Landlord Licensing Scheme- What, Where, When?

There was a time when ONLY landlords of House of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) required a license to let their property, while the rest of us were spared. But that was back when we were living blissfully in ignorance. Alas, since then some very rich and powerful people sat down with some super smart statistical analysts and enlightened us when they realised that if we make landlord licensing compulsory for all privately rented properties in poorer areas, it will not only help raise the standard of living conditions, but also help reduce… wait for it… “antisocial behavior”

Yes, so if we all rally together and purchase landlord licenses, we should see a decline in antisocial behavior.

Wait, what? Confused? Yes, me too. But that’s irrelevant unfortunately.

The issue of the ‘Selective Landlord Licensing Scheme’ isn’t particularly new, in fact, it’s been looming around like a repugnant Vegetarian’s fart since April 2006. However, it’s starting to get rolled across more and more boroughs around the nation, so naturally an increasing amount of landlords are starting to make some noise as they get a whiff.

Sadly, it’s an issue ALL landlords SHOULD be aware of because it is a legal requirement if it applies, consequently it could also account for unbudgeted costs, and have major influence over where a landlord chooses to buy in the future. I’ve already spoken to a few landlords that consciously avoid zones that are subject to the scheme- not because they have something to hide, but simply out of principle. Yes, landlords with morals, I’m not fucking with you. But that’s another story for another day.

As with most of these harebrained schemes introduced to benefit the ‘greater good’ – it comes attached with a financial cost that landlords are forced to grin and bear. In other words, the ‘bend over, this won’t hurt a bit’ treatment is in full effect. Of course, it always hurts, and there’s always plenty of anal-blood squirting all over the place.

Someone is getting richer, but it definitely isn’t the landlord.

Anyone else remember Home Information Packs (HIP’s)? Yeah, that steaming pile of shit wasn’t a bad dream either. Let’s just hope this bubble pops even quicker and the damage is limited.

I know, I’ve got a brilliant idea, let’s throw as many shitty policies up against the wall to see what sticks, and let’s ensure they cost landlords a shitload. That will be fucking hilarious.

Landlord Policies

Another day at the office: Having fun while reducing the deficit we created!

What is the landlord licensing scheme?

Sections 79, 80 and 81 of the Housing Act 2004 provided for the introduction of a scheme of selective licensing of private landlords in a local housing authority’s area (i.e. a poor area where many tenants are receiving housing benefits). The Act came into force in April 2006.

Selective licensing is intended to address the impact of poor quality private landlords and reduce levels of antisocial behaviour. It was primarily introduced to tackle problems in areas of low housing demand in mind– although the Act also allows for selective licensing in some other circumstances.

In areas subject to selective licensing, all private landlords must obtain a licence, it is the landlord’s legal obligation. Failing to do so could result in heavy-handed penalties. I quote Gateshead council, “If the landlord of a property in a selective licensing area doesn’t have a licence, he/she commits an offence that may be punishable by a fine of up to £20,000.”

Yes, that’s a 20 grand fine!! Bosh! How do you like that?

But that’s not all, breaches of the licence can also incur extra penalties in the sum of £5,000.

Like I said, someone is getting very rich from this cashcow. Although, I’ve heard allegations of it being a ‘non-profit’ scheme. Right.

What do landlords need to do in order to get a license?

If you’re required to get a landlord license, you will need to apply for a license via your local council. Just to clarify, that’s ONE license per property, but some boroughs have been generous enough to offer bulk rates. Amazing!

If you’re unsure whether you’re subject to the scheme, again, just ask your local council or look on their website. If you’ve got the stomach for it, you could even ask your local letting agent. Whatever works.

Usually the person who is in control of the property (the person who receives the rent) makes the application and is the licence holder. This could be the owner or landlord, however it could also be a manager employed by the owner.

Once an application is submitted, it must be processed to determine whether or not you will be granted a licence. So in practise, yes, you could get rejected.

Each borough will have their own set of conditions, which the landlord must meet in order to be granted a license. Landlords are also expected to stick to certain conditions once the license is granted. There are also certain mandatory conditions which need to be addressed, which include the following:

  • A valid gas safety certificate, if gas is supplied to the house
  • Electrical appliances and furniture (supplied under the tenancy) must be in safe condition
  • Smoke alarms must be in proper working order
  • The tenant must be supplied with a written statement of the terms of occupation
  • References must be demanded from persons wishing to occupy the house

The mandatory conditions all fall in the realm of ‘pretty standard stuff’. Needless to say, I shouldn’t need to buy an extortionately expensive license just to confirm I’m already doing what any half-baked landlord should already be doing. I guess it’s one of those situations where the good have to suffer because of the bad. Fair.

Where/how much?

I’m told the cost varies depending on location/borough, but from the information I’ve gathered, you’re looking at the £500 mark for a license, which remains valid for 5 years. Again, the conditions may depend on the district your property falls under.

Here’s a list of the areas that are subject to landlord licensing, but I’m sure there are more, these are just the ones I’m currently aware of. I’ll try to keep the information updated, so if anyone has any additional information, please let me know and I’ll make the appropriate amendments.

Note: smaller areas with in boroughs may only be subject to landlord licensing, and not necessarily the entire borough!

