The ArgusLabour announce proposals for private landlord licensing scheme in Brighton and Hove (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Labour announce proposals for private landlord licensing scheme in Brighton and Hove

A Labour-run council in Brighton and Hove would seek to launch a new licensing scheme to crack down on rogue landlords.

Labour in Brighton and Hove have unveiled plans to licence private sector landlords in a move they say will “strengthen tenants’ rights” and “root out unscrupulous landlords”.

The licensing system, which has been launched in a small number of other local authorities across the country, would see landlords pay a “small” fee for a five year licence to rent out properties.

Opposition councillors questioned the effectiveness of the scheme pointing to trials elsewhere in the country which had found the scheme to be “costly”, “ineffective” and “open to legal challenge”.

Labour’s housing spokeswoman Chaun Wilson said that landlords would have to demonstrate their ability to maintain their property to “pre-agreed standards” to the council before being granted a licence.

The council would have the power to fine landlords who fail to register with the scheme and recover any rents or housing benefits paid while a property was not licensed.

The party say they want to build on the success of the current HMO licensing scheme in the city and the rental licensing scheme in areas such as Newham in London where the council has successfully taken action against more than 100 landlords since February 2013.

The city has one of the highest proportion of renters in the country with almost three in ten of the city’s private housing stock on the rental market.

A recent HSBC report, showed that the city has the highest yields for buy-to-let investors in the country.

Labour have said the plans would go out to public consultation should they win the 2015 election.

Councillor Wilson said: ‘With the largest private rented sector in England outside London, it is only right we look at measures to strengthen tenants rights and protect them from poor quality housing.

“Building on the proposals previously announced by Ed Miliband this would bring much needed stability and security to those living in the private rented sector and again demonstrates the positive difference electing a Labour Government in 2015 would bring to people living in Brighton and Hove."

Conservative housing spokesman Garry Peltzer Dunn said the jury was very much still out on universal licensing in the private rented sector.

He said: “Both Manchester and Milton Keynes carried out trials recently but concluded that it was costly and ineffective at tackling rogue landlords and could also be open to legal challenge.

“Where it has been introduced in the London Borough of Newham the scheme is very expensive to run and does not break even despite landlords being charged £500 for a license.

“We all want to see the small minority of rogue landlords brought to book but there is a real danger that the cost and additional red tape will simply drive good landlords away.”

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:23am Wed 2 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

Good idea, can they also incorporate agreement around behaviour of tenants and therefore give neighbours some rights. the current system of complaining to the Council takes so long it becomes unuseable.
Good idea, can they also incorporate agreement around behaviour of tenants and therefore give neighbours some rights. the current system of complaining to the Council takes so long it becomes unuseable. NickBrt
  • Score: 39

11:25am Wed 2 Jul 14

s&k says...

A step in the right direction to control/stop party houses, benefit fraud, excessive rent, tenant exploitation.
A step in the right direction to control/stop party houses, benefit fraud, excessive rent, tenant exploitation. s&k
  • Score: 28

11:30am Wed 2 Jul 14

RottingdeanRant says...

The council already have the necessary powers to ensure tenanted properties are properly maintained, they just rarely use them. So a new scheme will just bring in more money, be followed by the law abiding LL and ignored by the rogues!
The council already have the necessary powers to ensure tenanted properties are properly maintained, they just rarely use them. So a new scheme will just bring in more money, be followed by the law abiding LL and ignored by the rogues! RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 26

11:35am Wed 2 Jul 14

Jetsamandflotsam says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
The council already have the necessary powers to ensure tenanted properties are properly maintained, they just rarely use them. So a new scheme will just bring in more money, be followed by the law abiding LL and ignored by the rogues!
And increase the rent as the landlord will undoubtedly pass on the cost
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: The council already have the necessary powers to ensure tenanted properties are properly maintained, they just rarely use them. So a new scheme will just bring in more money, be followed by the law abiding LL and ignored by the rogues![/p][/quote]And increase the rent as the landlord will undoubtedly pass on the cost Jetsamandflotsam
  • Score: 17

11:50am Wed 2 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.
I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash. Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

12:35pm Wed 2 Jul 14

kerryfee says...

