Rogue Freeholders

If Rogue Freeholders commit criminal acts they should be arrested and charged. This would make them think twice about breaching peoples leases, extortion, invalid insurance or bordereaux insurance rip offs. Also issuing false (fraud) invoices and threatening people if they question anything or stand up to them.

Criminal and fraudulent acts that are committed with the knowledge that they will be protected if found out and exposed.
Currently it is evident that these people can do as they choose and are protected – Councils/Police/LVT etc etc… the bigger the Landlord the more protection they have.

Why is this idea important?

If Rogue Freeholders commit criminal acts they should be arrested and charged. This would make them think twice about breaching peoples leases, extortion, invalid insurance or bordereaux insurance rip offs. Also issuing false (fraud) invoices and threatening people if they question anything or stand up to them.

Criminal and fraudulent acts that are committed with the knowledge that they will be protected if found out and exposed.
Currently it is evident that these people can do as they choose and are protected – Councils/Police/LVT etc etc… the bigger the Landlord the more protection they have.

Tenant Blacklist

I have been speaking to several local estate agents and we believe there is a need for a website to be available to Landlords to check whether the tenant they are considering has been blacklisted or in any dispute with previous landlords. We understand that some landlords who hold grudges would try to abuse this , this is why the information that is posted has to be backed up with attached copies of banl statements and legal documents or preceedings. Also the landlord will be subject to terms and conditions if they put fraudulent information on they will be liable to legal action from said tenant. I believe this is vital as I personaly have been a victim of tenant fraud on several occasions where they lie to credit agencies or they get round the checks. I am currently involved in various legal battles with different reference agencies because of this and as a coallition supporter and tax payer this is causing me lots of heartache. If the site is managed properly and checked regularly by the OEA this would be a great idea. It could also open the door to possible funding from rich landlords who would donate money to the coallition fir their help in this matter.

Why is this idea important?

I have been speaking to several local estate agents and we believe there is a need for a website to be available to Landlords to check whether the tenant they are considering has been blacklisted or in any dispute with previous landlords. We understand that some landlords who hold grudges would try to abuse this , this is why the information that is posted has to be backed up with attached copies of banl statements and legal documents or preceedings. Also the landlord will be subject to terms and conditions if they put fraudulent information on they will be liable to legal action from said tenant. I believe this is vital as I personaly have been a victim of tenant fraud on several occasions where they lie to credit agencies or they get round the checks. I am currently involved in various legal battles with different reference agencies because of this and as a coallition supporter and tax payer this is causing me lots of heartache. If the site is managed properly and checked regularly by the OEA this would be a great idea. It could also open the door to possible funding from rich landlords who would donate money to the coallition fir their help in this matter.

Change Laws Concerning Multiple Occupancy.

Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.

I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Under current law, three of more unrelated people living in a house counts as multiple occupancy, requiring the property owner to fit all manor of expensive modifications to the building. However, a couple (who do not even need to be married) and a third lodger would not be subject to the same laws.

I propose that either the requirements for multiple occupancy be changed, or any property home to three or more adults be subject to the same regulations.

Law of Distraint should be amended.

 

 

The law of Distraint in commercial properties allows the landlord to send in bailiffs to remove assets of the company without any prior notice to the tenant.  No court order or notification is needed and all costs are passed onto the tenants.  This law effectively ensures that the landlord can immediately close down a trading enterprise for any amount of arrears and at any time.  This is fine when a tenant is deliberately trying to withhold rent from the landlord but in cases where companies are genuinely suffering as is happening in the current climate and are trying to keep their companies alive, this law basically allows landlords to harass tenants into borrowing from family, selling personal assets and other methods to keep their companies alive.

 

The law should be amended so that landlords have to give due warning before sending in bailiffs and also tenants should be given time to pay back arrears without damaging the company or their personal assets.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

The law of Distraint in commercial properties allows the landlord to send in bailiffs to remove assets of the company without any prior notice to the tenant.  No court order or notification is needed and all costs are passed onto the tenants.  This law effectively ensures that the landlord can immediately close down a trading enterprise for any amount of arrears and at any time.  This is fine when a tenant is deliberately trying to withhold rent from the landlord but in cases where companies are genuinely suffering as is happening in the current climate and are trying to keep their companies alive, this law basically allows landlords to harass tenants into borrowing from family, selling personal assets and other methods to keep their companies alive.