England

AreaCostLinkActivePetition
Blackpool, ClaremontUnknownBlackpool CouncilYes
Blackpool, South BeachUnknownBlackpool CouncilYes
Blackburn, Ewood£500Blackburn CouncilYes
Blackburn, Queens Park£500Blackburn CouncilYes
Blackburn, Sudell£500Blackburn CouncilYes
Blackburn, Sunnyhurst£500Blackburn CouncilYes
Blackburn, Marshouse£500Blackburn CouncilYes
BoltonUnknownBolton CouncilYes
BostonUnknownBoston CouncilYes
Bristol£1000 for a 5 year licenceBristol CouncilYes
BurnleyUnknownBurnley & Dagenham CouncilYes
Doncaster, Hexthorpe£500Doncaster CouncilYes
Durham, Wembley area/Easington CollieryTo be agreedDurham CouncilYes
Durham, Dean Bank/Ferryhill£450Durham CouncilYes
Durham, Chilton West£450Durham CouncilYes
GatesheadUnknownGateshead CouncilYes
HartlepoolN/AHartlepool CouncilYes
Hastings£460Hastings CouncilYes
HyndburnN/AHyndburn CouncilYes
Leeds, Cross GreenUnknownLeeds CouncilYes
Leeds, East End ParkUnknownLeeds CouncilYes
Liverpool£200 – £400Liverpool CouncilYes
Lincolnshire, West Lindsey£375West Lindsey CouncilYes
London, Barking & Dagenham£500 for a 5 year licenceBarking & Dagenham CouncilYes
London, BrentFrom £340 for a 5 year licenceBrent CouncilYes
London, Croydon£750 for a 5 year licence (£350 early bird discount available)Croydon CouncilYesUnsuccessful challenge
London, EnfieldN/AEnfield CouncilPetitioned againstSuccessful
London, Newham£500Newham CouncilYes
London, Waltham Forest£500 for a 5 year licenceWaltham Forest CouncilUnder debate
NewcastleUnknownNewcastle CouncilYes
Nottingham£600Nottingham CouncilSpring 2018
Manchester£500Manchester CouncilYes
Middlesbrough£580 for 5 yearsMiddlesbrough CouncilYes
Oldham£490 for 5 yearsOldham CouncilYes
Peterborough£600 for 5 yearsPeterborough CouncilYes
RotherhamUp to £605 for 5 yearsRotherham CouncilYes
SalfordUnknownSalford CouncilYes
Sheffield£500Sheffield CouncilYes
Stoke-on-trent, TunstallUnknownStoke-on-trent CouncilYes
Thanet, Cliftonville WestUnknownThanet CouncilYes
Thanet, Margate Central Wards / MargateUnknownThanet CouncilYes
Wirral£625 for 5 yearsWirral CouncilYes
Wolverhampton£525 for 5 yearsWolverhampton CouncilYes

Important: I update the list as and when I can- usually after someone leaves a comment or emails me directly with an update. However, I wouldn’t rely on the list to be up-to-date. If you wish to find out accurate information regarding a particular borough, you should either look on their website, or contact them directly.

Wales

It works slightly differently in Wales from what I’m aware.

Any landlord who has a rental property in Wales which is rented on an assured, assured shorthold or regulated tenancy is required to “register”, which costs £33.50 if completed online (paper-applications cost £80.50. Ridiculous!).

If you are a self-managed landlord (e.g. arranging or conducting viewings with prospective tenants and the tenancy agreements etc), you may also need an additional “license” The licenses last 5 years, and the fee is currently £144.00 for applications completed online (applications submitted via paper application costs £186.00).

More details on both over at the Rent Smart website.

Are you outraged? Care enough to start a petition?

As you may have noticed from the table, Enfield Borough Council’s landlord licensing scheme was successfully petitioned against by a bunch of landlords. Yes, the scheme was scrapped! Phewwww, close call from being totally ass-raped.

Croydon Borough are in the process of trying to do the same.

If you care enough, you should definitely follow suit and fight the good fight. Most Boroughs will have a petition scheme available. Ask your council or look on their website or try Google’ing “[Borough name] petition”

Power to the people!

Why I think the Landlord Licensing Scheme is nonsensical!

Of course, I’ve heard many landlords applaud and praise the introduction and expansion of the scheme. But I don’t really understand why.

Actually, I think I do, it’s the marketing campaign that’s been strategically used to push this shit-storm forward to win over votes. But it’s all smoke screen and mirrors, really, it’s just bullshit marketing. There’s a lot of hype and emphasis on “improving social housing”, but I’m not convinced.

All I see right now is a couple of punks in suits, jacking me in the middle of the day. Daylight robbery.

I specifically say “NO” to the scheme because I don’t think it will directly resolve the underlying problems the scheme is packaged to address, let alone any problem at all. If anything, I believe it will have an adverse affect on the overall industry. Let me explain why…

  • Cost: obviously the cost element is a concern. £500 is nothing to sneeze at, especially when I feel like I’m being mis-sold a product that is fundamentally pointless. Also, if it’s there to help landlords, tenants, and society at large, why the hell are landlords left copping the bill?
  • Bad landlords: the powers that be have suggested that the license is a key tool to raise living conditions and prevent bad landlords from getting away with whatever it is they have been getting away with all these years.

    Ok, so they expect the landlords that are ALREADY providing poorly conditioned properties and neglecting their obligations to suddenly pay attention to this new legislation. Really?

    What’s another legislation to completely ignore for a bad landlord? Nothing.

  • Stacking penalties: tenants shouldn’t be mislead in order to swing the votes in favour of the scheme, but I feel like that’s the case. Sadly, this scheme is preying on “ignorance”

    If a landlord genuinely participates in foul-play, there are laws already in place to enforce prosecution. This legislation won’t add any extra ‘needed’ penalties. All this is going to do is add an extra penalty on already prosecutable offenses.

  • Tenants choice: tenants have the right to choose where they live. If they enter a property that looks and smells unsafe, and is smeared in congealed goat urine and gonorrhea, yet still deem it appropriate living conditions, surely that’s their choice. Do they really expect a high level of service? Aren’t they putting themselves in danger voluntarily?

    These tenants genuinely don’t give a shit about where or how they live, and nothing Landlords can do will change that. They don’t see a problem in their behavior or how they treat others. Now that’s the real problem behind anti-social behavior.

  • Tackling antisocial behavior: the most mystifying aspect about this scheme is that it’s meant to reduce levels of antisocial behaviour. I have no idea what statistical information was crunched in order to swing that conclusion, but I fail to fathom the correlation. Perhaps it was just a case of manipulating the numbers until it looked ‘almost justifiable’, or maybe I’m just missing the point.

    I understand how it might improve living standards for tenants, but beyond that, I see no overall advantage for landlords or the community (which is what it says I does on the tin- and I don’t like paying for things I don’t particularly understand). For example, is installing smoke alarms going to stop a tenant from kicking you in the head because they think it’s funny? No.

    If this scheme ‘takes off’, I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if the meaning of “antisocial behaviour” and “problem areas” becomes looser and looser. Before we know it, graffiti on the wall will trigger off code red alerts, and obviously the best way to put that fire out is with a landlord license.