Why when the council is having to cut back on service are they proposing to set up a new department to deal with Landlords. It will not be self financing and could end up costing them money in legal fees.
Why not concentrate on providing a good service in all other areas they are responsible for ,before embarking on new schemes.
Why when the council is having to cut back on service are they proposing to set up a new department to deal with Landlords. It will not be self financing and could end up costing them money in legal fees. Why not concentrate on providing a good service in all other areas they are responsible for ,before embarking on new schemes. kerryfee
  • Score: 7

1:33pm Wed 2 Jul 14

AngelicDevil says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.
Your LL friends should know that protecting a deposit is a LEGAL requirement and by not protecting it they are leaving themselves open to be taken to court for up to 3 times the deposit amount by a savvy tenant!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.[/p][/quote]Your LL friends should know that protecting a deposit is a LEGAL requirement and by not protecting it they are leaving themselves open to be taken to court for up to 3 times the deposit amount by a savvy tenant! AngelicDevil
  • Score: 8

1:38pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

AngelicDevil wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.
Your LL friends should know that protecting a deposit is a LEGAL requirement and by not protecting it they are leaving themselves open to be taken to court for up to 3 times the deposit amount by a savvy tenant!
Plenty of tenants are happy not to use it as it saves them money as well. It was a pointless piece of legislation.
[quote][p][bold]AngelicDevil[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.[/p][/quote]Your LL friends should know that protecting a deposit is a LEGAL requirement and by not protecting it they are leaving themselves open to be taken to court for up to 3 times the deposit amount by a savvy tenant![/p][/quote]Plenty of tenants are happy not to use it as it saves them money as well. It was a pointless piece of legislation. Fight_Back
  • Score: -6

1:53pm Wed 2 Jul 14

AngelicDevil says...

Fight_Back wrote:
AngelicDevil wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.
Your LL friends should know that protecting a deposit is a LEGAL requirement and by not protecting it they are leaving themselves open to be taken to court for up to 3 times the deposit amount by a savvy tenant!
Plenty of tenants are happy not to use it as it saves them money as well. It was a pointless piece of legislation.
I think a lot of people would disagree with you, not least those who, in the past, have had the misfortune to have a rogue LL.

The deposit protection schemes protect both LLs and tenants and cost peanuts (c£20 per deposit >£500, for the most expensive schemes).

I speak as a LL myself.

I just hope that your LL friends don't come across a savvy tenant who knows the law and decides to use it.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AngelicDevil[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.[/p][/quote]Your LL friends should know that protecting a deposit is a LEGAL requirement and by not protecting it they are leaving themselves open to be taken to court for up to 3 times the deposit amount by a savvy tenant![/p][/quote]Plenty of tenants are happy not to use it as it saves them money as well. It was a pointless piece of legislation.[/p][/quote]I think a lot of people would disagree with you, not least those who, in the past, have had the misfortune to have a rogue LL. The deposit protection schemes protect both LLs and tenants and cost peanuts (c£20 per deposit >£500, for the most expensive schemes). I speak as a LL myself. I just hope that your LL friends don't come across a savvy tenant who knows the law and decides to use it. AngelicDevil
  • Score: 4

2:05pm Wed 2 Jul 14

bardo says...

The fact is that this scheme, like the current one for student houses, will not root out rogue landlords. The council simply doesn't resource chasing them up, as, despite protestations to the contrary, it is really mainly interested in making money out of landlords. The student house scheme has been running 18 months or so and an insider admitted to me that it only has about 50% of landlords on its books, i.e. the good ones who knew their properties were more or less up to spec. The rogue ones simply don't register and don't get chased up.
The fact is that this scheme, like the current one for student houses, will not root out rogue landlords. The council simply doesn't resource chasing them up, as, despite protestations to the contrary, it is really mainly interested in making money out of landlords. The student house scheme has been running 18 months or so and an insider admitted to me that it only has about 50% of landlords on its books, i.e. the good ones who knew their properties were more or less up to spec. The rogue ones simply don't register and don't get chased up. bardo
  • Score: 4

