March saw the publication of the latest government guide for local authorities on dealing effectively with rogue landlords, compiled from common best practice being used by different councils
Having spent the last 18 months working in my own council’s rogue landlord enforcement team I thought I would give it a read and pot it down for Landlord Law Blog readers who can’t be bothered to read it in full.
Working smarter
The council’s who were approached to contribute their stories and strategies are those who haven’t been dragged into the Newham hurricane.
Frankly, few local authorities have the resources to fund a 120 person enforcement team these days, so an approach of working smarter has informed the actions of my colleagues up and down the land.
Regular critics of Newham style licensing fail to understand that the income generated can only be used to run the licensing scheme. Paying for enforcement activities still has to come out of the general fund and at a time of swingeing cuts, its pretty much a non-starter for most councils.
If the legislation allowed for local authorities to use money made from licensing to enforce against those who don’t play ball the entire country would be one giant Newham, trust me!.
What the guide covers
The new guide roughly concentrates on;
- Definitions of bad landlords
- Building up intelligence
- Tackling criminal behaviour
- Prosecution and deterrents.
There is also a handy annex listing local authority prosecution powers which could be of use to tenants rights groups or individuals hassling a slack, lazy or just understaffed council into take action on their behalf.
What Ben’s Council does
I have to say, hand on heart and with no little pride, that my team’s initiatives go way beyond most of what is in the guide, especially in the chapter entitled “Working with other agencies”, where they list Police, Fire Brigade and immigration enforcement.
All of which we do, but we also work with HMRC, utility companies, neighbouring boroughs and DWP fraud to name but a few. We share Intel and we go out on raids together.
The value of disrupting business for the rogues
The emphasis of the guide leans heavily on enforcement but ignores the value of disrupting business for the rogue landlord in the cross-hairs, which is to my mind a serious error in understanding how a successful team operates.
It isn’t just about the take down because it very rarely happens, but rogue landlords can be forced out of the area by bringing every team and sanction into play relentlessly until they just get the message that its easier to get into a different line of work, or move into another borough.
Other powers
The 29 or so local authority powers look good in an annex but in practice the procedures are so bureaucratic and open to appeals and challenges that in the majority of cases they just don’t work.
It also doesn’t mention ‘Works in Default’ that I have written about before. A very handy little tool for enforcement officers.
About raids
Paragraph 112 refers to ‘Visibility of raids’, which made me laugh out loud when it states;
“Where large groupings of council officers, police and immigration enforcement officers are present this will send a strong message to the community.”
I’ve done loads of these (one just yesterday where we found 17 people living in 4 rooms, no fire alarms or smoke detectors. No fire escape, bars at all the windows and dangerously hot wired electricity) and they are a mixed bag.
Often what prompts the raids are complaints from the community but when we all turn up with police and UKBA we often get attacked by the very community we are trying to protect.
Complaints from the Community
Any council officers reading the guide and thinking of forming a team take note….the public don’t see you as Robin Hood.
I wear my stab vest not to protect me from rogue landlords but from the various drug dealers and ne’er do wells who are annoyed that we are disrupting their business by bringing the police in.
The would-be rogue landlord team also need to be mindful of complaints that the community is being harassed by these multi agency actions, so I wonder about the value of ‘High profile raids’ in terms of the message it sends out. It’s a double edged sword.
Powers of entry
Also the very nature of big, multi-agency operations has been hampered by the introduction of a new Home Office code of practice on ‘Powers of Entry’ due in 6th April 2015 aimed at limiting the current practice of 8 or 10 council enforcement officers of varying stripes barrelling through the doors with police at 7am.
Which is a shame, not for any tactical reason but simply because it was fun.
However the code is actually a good thing for once and makes sense. Its not too restrictive. If the nature of the situation requires a dawn raid with numerous people then that is allowed as long as you can show why and keep a record.
Basically you have to do your Intel gathering beforehand and determine who and how many officers actually need to be in the premises at any given time. Common sense really.
Educating landlords
Finally there is a section in the guide on educating landlords, which obviously as a housing law trainer I’m wholly in favour of.
But the fact of the matter is that the worst landlords, the ones who the guide refers to as “Criminal landlords (who) have links to organised crime, gangmaster activity and human trafficking”, tend not to turn up on my training courses or Tessa’s workshops.
Education can help generally but its nothing to do with enforcement.