 

The law should be amended so that landlords have to give due warning before sending in bailiffs and also tenants should be given time to pay back arrears without damaging the company or their personal assets.

Land Tax

First of all I would like to thank Nick Clegg for this opportunity to have some useful input directly into government policy. My personal circumstances are that my current landlord has given me 60 days notice to leave my private let (via a letting agent) house because he needs to sell in order to repay certain debts he has acquired in the current economic climate.

The area I live in there simply isn’t any housing available to let privately, and those that are coming onto the market are well above my finical means. I earn too much for the local council to help me. I need to be homeless for a minimum of 30 days before the council can offer any help.

There are plenty of empty houses in the area I drive past dozens on my way to work so who knows how many more there are in the side roads. These are of course investment properties whereby the owners are waiting for the property market to recover before they restore, develop, or just redecorate to sell on for a profit.

This is a situation that simply does not exist in Germany. The German government charges a ‘Land Tax’ on all property. With residential properties the residents pay the land tax as part of their council tax.

Often in some city areas the land tax is higher that the council tax thus encouraging property owners to have tenants occupying their properties as much as possible.

Why is this idea important?

First of all I would like to thank Nick Clegg for this opportunity to have some useful input directly into government policy. My personal circumstances are that my current landlord has given me 60 days notice to leave my private let (via a letting agent) house because he needs to sell in order to repay certain debts he has acquired in the current economic climate.

The area I live in there simply isn’t any housing available to let privately, and those that are coming onto the market are well above my finical means. I earn too much for the local council to help me. I need to be homeless for a minimum of 30 days before the council can offer any help.

There are plenty of empty houses in the area I drive past dozens on my way to work so who knows how many more there are in the side roads. These are of course investment properties whereby the owners are waiting for the property market to recover before they restore, develop, or just redecorate to sell on for a profit.

This is a situation that simply does not exist in Germany. The German government charges a ‘Land Tax’ on all property. With residential properties the residents pay the land tax as part of their council tax.

Often in some city areas the land tax is higher that the council tax thus encouraging property owners to have tenants occupying their properties as much as possible.

Amend Envoirmental Protection Act 1990, Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 & Noise Act 1996 – Landlord is responsible

Social responsibility goes hand in hand with Civil Liberties and in England & Wales today a landlord can fill a property with tenants without any consideration to the suitability of the tenant to the surrounding area and community.

It is reasonable to assume that our neighbours have the right to quiet enjoyment of their home and we are obliged to consider the impact of our actions on that right.

Under current legislation tenants who persist in anti-social behaviour including noise pollution can be reprimanded and removed from a property; there is currently no penalty to the landlord.  This results in landlord repeatedly allowing unsuitable tenants to live at a property equating to years of dominance and abuse to private individuals without recourse.

An amendment to the Acts to include a fine to the landlord as well as removal of the tenant will incentivise the Landlord to become a responsible lessor and ensures the civil liberty of quiet enjoyment in the home.

This is not anti-business but pro-community change requirement to the legislation.

Something similar is already in place in Scotland.

Why is this idea important?

Social responsibility goes hand in hand with Civil Liberties and in England & Wales today a landlord can fill a property with tenants without any consideration to the suitability of the tenant to the surrounding area and community.

It is reasonable to assume that our neighbours have the right to quiet enjoyment of their home and we are obliged to consider the impact of our actions on that right.

Under current legislation tenants who persist in anti-social behaviour including noise pollution can be reprimanded and removed from a property; there is currently no penalty to the landlord.  This results in landlord repeatedly allowing unsuitable tenants to live at a property equating to years of dominance and abuse to private individuals without recourse.

An amendment to the Acts to include a fine to the landlord as well as removal of the tenant will incentivise the Landlord to become a responsible lessor and ensures the civil liberty of quiet enjoyment in the home.

This is not anti-business but pro-community change requirement to the legislation.

Something similar is already in place in Scotland.

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in and not for milking a whole generation who can not get on the property market due to being priced out because of BTL pushing up prices 280% in a few short years..

.Unless you register as a company and fees should be charged to keep cowboys out you should only ever have at the most two houses and then the extra should be disposed of in three years to cover probate.

This country is full of amateur landlords who to put it mildly are greedy money worshipping fools.

.Houses should be for living in…..not for ripping off people..