2:15pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

There are many issues regarding tenanted properties and many avenues to manage these issues, however, they are rarely used by the council.
Maybe this would be an opportunity to close various loopholes and have tighter management of tenants and landlords and the related issues.
The rubbish and noise generated by student homes in Coombe Road has never been addressed robustly despite HMO licensing being introduced and the unis having noise officers etc. if you contact the letting agents they will say they are only paid to fill a property and not manage it. So no one manages the daily mess, noise etc except the council which isn't even receiving council tax from these homes.
I can't believe letting agents such as MTM and John Hilton want boards up outside these slums where piles of rubbish and furniture is left week in and week out.To Let should be changed to Toilet on the boards in many cases. I've started taking photos for a Fringe Festival gallery.
There are many issues regarding tenanted properties and many avenues to manage these issues, however, they are rarely used by the council. Maybe this would be an opportunity to close various loopholes and have tighter management of tenants and landlords and the related issues. The rubbish and noise generated by student homes in Coombe Road has never been addressed robustly despite HMO licensing being introduced and the unis having noise officers etc. if you contact the letting agents they will say they are only paid to fill a property and not manage it. So no one manages the daily mess, noise etc except the council which isn't even receiving council tax from these homes. I can't believe letting agents such as MTM and John Hilton want boards up outside these slums where piles of rubbish and furniture is left week in and week out.To Let should be changed to Toilet on the boards in many cases. I've started taking photos for a Fringe Festival gallery. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 7

3:18pm Wed 2 Jul 14

bug eye says...

same old labour then more red tap, bureaucracy, bureaucrats, and taxes resulting in higher rents but no mention of building more decent homes. 99.9% landlords look after their tenants and property, this is a ridiculously big hammer to crack a sesame seed, and how about tenants signing up to a legal code. The biggest complaint is about mould, caused by TENANTS not opening windows when showering, putting wet clothes on radiators etc. they should take responsibility too. will the council and housing assoc charge themselves £500 per property for a licence of each social home. These controls never work that is why the council have existing power to tackle problems already. HMO licensing has done nothing for anti social behaviour, rubbish, noise etc. but has increased rents with less supply to sharers and licence costs passed on to the tenant. licensing will not stop rogue tenants sharing their room with 10 others illegally, or setting up drug dens, it might be a prettier house to do it in.
same old labour then more red tap, bureaucracy, bureaucrats, and taxes resulting in higher rents but no mention of building more decent homes. 99.9% landlords look after their tenants and property, this is a ridiculously big hammer to crack a sesame seed, and how about tenants signing up to a legal code. The biggest complaint is about mould, caused by TENANTS not opening windows when showering, putting wet clothes on radiators etc. they should take responsibility too. will the council and housing assoc charge themselves £500 per property for a licence of each social home. These controls never work that is why the council have existing power to tackle problems already. HMO licensing has done nothing for anti social behaviour, rubbish, noise etc. but has increased rents with less supply to sharers and licence costs passed on to the tenant. licensing will not stop rogue tenants sharing their room with 10 others illegally, or setting up drug dens, it might be a prettier house to do it in. bug eye
  • Score: -3

3:25pm Wed 2 Jul 14

kopite_rob says...

Wow! 30% of housing stock in Brighton is in the rental market.
Hope the housing bubble bursts soon and releases these properties back to being affordable family homes.
Wow! 30% of housing stock in Brighton is in the rental market. Hope the housing bubble bursts soon and releases these properties back to being affordable family homes. kopite_rob
  • Score: 3

3:47pm Wed 2 Jul 14

leftysmellbags says...

Labour love nothing better than to create some more red tape and cost to the general public for no reason. Only idiots would ever vote for Labour. I hope they never win and they all get thrown in jail where they belong.
Labour love nothing better than to create some more red tape and cost to the general public for no reason. Only idiots would ever vote for Labour. I hope they never win and they all get thrown in jail where they belong. leftysmellbags
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Wed 2 Jul 14

wexler53 says...

Labour = tax + overspend + more tax = waste your money even more... and achieve nothing other than make the poor poorer, the rich much much richer ...wit one Tony Bliar as a prime example.

Oh, and wreck the economy.
Labour = tax + overspend + more tax = waste your money even more... and achieve nothing other than make the poor poorer, the rich much much richer ...wit one Tony Bliar as a prime example. Oh, and wreck the economy. wexler53
  • Score: 4

5:06pm Wed 2 Jul 14

NickBtn says...

Jetsamandflotsam wrote:
RottingdeanRant wrote:
The council already have the necessary powers to ensure tenanted properties are properly maintained, they just rarely use them. So a new scheme will just bring in more money, be followed by the law abiding LL and ignored by the rogues!
And increase the rent as the landlord will undoubtedly pass on the cost
Absolutely - that's what has happened with the HMO licensing in Brighton.

