Selective Licensing of Landlords

[mattylad]

Good point.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by mani

like there will be a good landlord register there should be a bad tenant register that a 3rd party can verify that the tenant has indeed been a bad tenant.

Spot on Mani, if not its discrimination against the good landlords.

[cashman]

Information that came my way today tells me "Local Conservatives" voted AGAINST this measure, now to me it seems a long overdue step in right direction, as the local tory councillors give our site a wide berth seemingly, i wonder why our local arse lickers have not commented on if they think this should be brought in????

[cashman]

Originally Posted by cashman

Information that came my way today tells me "Local Conservatives" voted AGAINST this measure, now to me it seems a long overdue step in right direction, as the local tory councillors give our site a wide berth seemingly, i wonder why our local arse lickers have not commented on if they think this should be brought in????

Funny the've all bin online since i posted this.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

Information that came my way today tells me "Local Conservatives" voted AGAINST this measure, now to me it seems a long overdue step in right direction, as the local tory councillors give our site a wide berth seemingly, i wonder why our local arse lickers have not commented on if they think this should be brought in????

One high profile Tory councillor's occupation is always given in the press as businessman, and 'landlord'.

[Mancie]

Long overdue..local councils and housing associations have been under these rules for years, there is no reason why private Landlords should not be governed by the same rules.
No surprise the tories opposed these regulations, after all they are the ones that promoted private landlords by forcing councils to sell the stock off at marked down prices.. most of that housing stock was sold to non English "property development companies"..but they where never developed.. just rented out.

[g jones]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

I don't know, affordable housing is apparently difficult to come by as it is in UK so we're led to believe, won't this just inflame the problem ? If the Landlords/property leasers have to pay 500 Quid every five years (for renewal, or am I reading it wrong ?) It's not hard to guess where they'll be getting their money back from is it !

Added to that because they're Council authorised this appears to be "Carte Blanche" for the underhanded ones to demand ridiculous rents as the people looking to rent have nowhere else to turn to for housing, as only Landlords with the required paperwork (from the Council) are available to prospective Tenants.

It appears to be a fly by night grab a quick "Buck" enterprise to me! All the safety aspects are good but who's paying & who's gaining from the checks will they be independents local firms or Council subsidiaries/sponsored ? I'm sorry but it seems as though the Council are trying to fill their Coffers via officialdom. Remember I'm an outsider looking in & that's how it looks from here.

I am not so sure. Rents will then be cheaper outside the red line where landlords have ample vacancies and no scheme to worry about.

With all the empties it is a very competitive market between private landlords. We might see stock consolidation with increased owner occupation sales within the red line.

[Mancie]

I don't know about any "red line" but I can tell you that most of the bought flats on the bottom of tower blocks in London are going for at least a thousand quid a month.. and they are rough.. manky central heating ..no carpets/floors.. just a flat.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by claytonender

A lot of tenants in private rented accommodation get all, or part of their rent paid by way of Housing Benefit and as I said before so long as thy are getting their rent the landlords are not bothered about the state their houses are in. .

This is what I don't understand (Sorry if I seem thick). The cost of the permit is going to be passed on to the tenants through rent increases, and if the Rents are being paid by Housing benefit (either Central Govt. or Local monies) all this means is more public (tax payer) money going into the landlords pockets
Someone please explain where i am going wrong, thanks

[Mancie]

All this should have been sorted out a long time ago..if you rent anything then both parties have an agreement..and just heard yesterday that some councils now have the power to build more houses from the income they get from sales..somethingT Thacther and "her boys" did not allow.

[andrewb]

If someone wanted to rent out just one house, they'll pay £500, which will be passed on to the person paying rent. If someone is renting 100 houses, they'll pay £500.

Is this correct?

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by g jones

I am not so sure. Rents will then be cheaper outside the red line where landlords have ample vacancies and no scheme to worry about.

With all the empties it is a very competitive market between private landlords. We might see stock consolidation with increased sales to owner occupation within the red line.