  • Current legislation: from my experience and knowledge, I believe that most corners are covered in terms of ‘health and safety’ with the existing legislation- ultimately, that is what we’re talking about here, right? I don’t buy the whole “tackling antisocial behavior” aspect, so let’s ignore that all together. This is about raising standards, and making those accountable that fail to meet those standards.

    Landlords are already required to ensure gas and electrics are safe, they are also required to ensure heating and water systems are in proper working order, and to generally provide a safe living environment. The main issues beyond those parameters are usually related to the personality disorders of the individual landlords/tenants. And unfortunately, rehabilitation and personality transplants don’t come in the form of £500 licenses. If a landlord is an arsehole, he’s an arsehole. Period.

  • The slowdown: I suspect the entire process of letting a property will slowdown, meaning longer vacant periods, slower “transition” times, and an overall loss of earnings. This will affect the entire chain, not just the landlord.
  • Invitation for other fees: mortgage lenders have started to refuse lending in landlord licensed zones, which makes sense, but obviously that’s a massive concern, but not only regarding borrowing, but also other services like insurance. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if insurance policies started to climb in those flagged “problem areas” that require landlord licensing. Ouch!

The scheme may especially sound appealing to tenants, but sadly, they’re probably the ones that will end up suffering the most. As already said, this license isn’t going to protect tenants from “bad landlords”, it’s just not a sustainable or logical policy that tackles the real issues it’s advertised to address. But besides from that, consider the following…

  • Many landlords are already on tight budgets, so they’ll need to get that extra money to pay for the license from somewhere. Who do you think will be the most likely person they look to when it comes to passing on the costs?
  • Even those that aren’t on tight budgets, it’s just another justified excuse to raise the already crazy rental prices. Letting agents will have a field day- because I’m sure they’ll somehow swindle this cost into their ‘admin fee’
  • Instead of paying £500 for a license, wouldn’t both landlord/tenant rather spend that money on improving the property and making it more comfortable? I know I would. In that sense, the license suddenly becomes extremely counter-intuitive.

Solving the actual problem

Real positive change usually comes through awareness and education.

The main problem associated with poor living conditions and acceptance of those conditions is ignorance. People don’t know any better because they’re unaware of their statutory rights and the resources they have available. But that’s a fact throughout life, in every aspect. Still to this day, I’m uncertain of what my rights are when a police officer stops me on the street. Will I go and research it when I finish writing this blog? No. Would I listen if someone made an effort to educate me? Yes.

Most tenants don’t know their rights, and even when they’re certain they’re being mistreated, they’re oblivious to what steps to take. Fear is also a major factor; many tenants are scared when they’re being mistreated. The common misconception is that landlords hold all the power, with the ability to force tenants into homelessness at the drop of a hat, which of course is completely untrue.

  • Tenants know they’re entitled to hot water and a working heating system, or at least assume they are. But how many know that if the landlord doesn’t resolve the problem in reasonable time, they can report the issue to the Health and Safety Executive for further investigation, which could lead to prosecution?
  • Same applies with tenancy deposits and tenancy deposit schemes– many tenants are still oblivious that their deposits are protected (or should be), so landlords can’t just unfairly snatch deposits.
  • Another massive misunderstanding is that tenants often believe that their statutory rights are directly related to how much rent they are paying. Again, completely untrue. It doesn’t matter if you are paying £100pcm or £2000cpm, you are ALL entitled to your statutory rights, meaning you are entitled to live in a safe environment.
  • Taking legal action against anyone sounds expensive, and that acts as a major deterrent for allowing justice to prevail. Court room, lawyers, some weird woman taking notes on a typewriter… all sounds crazy expensive, right? Really, it isn’t, nor is it that complicated to take legal action against your landlord. Need free legal advice? No problem, Shelter and Citizens Advice are at your disposal.
  • Since the introduction of Energy Performance Certificates in 2006, not ONE of my tenants have enquired about it or known of its existence, even though it’s my legal obligation as the landlord to purchase that bullshit and present it to them during a viewing…

    What The Fuck Is An Energy Performance (EPC)?

All these issues point to one fundamental issue: lack of education, NOT lack of legislation.

Clearly, there are already legislations in place to protect tenants and landlords from problems that most commonly occur; they’re in place right now, at this very moment. We don’t need another wrapper (because that’s essentially all the license is) to sit on top of the existing legislations. We need more people to be aware of what already exists. The landlord license scheme is just another policy tenants will need to be educated on, so the real problem isn’t being tackled, it’s only being multiplied.

If the powers that be want to make a real positive impact, they need to cut the bullshit and tackle the underlying issues. Educating tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities would be much better served than throwing nonsensical and ‘expensive’ shit at the wall.

Despite my futile ramblings, it is a legal obligation, so if it applies, buy the damn license. Bitch.

I’m just about done here.

So, what are your thoughts? Have any of you been subject to the licenses? Also, once again, if anyone has any additional information on licensing zones, please let me know!

Like this post? Then maybe you should sign up to my FREE newsletter so you receive more like it!

131 Comments- Join The Conversation...

Showing 81 - 131 comments (out of 131)
Guest Avatar
Bal 3rd April, 2016 @ 12:52

I think this is only a money making scheme for the councils as the government has cut lots of their funds. Once everything is fully settled they are guaranteed to have a massive source of income every 5 years which they can use to cover most of their inefficiencies and incompetence.
There is no point everyone telling there miseries on this site if no actions are taken.
In my opinion, all landlords must create like a union or join Letting associations like RLA etc.. and then get these associations to take these to parliament and put pressure on governments to look into this as there are already laws in place which tells about the duty of landlord and the rights of tenants. There is no need for the council to get involve in this.
The so called Association should be able to raise landlord voices to the House of Commons NOT ONLY about the License but also about the additional 3% stamp duty which came into effect on 1st of April and ALSO about the FULL mortgage interest which will no longer be considered as an expense when you prepare your tax return if you are a 40% tax payer(can only deduct the interest at 20%). Today the government has started with the higher rate tax payer, you never know in future years they can extend this to anyone having a BTL property. Imagine what may happen if interest rate goes up and you still have to pay the income tax. A lot of landlord may have to sell and/or their property being repossessed.
PLEASE THINK CAREFULLY ON THIS.
WE MUST HAVE A UNION OF LANDLORDS.

81
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 4th April, 2016 @ 07:32

@Bal

My thoughts exactly. I agree 100%.