I don’t and never have counted clueless landlords ignorant of the law to be criminals or even rogues to be honest. An issue I have always had with Shelter’s campaign.
In short
Overall the DCLG publication is handy as a sort of ‘Dummies Guide’ or discussion piece to starting and running a rogue landlord enforcement team but any council seriously thinking of doing it would do well to delve a bit deeper in, maybe even bring in a consultant to iron out the kinks.
…………………………I am available for weddings, Bar Mitzvahs and other events at competitive rates.
Ben, once again as a landlord I find myself agreeing with you, sorry for destroying your “street cred” by saying so -:)
If by paying for a licence, I know the money would be used to stop people undercutting me that don’t keep to the rules, then I would reconsider what I thought about licensing of landlords.
(GasSafe licensed trades people often complain of the same.)
I believe you Ian. Really, I do.
“Hey, I’ve got this cool new mapping tool.”
“Great, can it show all the locations of reported anti-social behaviour?”
Tap, tap, tap.
“Awesome, look at all those dots!”
“Hey, now plug in the locations of all the private rented properties.”
Tap, tap, tap.
“Hmmm, notice how they’re sort of in the same general area as the anti-social behaviour?……”
“Wow! That’s amazing. This thorough analysis allows us to make the assumption that the slight correlation in the area we looked at proves a direct causal link between private landlords and anti social behaviour!”
“Hey, we should set up a licensing scheme!”
“Great idea. Which ones should we licence?”
“Well, why not extend it to the entire council area? That way we get more money to run it.”
“But don’t we have to police it too?”
“Nah, we don’t have the funds to do that, but a licensing scheme is self-financing and it looks like we’re doing something to tackle anti-social behaviour and bad landlords in one go without having to actually spend any money.”
“Oh, a bit like speed cameras then?”
“Exactly.”
I used to write for many different blogs and publications but now time is tight and I only write for Landlord Law Blog so I only enter debates with decent landlords who are seeking tpo know more and professionalise their business.
What I find is that most posters here dont conceive how bad it actually is at the bottom end where criminals ply their trade.
Forget percentages. Even 5% represents thousands of tenants.
The laws that enforcement officers were given to deal with poor property conditions in the PRS were designed for standard conditions but what we see in London is the PRS involved in money laundering and mortgage fraud by serious, organised criminal gangs. So the standard laws are woefully inadequate.
As I said above even the govt guide acknowledges this organised criminal element. The PRS in London has become the bootlegging of 1930s Chicago
Jamie, thats not what is going on
Yes it is.
I’ve sat in three different council meetings where the councils tried to convince me of their reasons for applying draconian, council-wide licensing schemes. Their ‘evidence’ was a complete and utter load of nonsense. Naturally they rubber stamped their own idea after the ‘consultation’….
I recently tried to license some properties in Margate, a scheme that has been running for a couple of years. What an absolute joke. We have to use the same form for each individual flat as an HMO application and provide the same level of info. We’re talking about single bed, purpose built flats. They want copies of almost every piece of paperwork we have, even the tenant references. The level of work involved is huge.
And what difference will it make on it’s own to the number of bad landlords? Absolutely None.
At least the Scottish licensing scheme is nationwide so I don’t have to tackle different schemes all with their own criteria. Of course the scheme there is useless at tackling bad landlords anyway.
There are a some bad landlords/properties, I agree. But council-wide licencing is absolutely NOT the right solution.
If tenants are well screened and checked before the contract is signed, landlords will not have problems and issues with drug, prostitution or bad behaviour
this is because tenants usually move after a time, and once they have trashed a rented house the other landlords can find out their bad history and either refuse them or ask for a bigger deposit
such as site is http://www.easy-background-check.com I use it and so far no problems
It is clear that LOTS of people are willing to live 8 to a room on bunk beds, so that they can collect the gold from the London streets. It is also clear that only criminal landlords provide such accommodation – as the law does not allow anyone else to do so.
As fast as Ben shuts down the criminal landlords, more criminals enter the market as they have no effective competition from “normal money grabbing landlords”.
As much as I am against legalization of drugs! I feel the same arguments coming….
What if all the SPACE standards were removed, while strictly enforcing all the fire safety and quality standards…..
Discuss….
(And don’t ask me to live or work in London, I will NOT put up with what people in London put up with whatever you pay me!)