Why is this idea important?

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in and not for milking a whole generation who can not get on the property market due to being priced out because of BTL pushing up prices 280% in a few short years..

.Unless you register as a company and fees should be charged to keep cowboys out you should only ever have at the most two houses and then the extra should be disposed of in three years to cover probate.

This country is full of amateur landlords who to put it mildly are greedy money worshipping fools.

.Houses should be for living in…..not for ripping off people..

Abolish the regulation that prevents councils paying Housing Benefit directly to private landlords

The last Government prevented council paying housing benefits directly to private landlords even if the tenant wanted that. The result is that many landlords are not getting the rent because some tenants are dishonest or just unable to handle money correctly. Worse still, the benefits have to be paid into a bank account and are then snatched by the greedy banks claiming "charges" and "arrears."

This regulation was supposed to be applied to housing associations and councils as well, but they rebelled fearing massive extra arrears and costs.

It is not only landlords that suffer but also tenants who are evicted for arrears. Let the tenants choose if they want to have benefits paid directly to landlords. It gives most of them peace of mind.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The last Government prevented council paying housing benefits directly to private landlords even if the tenant wanted that. The result is that many landlords are not getting the rent because some tenants are dishonest or just unable to handle money correctly. Worse still, the benefits have to be paid into a bank account and are then snatched by the greedy banks claiming "charges" and "arrears."

This regulation was supposed to be applied to housing associations and councils as well, but they rebelled fearing massive extra arrears and costs.

It is not only landlords that suffer but also tenants who are evicted for arrears. Let the tenants choose if they want to have benefits paid directly to landlords. It gives most of them peace of mind.

 

 

Maintenance of Common Areas in Blocks of Flats

Landlords should have more power to compel tenants to maintain their properties (and vice versa) – particularly for common areas in blocks of flats. The law in this area is weak and ought to be strengthened.

Why is this idea important?

Landlords should have more power to compel tenants to maintain their properties (and vice versa) – particularly for common areas in blocks of flats. The law in this area is weak and ought to be strengthened.

Bring the Housing Benefit budget under control

The Housing Benefit budget has spiralled out of control since the 1988 Housing Act prevented a legally-enforceable rent being set by tribunal.The effect has been for Housing Benefit to drive up the cost of rent for everyone,and to transfer huge sums of taxpayers money into the pockets of landlords as a hidden subsidy,raising the realisable value of property and making all forms of housing more expensive.

Recent half-baked attempts to address the Housing Benefit issue have focussed upon squeezing the tenant on benefits…the one person least able to influence the cost of housing….by imposing caps on how much benefit is paid,regardless of what the rents actuall are.

The only solution,if we are to get the budget under control,is to have legally enforceable rent levels agreed at tribunal,as was the case before 1988,enabling the Government to budget effectivel and in the long term,for Housing Benefit.

Why is this idea important?

The Housing Benefit budget has spiralled out of control since the 1988 Housing Act prevented a legally-enforceable rent being set by tribunal.The effect has been for Housing Benefit to drive up the cost of rent for everyone,and to transfer huge sums of taxpayers money into the pockets of landlords as a hidden subsidy,raising the realisable value of property and making all forms of housing more expensive.

Recent half-baked attempts to address the Housing Benefit issue have focussed upon squeezing the tenant on benefits…the one person least able to influence the cost of housing….by imposing caps on how much benefit is paid,regardless of what the rents actuall are.

The only solution,if we are to get the budget under control,is to have legally enforceable rent levels agreed at tribunal,as was the case before 1988,enabling the Government to budget effectivel and in the long term,for Housing Benefit.

Make it easier to get rid of bad tenants

The laws in this country make it incredibly difficult and expensive to get rid of tenants who won't pay or trash a landlord's property.  Whilst tenants should, of course, be protected the current laws are far too restrictive and need to be modified to be fairer to landlords.

Why is this idea important?

The laws in this country make it incredibly difficult and expensive to get rid of tenants who won't pay or trash a landlord's property.  Whilst tenants should, of course, be protected the current laws are far too restrictive and need to be modified to be fairer to landlords.

Classification of multi-tenant HMO property

Councils are being asked to poke their noses into too many peoples private lives.

If I live in a townhouse with my girlfriend and her baby twins, and we have a lodger, then the house must be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person.