How this can be called a "success" is beyond me. Rents have gone up to pay for it yet the key aims haven't been dealt with. It was sold as helping to fix noisy students/sharers and rubbish. It doesn't have effective powers on either - it does deal a lot with room sizes, cupboards, sinks and so on.

The landlord can't effectively deal with noisy tenants. How can they prove the noise? That needs monitoring which is what the council does. Neither can they turn up during a party to stop it - that could be seen as landlord harassment which is a criminal offence. The landlord needs to give notice, usually 24 hours or more, before turning up. Party would be long over by then! Also on rubbish - yes the landlord has a duty to remove but only at the end of a tenancy. That doesn't fix the on-going rubbish that I see from some shared houses.... The tenants there say that they have tried to remove but council says "no" - so once again a council issue that the landlord can't solve

So yes, a lot needs to be done. But landlords are not able often legally to fix noise and rubbish

This proposal isn't clear on what needs to be done. And the council already has a number of statutory powers that it doesn't use. This needs to be done carefully otherwise all that will happen is that rents will rise as has happened in Brighton with shared houses to
[quote][p][bold]Jetsamandflotsam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: The council already have the necessary powers to ensure tenanted properties are properly maintained, they just rarely use them. So a new scheme will just bring in more money, be followed by the law abiding LL and ignored by the rogues![/p][/quote]And increase the rent as the landlord will undoubtedly pass on the cost[/p][/quote]Absolutely - that's what has happened with the HMO licensing in Brighton. How this can be called a "success" is beyond me. Rents have gone up to pay for it yet the key aims haven't been dealt with. It was sold as helping to fix noisy students/sharers and rubbish. It doesn't have effective powers on either - it does deal a lot with room sizes, cupboards, sinks and so on. The landlord can't effectively deal with noisy tenants. How can they prove the noise? That needs monitoring which is what the council does. Neither can they turn up during a party to stop it - that could be seen as landlord harassment which is a criminal offence. The landlord needs to give notice, usually 24 hours or more, before turning up. Party would be long over by then! Also on rubbish - yes the landlord has a duty to remove but only at the end of a tenancy. That doesn't fix the on-going rubbish that I see from some shared houses.... The tenants there say that they have tried to remove but council says "no" - so once again a council issue that the landlord can't solve So yes, a lot needs to be done. But landlords are not able often legally to fix noise and rubbish This proposal isn't clear on what needs to be done. And the council already has a number of statutory powers that it doesn't use. This needs to be done carefully otherwise all that will happen is that rents will rise as has happened in Brighton with shared houses to NickBtn
  • Score: 1

5:16pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Zeta Function says...

End subsidies to the buy to let sector.

Regulate the number of rental properties that can be owned by one landlord.

End mortgage subsidies.

Free up vacant sheltered accommodation.

Make renting privately and paying a mortgage economic equivalents.
End subsidies to the buy to let sector. Regulate the number of rental properties that can be owned by one landlord. End mortgage subsidies. Free up vacant sheltered accommodation. Make renting privately and paying a mortgage economic equivalents. Zeta Function
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Wed 2 Jul 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Tenants (especially those on housing benefit) should be obliged to register there rental agreement and amount of rent paid with the council. This can then be very easily cross-checked against licences. More importantly, it can be provided to HMRC for tax estimates from tax evading slumlords.
Tenants (especially those on housing benefit) should be obliged to register there rental agreement and amount of rent paid with the council. This can then be very easily cross-checked against licences. More importantly, it can be provided to HMRC for tax estimates from tax evading slumlords. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Patsyr says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.
The Deposit Security Scheme for storing the tenants deposit does not cost the landlord or tenant anything. The scheme uses the interest from the deposit to cover the fees for running the scheme. It is not the landlords money so why should he make money from it anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.[/p][/quote]The Deposit Security Scheme for storing the tenants deposit does not cost the landlord or tenant anything. The scheme uses the interest from the deposit to cover the fees for running the scheme. It is not the landlords money so why should he make money from it anyway. Patsyr
  • Score: 2

6:09pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

Zeta Function wrote:
End subsidies to the buy to let sector.

Regulate the number of rental properties that can be owned by one landlord.

