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.

Tenancy deposit penalty

There is an automatic three times penalty if a landlord/agent fails to comply with the tenancy protection requirements under the Housing Act 2004. This applies where the Landlord has failed to protect the deposit and/or failed to give the prescribed information. We believe that the prescribed information requirements should be simplified anyway. A tenant can apply to Court for a penalty but if the case for a penalty is made out the Court must require the landlord to pay the penalty. There is no power at all to mitigate the penalty. Thus, the same penalty applies even for a mistake in the content of the prescribed information or an accidental failure to protect the deposit, as against the case where a landlord has wilfully flouted the scheme. This is grossly unfair. We have the example of the case where a landlord thought she had protected the deposit but because of a mistake on the part of the merchant company the fee was not deducted. This meant that the deposit was not protected. The landlord did not realise this until she had actually received the claim for the three times penalty. There should always be power to mitigate any penalty to meet individual circumstances. The Housing Act 2004 should be amended as to give the Court discretion to mitigate penalties according to the circumstances.

Why is this idea important?

There is an automatic three times penalty if a landlord/agent fails to comply with the tenancy protection requirements under the Housing Act 2004. This applies where the Landlord has failed to protect the deposit and/or failed to give the prescribed information. We believe that the prescribed information requirements should be simplified anyway. A tenant can apply to Court for a penalty but if the case for a penalty is made out the Court must require the landlord to pay the penalty. There is no power at all to mitigate the penalty. Thus, the same penalty applies even for a mistake in the content of the prescribed information or an accidental failure to protect the deposit, as against the case where a landlord has wilfully flouted the scheme. This is grossly unfair. We have the example of the case where a landlord thought she had protected the deposit but because of a mistake on the part of the merchant company the fee was not deducted. This meant that the deposit was not protected. The landlord did not realise this until she had actually received the claim for the three times penalty. There should always be power to mitigate any penalty to meet individual circumstances. The Housing Act 2004 should be amended as to give the Court discretion to mitigate penalties according to the circumstances.

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.