Mandy

82
Guest Avatar
gabrielle attwood 4th April, 2016 @ 09:02

You have forgotten Wales. I need a licence in Pembrokeshire!!!

83
The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 4th April, 2016 @ 13:24

@gabrielle

I believe it works slightly differently in Wales, as in, according to the Rent Smart Gov website, any landlord who has a rental property in Wales which is rented on an assured shorthold or regulated tenancy is required to “register”. Self-managed landlords may also need an additional “license”.

I have updated my post though, so thanks for bringing it to my attention!

84
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 4th April, 2016 @ 14:25

I know this is a somewhat controversial view among landlords, but I would much rather have the Welsh style licensing scheme in England (provided it wasn't managed by town hall "Jordans"), than the system we currently have where every little town hall Hitler can freely impose whatever rules and charges they see fit, after getting away with "consultations" that are barely legal.

Property letting does need SOME regulating, just like other businesses and professions.

85
Guest Avatar
Trixer 4th April, 2016 @ 19:05

I have since sold my Salford property (since my tenant died...) and I am happy that I did, even though it took me over a year, and several buyers dropping out and messing around. This whole business priced me out, and I only wanted it as another way to help me in my old age instead of relying on deflating pension pots!!

If you are just someone trying to get on a bit in life, then I feel sorry for you, especially if you get a bad tenant, as the licensing thing will make it a nightmare for the landlord....some of the regulations are utterly unmanageable esp if you dont live near your buy to let property!!
Its a money printing scheme, which hits the people trying hardest to do the right thing- others are still getting away with things.

86
Guest Avatar
tas 10th April, 2016 @ 19:18

I have property in Newham and am about to register. There are some shocking properties in Newham that you can plainly see even from the outside that they are substandard. There are landlords who will avoid all legal requirements and break every law in the book with out any remorse and be proud to do it. Councils will visit and give 28 days to make repairs and alterations and obtain licenses even when the property has no smoke alarms, dodgy wiring, leaking pipes, damp, 10 people per room, illegal immigrants and so on. He is then served a notice and another few weeks go by. then a court summons and another and so on. Meanwhile he is collecting thousands in rent. I would like to see the councils confiscate all rental income and compulsory purchase these properties to sell them and raise the funds needed to run the scheme in this way. Compliant landlords should then be offered discounts for playing by the rules. I think this would justify the charge. All that is happening now is us honest landlords who have a concious are paying for these scum landlords to get rich.

87
Guest Avatar
Suna 26th April, 2016 @ 09:27

Do housing associations have to pay this fee too.

88
Guest Avatar
Moe 2nd May, 2016 @ 06:45

Selective license in Rotherham.

There are there four areas of Rotherham that fall into selective licence charging £600 for five yrs.
I had my properties inspected what a joke
Inspector said I must have extractor fans in the kitchen or cooker hoods, my property is 14yr old the extractor fans were built in when the property's were built they were passed by building regulation officer. A internal door handle was not working I told him my husband would deal with it tomorrow & he put a new one on, I did not know it was not working what did he do put it on my report.
Gap in window ledge where the bottom of the window finishes & rests on the ledge told him this should be done when the tenant decorates just a bit of filling in he told me it will cause a draft.
I must not forget steps to front external doors must have handrails these steps are only 210mm high bear in mind these were passed by building regs( nit picking) councils had the powers to do what they are doing now.

89
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 2nd May, 2016 @ 07:32

@Moe

I fail to see what cooker extractor hoods have to do with health and safety - cooker hoods have little effect on preventing condensation. A cooker hood is simply an add on, a nicety to stop cooking smells lingering and possibly bothering neighbours in adjoining properties.

The only safety argument I can think of for a cooking extractor fan was when I once had downstairs neighbours (also owner occupiers) who cooked exceptionally pungent food nearly every day for 18 months and the fumes were constantly saturating my flat - they wouldn't fit an extractor hood and in the end I nearly killed the b'stards!!

90
Guest Avatar
Moe 2nd May, 2016 @ 08:40

Answer to Suna
Housing associations do not pay this like the council they do not
They go by their own rules
In selective licence they have to have so many wall sockets in a room but the council do not go by this rule. If a garden gate is broken with a council tenant they tell them to fix it themselves or replace it, if that was private landlord they would be all over us like a rash
Do as I say do not do as I do attitude.

91
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 2nd May, 2016 @ 08:45

@Moe - exactly, it's do as I say, not as I do. I've seen council properties so badly maintained that if they were rented out by a private landlord those properties would be put under a maintenance order (I'm talking damp, bad windows, broken kitchens etc).

92
Guest Avatar
Moe 11th May, 2016 @ 07:19

Selective license Rotherham South Yorkshire
Well had inspector to check my property, received the report I am not a happy camper with unprofessional way it was done, is this where my £600 is going in fees
1/ He stated I needed extractor fans in kitchens. These were built into the property (I think he needs speck saver)
2/ Need fans in bathrooms these are also fitted
3/ internal door handle. I told him it must be the spring, the tenant did not report it to me & I don't own a crystal ball, told him I would get my husband to fit a new one tomorrow which he did, this was still put on my report.
4/ black mould spots on ceiling, the tenant admitted they had been drying clothes on the radiator in that room, I was told to clean it up decorate & make good. For goodness sake this was not my fault but the fault of the tenant.
5/ front door step needs a hand rail, the step is only 8 inch high & is legal as far as building regulations go.
I believe all this is being taken out of all proportion & very petty.
My properties are only 15years old, god help these landlords with 100yr old terrace properties, we might as well send in bulldozers it would be cheaper!!!!
The cost for me is high + license fee, will force rents to go up thro no fault of mine. Then we will be called for having high rents.
Friends out there what do you think?

93
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 11th May, 2016 @ 07:59

We have now had several reports on this thread from landlords who have taken exception to assessments made by local authority licensing officers. Some have been clearly incorrect, even outrageous, such as the assertion made to Diamond that the tenant's nephew regularly staying weekends was turning the place into an HMO!