End mortgage subsidies.

Free up vacant sheltered accommodation.

Make renting privately and paying a mortgage economic equivalents.
Errr .... what subsidies would these be then ?
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: End subsidies to the buy to let sector. Regulate the number of rental properties that can be owned by one landlord. End mortgage subsidies. Free up vacant sheltered accommodation. Make renting privately and paying a mortgage economic equivalents.[/p][/quote]Errr .... what subsidies would these be then ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Fight_Back says...

Patsyr wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.
The Deposit Security Scheme for storing the tenants deposit does not cost the landlord or tenant anything. The scheme uses the interest from the deposit to cover the fees for running the scheme. It is not the landlords money so why should he make money from it anyway.
Actually there is - currently £22.50.
[quote][p][bold]Patsyr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure Labour have thought this through. I know plenty of landlords that rent out through places like Gumtree which avoids agent fees for both parties and effectively keeps the transaction / agreement private. How do Labour propose to get these landlords to sign-up ? There really would be no necessity for them to do so. It's a bit like the Deposit Security Scheme - this costs the landlord money - guess who really pays for it though ? Yes, of course the tenants. I know landlords who give their tenants the choice of using the scheme or not. When it is used the tenant can wait weeks for the deposit back while when it's not used I know of tenants that have had their deposit back in six hours .... in cash.[/p][/quote]The Deposit Security Scheme for storing the tenants deposit does not cost the landlord or tenant anything. The scheme uses the interest from the deposit to cover the fees for running the scheme. It is not the landlords money so why should he make money from it anyway.[/p][/quote]Actually there is - currently £22.50. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Wed 2 Jul 14

hoveguyactually says...

Another Labour run council! What a horrible thought!
Another Labour run council! What a horrible thought! hoveguyactually
  • Score: 2

8:25pm Wed 2 Jul 14

aprobyn says...

Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords.
I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally.
My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict.
I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!!
Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords. I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally. My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict. I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!! aprobyn
  • Score: 4

1:15am Thu 3 Jul 14

brighton bluenose says...

Shameless electioneering policy by a Labour Party who did next to nothing to help those in the private rented sector last time they were in power in B&H!
Shameless electioneering policy by a Labour Party who did next to nothing to help those in the private rented sector last time they were in power in B&H! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 4

1:28am Thu 3 Jul 14

Motorcyclist says...

aprobyn wrote:
Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords.
I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally.
My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict.
I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!!
Even things up...? Private AST tenants have limited rights during the first six months of the tenancy and zero rights afterwards.

The slumlords can afford to pay insurance for unpaid rent and legal costs to deal with a bad tenant.

The council has scarce resources to use asbos and noise abatement notices to deal with all of them. Welcome to Austerityville.

The slumlord has a legal duty to the other occupants to protect their quiet enoyment of their homes.

If the council can ensure that the slumlords treat their tenants and those in adjoining homes with dignity, it is money well spent.
[quote][p][bold]aprobyn[/bold] wrote: Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords. I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally. My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict. I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!![/p][/quote]Even things up...? Private AST tenants have limited rights during the first six months of the tenancy and zero rights afterwards. The slumlords can afford to pay insurance for unpaid rent and legal costs to deal with a bad tenant. The council has scarce resources to use asbos and noise abatement notices to deal with all of them. Welcome to Austerityville. The slumlord has a legal duty to the other occupants to protect their quiet enoyment of their homes. If the council can ensure that the slumlords treat their tenants and those in adjoining homes with dignity, it is money well spent. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 3

9:26am Thu 3 Jul 14

JImjaminy says...