I can't see that being the case. They are being forced into a scheme which will cost money from the off, added to that all the obligatory tests & certificates they will have to present & renew on a regular basis will continually be pulling Money from the Landlords pocket, he of course isn't going to swallow these costs up himself he'll sure as hell pass them on to the Tenant.

Now if the Tenant is on Social it isn't going to bother them as whatever increase crops up, the benefits system will cover it. (See SJ's post #25, I see exactly where he's coming from) Yet those unfortunate enough who work hard & pay their own way are going to struggle as the costs to them rise. So they will be looking elsewhere for cheaper housing & probably move away from the area, returning you back to square one ! empty Accommodation which you are trying to avoid. So it appears that this proposed legislation will be self defeating.

I can understand the thinking & yes it is a good idea to make sure that those living in these buildings have good & safe standards in their dwellings. But those responsible for the implementation should also at the same time put forward strict & stringent rules to ensure the "Rental" costs aren't going to be used & abused, a cap perhaps ? or as with Army Accommodation, dependant on size, bedrooms & amenities pay bands be used. That way across the board the playing field would be even.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

I can't see that being the case. They are being forced into a scheme which will cost money from the off, added to that all the obligatory tests & certificates they will have to present & renew on a regular basis will continually be pulling Money from the Landlords pocket, he of course isn't going to swallow these costs up himself he'll sure as hell pass them on to the Tenant.

Now if the Tenant is on Social it isn't going to bother them as whatever increase crops up, the benefits system will cover it. (See SJ's post #25, I see exactly where he's coming from) Yet those unfortunate enough who work hard & pay their own way are going to struggle as the costs to them rise. So they will be looking elsewhere for cheaper housing & probably move away from the area, returning you back to square one ! empty Accommodation which you are trying to avoid. So it appears that this proposed legislation will be self defeating.

I can understand the thinking & yes it is a good idea to make sure that those living in these buildings have good & safe standards in their dwellings. But those responsible for the implementation should also at the same time put forward strict & stringent rules to ensure the "Rental" costs aren't going to be used & abused, a cap perhaps ? or as with Army Accommodation, dependant on size, bedrooms & amenities pay bands be used. That way across the board the playing field would be even.

You make a good point. I don't know if the council have passed it yet, but they were throwing around the idea of taking empty property council tax from 50% to 100%. Doubling the council tax on empty properties, presumably to encourage landlords to get their houses occupied. However I'm sure it doesn't make very much sense for landlords to ever have their homes empty, so I imagine they're always trying to fill them! It's going to cost them double to have it empty, and this cost too is going to be passed on to the tenant.

I can see a situation where Hyndburn suddenly has much higher rents, just at a time when many people are having to rent due to economic circumstances, struggling to get mortgages etc.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by andrewb

You make a good point. I don't know if the council have passed it yet, but they were throwing around the idea of taking empty property council tax from 50% to 100%. Doubling the council tax on empty properties, presumably to encourage landlords to get their houses occupied. However I'm sure it doesn't make very much sense for landlords to ever have their homes empty, so I imagine they're always trying to fill them! It's going to cost them double to have it empty, and this cost too is going to be passed on to the tenant.

I can see a situation where Hyndburn suddenly has much higher rents, just at a time when many people are having to rent due to economic circumstances, struggling to get mortgages etc.

OK , heres my solution to all the empty houses , modern day families DO NOT want to live in 2 up 2 downs no matter how many improvements , they want more room/space , so whats the problem with the council allowing the expansion of two adjacent teracced houses being knocked thru to provide a decent modern day living space in redevelopment areas , cuts down on parking problems , creates an area density similar or less than new greenfield estates , Theres no necessity for Council tax to be doubled since the new occupants are using only half of the council ammenities and you have vibrant areas with families near to the down town business area ...... just an idea

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by andrewb

If someone wanted to rent out just one house, they'll pay £500, which will be passed on to the person paying rent. If someone is renting 100 houses, they'll pay £500.

Is this correct?

They will pay £500 per property that they rent out - provided the property is in the designated Selective Licensing Area.