As Loose Minute has stated, all safety assessments should be carried out with reference to HHSRS Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, but this legislation is not clear cut, but is designed to deal with each property and its occupants on an individual basis. This also means taking into account how vulnerable the occupants of the property are (for example, a young child or a frail elderly person will require a safer, more adapted environment than a healthy 25 year old). For example, where HMOs (which come under slightly separate licensing legislation) are concerned, council officials will impose safety adaptations based on the particular structure of the property, and no two will be the same. For example, one house might have windows that can be used as fire escapes, and the one next door may not, so the first house requires less adaptation than the second.

What I would like know is has anyone actually challenged these reports/orders through the Residential Property Tribunal (RPT) and what was the outcome?

94
Guest Avatar
Moe 12th May, 2016 @ 05:35

Re: RPT did not know of this
I have put a complaint to my mp, even gone as far as writing to Brandon Lewis.
I am sick of being spoken to like I am dirt on the officers shoes, I have never been spoken to like this in my life, the worse conversation was yesterday, I asked the officer after a pregnant pause who do you think you are talking to I am old enough to be your grandmother & I won't be spoken to in that tone. I think he was getting frustrated as I was asking about the work he had given me to do & disagreeing with his report. He just does not get it re: extractor fans he did not see, these were a order from building regulations when my properties were built 2000/2001.
On another section of work to do is a window that needs sealing, I have to make it draft proof take out glass & make good , clean it & replace it with putty, this is a upvc sealed window with no putty who uses putty in our days, this officer is not fit for purpose, I would love to know what his qualifications are, does anyone know.
He found mould spots on the ceiling told me to clean it up & decorate, my tenant told him it was her fault she had been drying clothes on the radiators, when I disagreed he said when was the last time you did a property check I said the tenant had not been in that long, then he went on to say it depends how long the ceiling had been like that, my properties are perfect for tenants to move into. I told him It feels like rape what is happening, how would he like someone criticising his property & doing what he is doing to me, very clever he said I'm not renting mine.
I think his job has gone to his head, he should not be like this at the end of the day he is a public servant not only for the tenant but for everyone if this selective license is going to work!
When doing his inspection he never checked the smoke alarms, the water taps to make sure there was hot water,central heating,electric lights, flushing wc's.

95
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 12th May, 2016 @ 07:00

Thanks for sharing that further, Moe! You must be incredibly irritated and frustrated. It's hard enough having that kind of criticism levelled at you when it's informed and justified, but when it's not...

What do his bosses have to say about all this (i.e. about how he has ignored the smoke alarms, heating, plumbing etc and that he wants you to putty a UPVC window...)? Does Environmental Health agree?

I'd be inclined to email or write to the officer, ensuring you copy his superiors in. Give him the link or a copy of this http://anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/my-landlord-blames-me-for-damp-and-mould-what-are-my-rights-what-can-i-do

Anthony Gold Solicitors are one of the leading legal authorities on housing law. The blog I've linked to is by Timothy Waitt, who has successfully prosecuted many landlords in cases involving damp and mould. Even he is saying the tenant has some responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent condensation and mould, unless this is related to a specific disrepair issue. (You might also want to send him something about how UPVC windows are constructed, although that might be a little too obvious, even for him... :-) )

96
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 12th May, 2016 @ 09:13

I Tweeted this thread and London Property Licensing suggested contacting an independent environmental health officer - this might be a good place to start: http://www.ehn-online.com/consultantsdirectory/consultants.aspx.

I've also done some Googling and found this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-report-council-inspector-liable-for-wrong-advice-1330057.html The case publised in the Independent found that a council was liable for mis-information their inspector gave a guest house owner that resulted in her economic loss.

The council pleaded that they weren't liable because their officer wasn't a trained lawyer (citing the Hedley principle established by an earlier case, Hedley-Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Ptrs Ltd) but the appeal judge found otherwise and dismissed their appeal.

97
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 12th May, 2016 @ 09:21

A further thought - make a freedom of information request to that local authority, asking them to detail SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY what training their officers are receiving before being sent out on inspections of properties licensed under their selective landlord licensing scheme.

Following your account and others on here, I'm about to send the same to LA my properties fall under. However, you'll find each council is different and I've no doubt some will be more professional in their approach than others.

98
Guest Avatar
van bon nguyen 20th May, 2016 @ 11:40

it is the way of no free doom .
it is the way of making lost job for housing investement .
it is the way in the country no human righ to do it .
it is poor explaination . just more cost to the tenants .

99
Guest Avatar
Maglet 8th July, 2016 @ 10:15

Hello all
I own a flat in Croydon, paid my £350 fee, & received my licence the same time the tenancy ended. My flat is up for sale.
Is there any way I can recoup the fee? I have challenged Croydon Council about this (pro rata they owe me £297.50), & of course, they are not budging. They say

"To clarify, Section 87 of the Housing Act 2004 states (amongst other things):

The authority may require the application to be accompanied by a fee fixed by the authority, and when fixing the fee the authority may take into account all costs incurred by the authority in carrying out their functions under this part.

The functions covered include processing the application and issuing the licence, which have already been done in this case. The functions do not include carrying out an inspection as there is no statutory requirement to do this, so the fact that we haven’t inspected is not relevant.

Further, we have ‘The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 which say:

A local authority must refund the applicant in full any fee which he has paid in respect of an application as soon as reasonably practical after it learns that at the time the fee was paid the house was not a house that was required to be licensed under Part 2 or Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004.

At the time you made your application and paid the fee, the property did require a licence, so there is no obligation for the Council refund the cost. Regardless if the license is issued electronically or on paper, it is the processing which you paid for, which has been completed. The duration the license was kept for does not affect this.

To confirm, the Council are not in a position to refund the fee for your licence application or provide a rebate of part of the fee as this is non-refundable and non-transferable. As previously stated, this is set out in our FAQs on the Council website. I am sorry this is not the answer you were hoping for on this occasion, however I hope I have explained the justifications for the decision.

I know it is unlikely that I will ever see that money again, but if anyone has some good advice I would gladly take it. I have already contacted a couple of local support services, & the advice was to seek a solicitor. Assume that would cost me more than the returned fee (if it ever was refunded).

Thanks!

100
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 8th July, 2016 @ 14:16

The European Court of Justice ruling on Hemmings V Westminster is due some time this month. When this case was heard in the Supreme Court, it could not be decided whether charging the whole fee upfront was in violation of the service directive, so they referred it up to the ECJ for judgment on this aspect.