bardo wrote:
The fact is that this scheme, like the current one for student houses, will not root out rogue landlords. The council simply doesn't resource chasing them up, as, despite protestations to the contrary, it is really mainly interested in making money out of landlords. The student house scheme has been running 18 months or so and an insider admitted to me that it only has about 50% of landlords on its books, i.e. the good ones who knew their properties were more or less up to spec. The rogue ones simply don't register and don't get chased up.
Another typical 'nanny state' Labour policy. There’s enough rental property in this city for tenants to be able to choose the right property and landlord rather than be trapped in the grips of some Rachman landlord for life. I’ve just been through the process of licensing a property I rent out an unfurnished 3 storey, 4 bedroom house in Kemp Town to 4 professional sharers (not students). The house is in good condition and the tenants really look after it - I checked the guidelines before the initial inspection and felt everything was in order. Then came the inspection which proved to be both painful and costly. I received a 4 page list of ‘improvements’ which I had 6 months to carry out. This included having to install a maintained fire alarm system with detectors in each bedroom & emergency lights in the corridors (which now give the house’s Victorian hallways the look of a block of council flats), I had to enclose an open staircase with fire walls & a fire door, I had to insulate the loft.....and the list went on and on. The license coast me over £500 and the work cost several thousand pounds. I can’t recoup the cost by increasing the rent because the tenants will just move on if I did. The inspector was very nice and all that - but that’s not the point. If this is extended to all rental properties - it will be a disaster for tenants and housing in general.
[quote][p][bold]bardo[/bold] wrote: The fact is that this scheme, like the current one for student houses, will not root out rogue landlords. The council simply doesn't resource chasing them up, as, despite protestations to the contrary, it is really mainly interested in making money out of landlords. The student house scheme has been running 18 months or so and an insider admitted to me that it only has about 50% of landlords on its books, i.e. the good ones who knew their properties were more or less up to spec. The rogue ones simply don't register and don't get chased up.[/p][/quote]Another typical 'nanny state' Labour policy. There’s enough rental property in this city for tenants to be able to choose the right property and landlord rather than be trapped in the grips of some Rachman landlord for life. I’ve just been through the process of licensing a property I rent out an unfurnished 3 storey, 4 bedroom house in Kemp Town to 4 professional sharers (not students). The house is in good condition and the tenants really look after it - I checked the guidelines before the initial inspection and felt everything was in order. Then came the inspection which proved to be both painful and costly. I received a 4 page list of ‘improvements’ which I had 6 months to carry out. This included having to install a maintained fire alarm system with detectors in each bedroom & emergency lights in the corridors (which now give the house’s Victorian hallways the look of a block of council flats), I had to enclose an open staircase with fire walls & a fire door, I had to insulate the loft.....and the list went on and on. The license coast me over £500 and the work cost several thousand pounds. I can’t recoup the cost by increasing the rent because the tenants will just move on if I did. The inspector was very nice and all that - but that’s not the point. If this is extended to all rental properties - it will be a disaster for tenants and housing in general. JImjaminy
  • Score: 0

9:29am Thu 3 Jul 14

JImjaminy says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Another Labour run council! What a horrible thought!
I also shudder at the prospect....
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Another Labour run council! What a horrible thought![/p][/quote]I also shudder at the prospect.... JImjaminy
  • Score: 0

10:32am Thu 3 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

NickBrt wrote:
Good idea, can they also incorporate agreement around behaviour of tenants and therefore give neighbours some rights. the current system of complaining to the Council takes so long it becomes unuseable.
Will it also make the council a neutral body in tenant/ landlord disputes, because up to now the cocncil always sides with the tenant, and give advise so as to make the eviction of undesirable tenants take many months, giving the tenant more time to terrorise their neighbours and wreck the house.
I can see a lot of landlords not voting Labour.
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Good idea, can they also incorporate agreement around behaviour of tenants and therefore give neighbours some rights. the current system of complaining to the Council takes so long it becomes unuseable.[/p][/quote]Will it also make the council a neutral body in tenant/ landlord disputes, because up to now the cocncil always sides with the tenant, and give advise so as to make the eviction of undesirable tenants take many months, giving the tenant more time to terrorise their neighbours and wreck the house. I can see a lot of landlords not voting Labour. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 1

11:59am Thu 3 Jul 14

aprobyn says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
aprobyn wrote:
Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords.
I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally.
My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict.
I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!!
Even things up...? Private AST tenants have limited rights during the first six months of the tenancy and zero rights afterwards.

The slumlords can afford to pay insurance for unpaid rent and legal costs to deal with a bad tenant.

The council has scarce resources to use asbos and noise abatement notices to deal with all of them. Welcome to Austerityville.

The slumlord has a legal duty to the other occupants to protect their quiet enoyment of their homes.