Crazy. Legislation affecting 'renting' has become unpleasant – it has a begrudging feel. 

If I swapped one of the twins for an au pair, then the house must still be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person…  

Regulation in the private property rental sector has gone berserk.  Its badly targeted, new anti-slum 'HMO' council officers are popping up with hundreds of different types of implementation, charging hundreds of quid for admin, sending threatening letters and waving around £20,000 fines.

Why is this idea important?

Councils are being asked to poke their noses into too many peoples private lives.

If I live in a townhouse with my girlfriend and her baby twins, and we have a lodger, then the house must be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person.

Crazy. Legislation affecting 'renting' has become unpleasant – it has a begrudging feel. 

If I swapped one of the twins for an au pair, then the house must still be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person…  

Regulation in the private property rental sector has gone berserk.  Its badly targeted, new anti-slum 'HMO' council officers are popping up with hundreds of different types of implementation, charging hundreds of quid for admin, sending threatening letters and waving around £20,000 fines.

Reform business rates to prevent landlords of commercial properties allowing shops to lie vacant.

Commercial landlords need an incentive to ensure it's very expensive to allow shops and other retail premises to lie empty.

There are many people who are would like to use these premises for a start up business, but the cost is prohibitive.

Landlord should be charged five times the usual rateable value on commercial premises, if they lie empty for three months or over. Then ten times rateable value for six months, or over.

This would ensure landlords charged rents and deposits at a far more reasonable price, that would encourage entrepreneurs or even existing businesses to make use of these shops that are often left to rot on our high streets.

Why is this idea important?

Commercial landlords need an incentive to ensure it's very expensive to allow shops and other retail premises to lie empty.

There are many people who are would like to use these premises for a start up business, but the cost is prohibitive.

Landlord should be charged five times the usual rateable value on commercial premises, if they lie empty for three months or over. Then ten times rateable value for six months, or over.

This would ensure landlords charged rents and deposits at a far more reasonable price, that would encourage entrepreneurs or even existing businesses to make use of these shops that are often left to rot on our high streets.

Reduce exempt periods for CGT on (rental) properties from PPR claims

Anyone selling a house can avoid 3 years' CGT just by claiming that house as their PPR (Principal Private Residence) for a very short period. So a buy-to-let landlord who is mobile, or has suitable family members to help – can juggle several properties and by judicious moving-in and moving-out can virtually avoid CGT completely. I rent, and it is commonplace to see landlords moving in for a month or two between rentals to activate this over-generous allowance (as well as maybe use the empty space).

My suggestion is to remove it completely – provide an incentive to sell promptly and ensure properties remain occupied as much as possible. If this is too strong, reduce the exemption to, say, a year, and also specify an actual period which counts at all – apparently there is no defined minimum – perhaps 6 months?

Why is this idea important?

Anyone selling a house can avoid 3 years' CGT just by claiming that house as their PPR (Principal Private Residence) for a very short period. So a buy-to-let landlord who is mobile, or has suitable family members to help – can juggle several properties and by judicious moving-in and moving-out can virtually avoid CGT completely. I rent, and it is commonplace to see landlords moving in for a month or two between rentals to activate this over-generous allowance (as well as maybe use the empty space).

My suggestion is to remove it completely – provide an incentive to sell promptly and ensure properties remain occupied as much as possible. If this is too strong, reduce the exemption to, say, a year, and also specify an actual period which counts at all – apparently there is no defined minimum – perhaps 6 months?

Housing benefit should be paid direct to landlord not claimant

Housing benefit is currently paid to the claimant in lump sumps leaving the claimant to pay the landlord. Where payment is not made by the claimant despite receipt of the benefit or where the claimant fails to claim the housing benefit, the landlord is put to the unnecessary expense of court eviction which seems unfair given the Government money involved.

 The old system of paying the landlord directly appears to be preferred by both landlords and those working in the housing benefits office.

My idea would be that housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord not the claimant.

Why is this idea important?

Housing benefit is currently paid to the claimant in lump sumps leaving the claimant to pay the landlord. Where payment is not made by the claimant despite receipt of the benefit or where the claimant fails to claim the housing benefit, the landlord is put to the unnecessary expense of court eviction which seems unfair given the Government money involved.

 The old system of paying the landlord directly appears to be preferred by both landlords and those working in the housing benefits office.

My idea would be that housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord not the claimant.