If the ECJ rules that charging upfront is unlawful, there will be many implications for landlord licensing fees, especially where an applicant can demonstrate hardship caused by payment (for example, they had to borrow the money). If £350 is payment for the whole 5 years, had an incremental payment structure been used instead, Maglet would only have been expected to pay for the time a licence would be applicable, but not for any time beyond this. I therefore believe there would be a case for a refund of part of the fee paid, assuming Croydon Council don’t do this automatically. If however, you still need legal advice, Cotswold Barristers do a free 15 minute consultation over the phone.

This will also be interesting where Croydon’s fee structure in general is concerned, as they set a fee of £750, but offered an “early bird discount” of just £350 for those applying before 1 October 2015. If they can afford to charge £350 per licence to most of the landlords in Croydon, how do they justify £400 more? While some turnover of landlords is to be expected, most would be expected to hold on to their properties and continue to rent out.

101
Guest Avatar
Maglet 8th July, 2016 @ 16:45

I agree, Mandy. Now, if £350 was the admin fee, and working on the assumption that £350 is roughly the weekly income of a council employee, that means they took a week to process my licence, and, of course, most of that work was done by me when I applied.
So, you do wonder a. how applications can individually cost that much to process, and what extra work would be involved to merit charge of £750.

Thanks for the heads up - I will watch the EJC outcome with great interest!

102
Guest Avatar
Maglet 8th July, 2016 @ 16:48

And I will contact Cotswold Barristers, too.

My lettings agent is supportive so I will also wait to see what they have to say.

103
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 9th July, 2016 @ 10:01

Hi Maglet

As Nearly Legal and London Property Licensing have reminded me via Twitter, Hemmings V Westminster is only concerned with the portion of the fee that goes toward the ENFORCEMENT of a licensing scheme, but as you say, it isn't reasonable that the £350 which most Croydon landlords paid last September is for admin only...

Someone made a freedom of information request to Croydon Council about the selective landlord licensing scheme in April. This was the very generalised and non specific response she got about the fee structure:

"2. How did you determine the fee structure? Does this make the scheme self-financing?

The fee was determined by using the estimated number of privately rented properties in the borough, and the amount of work (and therefore staff) required to process the applications and carry out inspections. Under the Housing Act 2004 we may charge a licence fee to cover the cost of this work but may not make a profit, nor use fee income to fund other, non-related areas of work. The scheme will be self-financing."

104
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 9th July, 2016 @ 10:17

@Maglet - I'd also like to point that Croydon Council stated to you:

“The FUNCTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CARRYING OUT AN INSPECTION as there is no statutory requirement to do this, so the fact that we haven’t inspected is not relevant.”

Yet in a letter dated 22 April 2016, in response to Annie Kerr's freedom of information request, the council state:

“The fee was determined by using the estimated number of privately rented properties in the borough, and THE AMOUNT OF WORK (AND THEREFORE STAFF) REQUIRED TO PROCESS THE APPLICATIONS AND CARRY OUT INSPECTIONS. “

(My capitals in both quotes).

Yet another incident of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and Croydon staff being ignorant of fundamental facts about their own employer's licensing scheme. The FOI letter can be downloaded here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/327511/response/801719/attach/html/2/attachment.docx.html

105
Guest Avatar
Maglet 9th July, 2016 @ 18:06

Many thanks, Mandy.

I have included the relevant section in my last email to the council and added;

'So, it seems that the charge included the cost of inspection, yet my flat was not inspected.

In fact, I fail to see how processing my application cost £350, since it is possible that I did most of the work (i.e. completed the application with all the relevant information required).

If no inspection occurred (yet the cost was factored into the licensing fee), what exactly was done in the processing of my and many (complete and correct) applications which warranted a fee of £350?'

We shall see how it goes!

106
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 10th July, 2016 @ 08:46

@Maglet - I'll be interested in seeing their response, though I daresay it'll be something very non committal.

107
Guest Avatar
Maglet 13th July, 2016 @ 22:29

Mandy - funnily enough, you were spot on! See below...

'Thank you for your email below.

When setting the amount of the fee everything was taken into consideration and the lowest possible fee set at that time. We accept that not all cases will be dealt with in the same way. A small number of cases may not need an inspection, however many more cases will need far more time to process than merely issuing the licence, and the cost was set to reflect this.

I appreciate that you are not happy with the situation, however your application has been processed and as previously mentioned we are not able to issue a refund.'

108
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 14th July, 2016 @ 06:55

Thanks, Maglet. Might be worth doing another FOI request to Croydon and asking them how much they charge for an inspection of a single occupation property for landlord licensing purposes....

109
Guest Avatar
Maglet 14th July, 2016 @ 09:06

Mandy, I have looked at several landlord licensing sites for the UK & they all state that the fee is non-refundable.

So, if I got a penny of my fee back it would be a miracle. The councils are supported by an overarching decision (made by whom, I wouldn't know) which covers every council's licensing policy. Not sure one person's objection is going to make any difference.

If you have any suggestions, though, I am still all ears!

What seems to be happening is that my fee (& those of other quality landlords) is being used so that the council can investigate trickier properties. Otherwise, our fee would have been minimal, & the council would have ensured they had core funding set aside to challenge problem landlords.

Would an FOI enquiry allow me to know how much had been accrued from landlords, and how much has been spent on tackling the problematic pr non-fee paying ones?

Cheers!

110
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 14th July, 2016 @ 15:02

In anticipation of the Hemmings V Westminster verdict, a FOI request has been sent asking what proportion of the fee currently goes on enforcement and their projection for the remaining years each licence will run for - I will update on here when we get their response.

For anyone interested in Croydon's expenditure in general, their current accounts can found at https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/articles/downloads/Draft%20Statement%20of%20Accounts%202015-16.pdf

See page 38 in particular, which states that they have in excess of £6 million in their ear marked reserve account for selective licensing. Other accounts are shown as markedly in the red...