If the council can ensure that the slumlords treat their tenants and those in adjoining homes with dignity, it is money well spent.
Motorcyclist, did you actually read my post??
Firstly I don't like being called a slum lord, I clearly stated I do everything asked of me as a landlord and more.
Secondly if my tenants have no rights after their first 6 months tenancy can they sit in my flat not paying any rent and there's nothing I can immediately do?
Thirdly how can I afford expensive rent gap insurance and legal costs if my tenants don't actually pay me any rent?!
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aprobyn[/bold] wrote: Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords. I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally. My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict. I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!![/p][/quote]Even things up...? Private AST tenants have limited rights during the first six months of the tenancy and zero rights afterwards. The slumlords can afford to pay insurance for unpaid rent and legal costs to deal with a bad tenant. The council has scarce resources to use asbos and noise abatement notices to deal with all of them. Welcome to Austerityville. The slumlord has a legal duty to the other occupants to protect their quiet enoyment of their homes. If the council can ensure that the slumlords treat their tenants and those in adjoining homes with dignity, it is money well spent.[/p][/quote]Motorcyclist, did you actually read my post?? Firstly I don't like being called a slum lord, I clearly stated I do everything asked of me as a landlord and more. Secondly if my tenants have no rights after their first 6 months tenancy can they sit in my flat not paying any rent and there's nothing I can immediately do? Thirdly how can I afford expensive rent gap insurance and legal costs if my tenants don't actually pay me any rent?! aprobyn
  • Score: -1

3:13pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Motorcyclist says...

aprobyn wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
aprobyn wrote:
Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords.
I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally.
My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict.
I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!!
Even things up...? Private AST tenants have limited rights during the first six months of the tenancy and zero rights afterwards.

The slumlords can afford to pay insurance for unpaid rent and legal costs to deal with a bad tenant.

The council has scarce resources to use asbos and noise abatement notices to deal with all of them. Welcome to Austerityville.

The slumlord has a legal duty to the other occupants to protect their quiet enoyment of their homes.

If the council can ensure that the slumlords treat their tenants and those in adjoining homes with dignity, it is money well spent.
Motorcyclist, did you actually read my post??
Firstly I don't like being called a slum lord, I clearly stated I do everything asked of me as a landlord and more.
Secondly if my tenants have no rights after their first 6 months tenancy can they sit in my flat not paying any rent and there's nothing I can immediately do?
Thirdly how can I afford expensive rent gap insurance and legal costs if my tenants don't actually pay me any rent?!
I was not referring to you as a slum lord. You need to choose your tenants more carefully and insist on guarantors to cover the cost of rogue tenants.

I suggest you join the Landlord's Association. It is not expensive and you will have access to advice and help with legal issues.

http://www.landlords
.org.uk/
[quote][p][bold]aprobyn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aprobyn[/bold] wrote: Shock, another article about cracking down on rogue landlords. I am a law abiding landlord who sorts any problems out in my property promptly and professionally. My tenants have not paid rent for 4 months now, until not paying for 2 months I had zero rights, now I am in a lengthy dispute involving the courts which has cost me more money and still no guarantee that when the court finds in favour of me I will get any money back or they will leave. I will then be forced to apply for bailiffs to evict. I know there are unscrupulous landlords out there but please for once let's even things up!![/p][/quote]Even things up...? Private AST tenants have limited rights during the first six months of the tenancy and zero rights afterwards. The slumlords can afford to pay insurance for unpaid rent and legal costs to deal with a bad tenant. The council has scarce resources to use asbos and noise abatement notices to deal with all of them. Welcome to Austerityville. The slumlord has a legal duty to the other occupants to protect their quiet enoyment of their homes. If the council can ensure that the slumlords treat their tenants and those in adjoining homes with dignity, it is money well spent.[/p][/quote]Motorcyclist, did you actually read my post?? Firstly I don't like being called a slum lord, I clearly stated I do everything asked of me as a landlord and more. Secondly if my tenants have no rights after their first 6 months tenancy can they sit in my flat not paying any rent and there's nothing I can immediately do? Thirdly how can I afford expensive rent gap insurance and legal costs if my tenants don't actually pay me any rent?![/p][/quote]I was not referring to you as a slum lord. You need to choose your tenants more carefully and insist on guarantors to cover the cost of rogue tenants. I suggest you join the Landlord's Association. It is not expensive and you will have access to advice and help with legal issues. http://www.landlords .org.uk/ Motorcyclist
  • Score: 2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree