Allow as many people as they want to share a dwelling without planning consent or license

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

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.

Remove building societies restrictions from renting a room/2nd room

Remove Building Society restrictions on renting a room and 2nd room in a house which are as follows:

a)  Apparantly one would have to involve a solicitor for 1st room if permitted to rent in the first place                                                                                                                                               

b) One wouldn't be allowed to live in the house if one was renting a second room as it is classified as a business. 

Due to restrictions some people rent a 2nd room covertly not because they want to avoid tax but because they could get into trouble with the building society.

However as the vast majority of people have interest only mortgages (I know this due to the fact I worked for a well known Mortgage Lender) they would be probably liable to very little tax in their now rent rooms business as you can offset the tax against any profits you reap.

ALTERNATIVELY

Alternatively due to the small amounts of tax involved in renting a 2nd room scrap the tax altogether and raise the threshhold.

Why is this idea important?

Remove Building Society restrictions on renting a room and 2nd room in a house which are as follows:

a)  Apparantly one would have to involve a solicitor for 1st room if permitted to rent in the first place                                                                                                                                               

b) One wouldn't be allowed to live in the house if one was renting a second room as it is classified as a business. 

Due to restrictions some people rent a 2nd room covertly not because they want to avoid tax but because they could get into trouble with the building society.

However as the vast majority of people have interest only mortgages (I know this due to the fact I worked for a well known Mortgage Lender) they would be probably liable to very little tax in their now rent rooms business as you can offset the tax against any profits you reap.

ALTERNATIVELY

Alternatively due to the small amounts of tax involved in renting a 2nd room scrap the tax altogether and raise the threshhold.

Abolish introductory and demoted tenancies

Introductory and demoted tenancies are two species of tenancies granted by local housing authorities to their tenants under the Housing Act 1996. They should be abolished in order to simplify the law and so make it easier to manage local authority housing stock.

Why is this idea important?

Introductory and demoted tenancies are two species of tenancies granted by local housing authorities to their tenants under the Housing Act 1996. They should be abolished in order to simplify the law and so make it easier to manage local authority housing stock.

Housing Court – quick action for residential tenants and landlords

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Why is this idea important?

Hello

Going through the Court system in this country to resolve housing tenant/landlord legal matters is painfully slow and financially damaging. I am a landlord and have been a tenant myself many times over many years. When, sadly, I have had non paying tenants it is financially painful to do anything about it.

In the USA they have what is called a Housing Court that just judges residential landlord and tenant cases. This system is quick and inexpensive.

In the UK, a tenant who does not pay rent has 2 months before legal action can be started against them. It can  then often take 2 months or more to get a court date. If the eviction action is successful the tenant can then expect 1 month to leave the property. Is the tenant does not leave the landlord has to return to court again to get them removed.

All this can cost the landlord huge sums of money and put them under severe financial strain – all because a legal contract has been broken – yet it is the landlord who pays.

Conversely a tenant with problems really has very little recourse to the law to resolve their issues as well.

I honestly believe that if rent is two weeks late without explanation, or landlords approval, then eviction should be quickly completed. Tenancy agreements are legaly binding contracts and breaking that contract should mean swift action – not 5 or 6 months free accomodation.

Housing Court – as in the USA –  would mean quick, and hence inexpensive, resolution of housing issues.

The Housing Court could also be a register of legal actions – with cases on file  – so rogue landlord's and tenant's names are recorded for others to see and check before they sign a tenancy agreement.

Thank you.

Martin Heseltine

Private Sector Tenants’ Rights: End 2 Month Notice Period

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Allow rental of hardware which uses software

Not many people know this but rental out any products that contain software to customers (e.g. cars, computers), is illegial:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 S18 – "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"

The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware.

Why is this idea important?

Not many people know this but rental out any products that contain software to customers (e.g. cars, computers), is illegial:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 S18 – "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"

The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware.

Repeal HMO Licensing

Please repeal HMO licensing requirements.

Councils are using these not only as a 'catch penny' to pay EHO wages, but also it seems to make unnecessary work for electricians and builders.

Why is this idea important?

Please repeal HMO licensing requirements.

Councils are using these not only as a 'catch penny' to pay EHO wages, but also it seems to make unnecessary work for electricians and builders.