111
Guest Avatar
Moe 19th July, 2016 @ 07:21

I have been complaining about my property's inspection by selective license official
The report was more a jobs worth report
My properties are 16 yr old
I told them I will not have hand rails fitted to the front door step as the step is only 7inch high
After finding out the inspector was measuring from flag stone to threshold instead of flag stone to 7inch step then from the step to threshold, it would have been impossible to stride into the property the way they were measuring it,never mind it being dangerous.
They even went as far as to say if there is no handrail & the tenant had a fall I could be sued!!
This would be extra cost to me having the hand rails fitted when not needed,if the costs keep going up this will have to be passed on to the tenants .
With the houses been built in 2000 & been passed by building regulations I contacted them to see if the rules had been changed, they looked into this & googled the houses they stated the property was legal as far as they were concerned & within building regulations.
I was told by building regulations that a officer from selective licence had contacted them regarding the said steps asking if they agreed with them, the building regulations officer stated no as far as they were concerned the steps were within there findings.
Even up to last week the selective licence office are still sending me letters re: the hand rails I am sick of this it is making me ill, this is a point of if I say white the say black how can you work with such people with attitude.
I even looked at properties to let out of the selective licence area's of Rotherham, I found 6 properties that are not within the selective license rules re: steps ,one property had six large steps leading to the back garden without hand rails, no extractor fans inside the property's
The most upsetting thing about this is in my report they told me I needed extractor fans in my properties, they were built into the house. All this is not only costing me £600 per property it is affecting my health. I think because I disagreed with their report they are putting pressure on me.
One to make you laugh in the report I was told to put PUTTY in a double glazed window, who would ever believe it but I have it in writing. I complained about the officer that inspected & was rude when I phoned their office ( as I have always said it costs nothing for good manners) but I ought to have known better as Rotherham Council are always right.

112
Guest Avatar
Moe 19th July, 2016 @ 09:17

Before Rotherham council applied for selective licence they had conciliation meetings for all four of the areas they had chosen, at the first meeting landlords were getting frustrated & angry as the council were not answering the questions being asked, this was the same for the other meetings held, after that the council cancelled 3 of the other consultation meetings this ment these areas that were not involved in any further meetings, 1 of these meetings was the area were my rented property was therefore I did not get any info what so ever.
Rotherham council had to get the application into the government by May 2015, so they did a rush job with the consultation meetings & not the excuse they gave that landlords were being too loud, the landlords thought they had not got the paper work in order to pass info over to them.
Do you think this was illegal? That the process had not been done correctly by the council as the government wanted before their application was applied.

113
Guest Avatar
Bristle 5th August, 2016 @ 08:51

I am going to write to the CEO why there has been no discrimination between buy-to-let and private landlords in the application form. I am interested in the Hemmings vs Westminster case re. the legitimacy of charging for 5 years in advance, as mentioned by Mandy T. Does anyone have an update on this?

114
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 5th August, 2016 @ 14:57

According to Cornerstones, the barristers acting for Hemmings, the European Court (CJEU) judgement on Hemmings V Westminister won't be issued until this later this year. Their blog can be followed here: http://cornerstonebarristers.com/case/cornerstone-gosschalks-team-court-justice-european-union/

I suspect Cornerstones will be amongst the first to break the news on this, so worth checking back from time to time.

115
Guest Avatar
Moe 7th August, 2016 @ 06:12

To
Maglet & anyone else interested in a refund on the selective property license, but contact your own council.
I looked into a refund if the licensed property was sold or would it be transferred to a purchaser.
Answer to this from Rotherham Council was NO refund also anyone purchasing the property with intention to let would be charged for another license.
This practice is wrong in any sense of the word.
This means they are getting double for a single property, as I was told it is not the landlord that is licensed it is the property.
No wonder we were told to inform the council if we intend selling the property, this is not so we can have a refund!!!!!

116
Guest Avatar
George 7th October, 2016 @ 22:05

Up in Wirral us good landlords with decent tenants are blighted by rogues who have decimated property with bad managent and bad tenants. I was livid at the idea of having to pay for licences but, and I hate to say it, existing legislation doesn't really help in cleaning up the kerb appeal in these areas. I have seen improvements already in that the council lackeys are getting landlords to fit gates, paint the fronts, put windows back in were the ASBO tenants had smashed them. They also have been helping tenants get help with fuel debt, addictions, and all sorts of stuff like new boilers and wall insulation schemes. Our bad colleagues are letting us down, I only hope the cash I've spent on the scheme will help to drive the bstards out of business so I can one day see a bit o growth in the area and cash out myself.

117
Guest Avatar
Jenni 28th October, 2016 @ 08:54

This scheme is another money maker and it's alternative method of Peterborough being able to patch up their finances.

The reasoning for this license makes no sense to me whatsoever and how is that payment going to improve on the attitude of unscrupulous landlords and anti social behaviour or the high level of migration? The criteria is a joke because Peterborough has throughout history attracted Italians, Pakistanis, West Indians, Polish to name a few!

The joke is when you look at the map of proposed rentals which fall under the scheme, rentals in the more affluent parts of Peterborough are untouched on the right side of the train track. Now how does that work? If Peterborough council is going to charge some areas and not others is that legal? If the scheme is going to be enforced, then every single landlord should have to put their hands in their pockets and pay because their property is situated in the borough.

Interesting how this council has targeted the "bad" parts but it makes no sense. It sounds as if the poor are being penalised yet again. The joke is some landlords may choose to increase their rentals to cover the cost of having to comply and who is it going to affect in the end? The tenant who is already struggling to make ends meet which leads to a number of various related ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOURS.

I remember when I was renovating my property and the work was extensive but upon completion I received a call from Peterborough council demanding that they be allowed to inspect the property which at the time was empty as I worked on finding a good letting agent. An inspector wanted to get into the property to establish if there were foreigners living there. Now I was also paying the full amount of council tax, no exemptions and she was demanding to get into the property and forcing me to have to let the property out to people on her books. Naturally being me, I told her that she was not going to be allowed in the house for whatever reason.

My course of action was to contact the council who sent around another employee to establish there was no one living inside.

Now with the above fact, you can imagine that there are going to be, as you have all described people dispersed from the council to pressurise landlords into do doing whatever they want you to do.

This is nothing more than a money making scheme and funnily enough how is the collected revenue going to help cleanse these areas of those people deemed not worthy in society which includes the landlords?

'In order to become a licence holder they must be a fit and proper person. This means a landlord has to meet a certain standard before they can legally rent out a property.'

The above comes from the Peterborough council website and makes me question what qualifies a 'fit and proper person' and what is that 'certain standard'?

