that landlords have proper information to help inform their selection to inhabit their property.
I wish legal pundits would think more carefully about the implications of the proposals for landlords. Putting a positive spin on it doesn’t help and can be used by tenant groups and Govt alike to suggest landlords are on board with it.
The lack of landlord voice has allowed the landlord bashing to proliferate without much /any push back.
“Why we should welcome the Renters Rights Bill’s Landlord Redress Scheme”
Who is this “we” of which you speak?
Landlords recognise it for the tripe it is. Yet another big stick to bash decent landlords which the bad landlords will ignore with impunity that renters will ultimately pay for.
This article considers RRB in isolation and fails to appreciate the true extent of state interference into private contractual arrangements between landlords and tenants in the PRS in recent years.
The tsunami of regulation increases costs for landlords which are passed on to tenants via rent increases.. Many landlords are exiting the market which contracts PRS supply. The unintended effects have been disregarded.
The proposed legislation is inherently unfair. It bolsters tenants rights and provides no protections for landlords.
The Govt does not seem to take landlord concerns seriously yet they rush to address vociferous activist tenant lobby groups. This seems very short sighted.
The housing select committee requested the previous government to consider landlord taxation but nothing has been done in this area. There ought to be some breaks to encourage investment in the PRS.
Minister Pennycook says the legislation “simplifies” the PRS but this is blatantly untrue. To date we have regs on EICR, carbon monoxide meters, deposit protection schemes, tenant fees, EPC, implied terms on fitness for human habitation, rent repayment orders, banning orders, rogue landlord database etc. Don’t forget tax changes like mortgage interest relief, SDLT and making tax digital.
And now we are told s 21 is to be abolished; possession grounds are to be amended in favour of tenants with longer notice periods and more stringent criteria; no rent allowed in advance; rent increases only by s 13; new offence to use an incorrect ground for possession; a landlord database and a redress scheme. Is any of this really necessary?
The fines for breach are eye watering. Supposedly aimed at “bad landlords” – a sledgehammer to crack a nut!
Many of the measures rely on courts to function properly but the Govt wishes to plough ahead regardless knowing the courts will not be able to cope. This is unfair and tenant friendly. This has serious consequences for landlords; long periods without rent; costly legal proceedings to recover possession and lost rent; foreclosures by lenders; rent guarantee insurance may be insufficient; difficulty enforcing judgments.
Conspicuous by its absence are any measures to address tenant behaviour; eg rogue tenant database to help inform Landlord decision making on prospective tenants.
The redress scheme for PRS seems wholly unnecessary. No such scheme is available for long leaseholders against their freeholder landlords.
The social housing ombudsman is free to use once the tenant has exhausted the social landlord’s complaints policy. It is free to use and the determinations are published. Investigations can take up to a year before a determination is made.
This model seems inappropriate for the PRS. Private landlords won’t have a complaints scheme /procedure and disputes need to be resolved quicker than a year. If the service is free it may encourage tenants to make baseless complaints. There is no penalty for vexatious complaints. This could take up a lot of time for a private landlord. And if there is to be a redress scheme it should also entitle landlords to make complaints about tenants especially as landlord rights have been severely curtailed!
Just because a court process is unfamiliar to a tenant is not a reason to introduce a new scheme (which will also be unknown to them). Most court claims now require parties to mediate so why are those arrangements insufficient?
The landlord database is unsettling. Unclear if the database is publicly searchable but grossly unfair if it is. It is a snoopers charter and there is no need for documents relating to a private property to be publicly available.
There is very little to be enthusiastic about here.
And worrying that landlord lobby groups do not appear to have succeeded in obtaining landlord friendly concessions/measures.