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.

Private Housing Landlord Accreditation

 

I suggest all private housing landlords should be accredited and have to meet certain standards, have to be registered with the local council and all their properties can be vetted and registered. If this was a legal requirement then most reasonable landlords would be pleased to be recognised and those who object are probably the landlords who should be monitored or do not want to be looked at for some reason.

Why is this idea important?

 

I suggest all private housing landlords should be accredited and have to meet certain standards, have to be registered with the local council and all their properties can be vetted and registered. If this was a legal requirement then most reasonable landlords would be pleased to be recognised and those who object are probably the landlords who should be monitored or do not want to be looked at for some reason.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Repeal short-term letting bye law in Westminster

Residents of Westminter are prohibited from lettings their properties for less that 90 days by a planning bye law. This is an infrigement of the residents civil rights. What right have the council to control what a resident does with their property….this is wrong !!  Try and fix it please.

Why is this idea important?

Residents of Westminter are prohibited from lettings their properties for less that 90 days by a planning bye law. This is an infrigement of the residents civil rights. What right have the council to control what a resident does with their property….this is wrong !!  Try and fix it please.

Remove the requirement to change use of property from C3 to C4.

From April 2010, anyone with a house which they wished to let to more than 3 unrelated people, had to change their planning from C3 to C4. What a way to kill the buy to let housing market!! Personally, its made moving to Leeds a nightmare as i want to share with friends and i'm sure that the same issue occurs all over the country! As a landlady myself, i'm reluctant to let to families, because i lose my right to lend to more than three unrelate people!

Why is this idea important?

From April 2010, anyone with a house which they wished to let to more than 3 unrelated people, had to change their planning from C3 to C4. What a way to kill the buy to let housing market!! Personally, its made moving to Leeds a nightmare as i want to share with friends and i'm sure that the same issue occurs all over the country! As a landlady myself, i'm reluctant to let to families, because i lose my right to lend to more than three unrelate people!