118
Guest Avatar
Beryl 28th October, 2016 @ 15:55

Our rental house is in Wales. Because I live in France, I have had to register, sit my examination, I am now waiting to see if I am a fit and proper person, but WAIT.......I cannot go ahead. I WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITH A LICENCE UNLESS I HAVE AN AGENT, a friend or relative living in the UK who will have to study, pass a commercial agent's exam, and I will have to pay for two Licences. So I have to pay double everyone else's fees. Rent Smart Wales says unless I do this I cannot rent the house out. Why should I have to pay twice? I only have 1 rented house? By the way if you have say 100 houses you only need one licence. Please, if you rent a house in Wales get in touch with me, and we can get together and fight this evil. This clause is not in the Housing Wales Act 2014, neither is it on Rent Smart Wales' website. They themselves admit this.
If they can impose one condition without legislation, what will they do next? We need to unite and fight.

119
Guest Avatar
Harassed Pete 6th November, 2016 @ 19:23

Getting back to Wirral council. My tenant as recently died and the property was left furnished but it seems there is no longer any c/tax exemption for empty furnished property and now have to pay as was always the case for unfurnished property! As to whether to put your money in property or in the bank, well judging by the number of scam emails etc, stuffed under the bed may be safest!

120
Guest Avatar
Mark 7th November, 2016 @ 21:05

I am very concerned about the mandatory licensing scheme that Ealing council are intrducing at the end of the year.

I am annoyed that it seems to have been introduced in secracy and very fast. Why did I not have the chance to comment?

So it a scheme for private landlords?

So what exactly do I have to do I wonder to legally avoid this scheme? Perhaps avoid being a private landlord by using some other way of transacting business other than AST.

Could I rent to a corporation or does that still leave me as a private landlord? Could I rent through a corporation? Could I rather than renting, issuue a license to occupy? I am not a lwaer but there must be ways.

I dont want the council involved in my business and I dont see why they should be.

I would rather not break the law if there is an alternative but might if we could get a large civil disobediance campaign going.
I would be very interested in protesting.

But I have heard nothing of chanllenge or protest, and nothing of legal circumvention. This is bad legislation, poorly drafted, and I also dont see why Acton should be the guinepigs. Why should our property be devalued by this, and other areas of Ealing not suffer that blight.

121
Guest Avatar
Mandy Thomson 17th November, 2016 @ 09:34

I've just learned that Hemmings has been successful in the Supreme Court: http://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/court-justice-finds-favour-sex-shops/

122
Guest Avatar
Ko Malik 30th November, 2016 @ 13:59

I am outraged. I bought the licence as my from my own experience Council Workers are a bunch of morally corrupt not by nature but by profession. Their work practices allows them to do what they like and make decisions that if taken further would not work in their favour. But the costs associated with taking a case further for the service user are excessive which is why the Councils always end up being the winner without the need for neither the judge nor the jury. The magistrates court sucks anyway. Sorry to be blunt but a system for someone paying for everything and abiding by every law to live quietly does not work out in their favour.
I licence the property, paying out £500 what the charge was for the 5 year scheme but a year later, when I heard about the scheme. I did the basics that were required. The Council writes to them about everything which I disagree with about visiting and about what they wanted me to do, which was just an electric appliance certificate. I did it all and a year later, I've learnt that the tenant has got on to the Council asking them to replace the windows in the back room which has moisture inside. I'm not sure if this is justifiable. My own windows has moisture inside, early morning and dries out as soon as it mid morning. This is despicable.

123
Guest Avatar
Chris 1st December, 2016 @ 23:08

Hello. A local resident of Peterborough here, slap bang in the middle of a street in the Selective Licensing area. Some interesting comments above, especially from Jenni who it appears has property in Peterborough. I wouldn't expect a landlords forum to be pro-licensing obviously, but thought I would offer a residents (and non-landlords) view, so here goes!

Whilst I don't know how successful the scheme in Peterborough will be - that will depend on the council's available resource to enforce the rules - what I do know is we've seen a slow degradation in our area in the 9 years we've lived here. For reference, we live in an old part of the city with some lovely period property which, in my opinion, is worth preserving. So in short, we are fans of the scheme!

We've seen an increase in anti-social behaviour, crime, poor standards of living and HMO's in recent years. Of course, these social problems can not be laid solely at the feet of rogue landlords, there are some great tenanted properties with good landlords here. However, what we have seen is an increasing number of beautiful period properties being sold off to landlords who subsequently rip them apart and stuff for example five "young professionals" into a 3-bed terrace, all in the name of yield and profit. Families are moving out, HMO's are moving in and the properties just aren't conducive to this type of conversion.

Sadly, there are increasingly more and more bad examples. Opposite the above property, a family is looking to sell after fruitlessly trying to get the landlord to deal with the infestation of bed bugs which have navigated the adjoining loft space into their home. Add that to the constant string of poor tenants, the latest of which urinates in the garden, and it's easy to see why they've had enough.

Lately, we've also had bus loads of property tourists being bussed in by a local firm to take photos of houses for investment purposes, apparently, they are on a course learning to be landlords. Materially, there's nothing wrong with that you'd say, good landlords are as important to the fabric of any area as good owner occupiers, except that's not really what we are getting!

The majority of landlords don't live near their properties, so why should they care about the impact of their actions on our area? This type of behaviour brings more pressure on parking and services in what are narrow streets, a loss of family homes as layouts change, a deterioration in the fabric of properties, and a loss of a sense of community with a revolving door of tenants. Do ALL landlords actually think about the impact of their actions on area, truthfully? You'd struggle to convince me otherwise, and before you leap to the defence of your fellow landlords, I worked at a leading property website for 10 years so I know how the market and lettings agents work. Lately, we've had lots of marketing asking us to sell our property to waiting landlords, apparently one's Mummy wants to buy ours?!

Put bluntly, a lot of local residents have had enough so as you can imagine we are looking forward to seeing what the scheme can do. We are also pooling resources to see how we can support the council, having had recent meetings with them to discuss our concerns. We've nothing against landlords per se, as mentioned above I know how important they are to any area, but there needs to be the right balance and tenants have a basic right to good standard accommodation. If you are a Peterborough landlord doing things properly, surely you've nothing to fear from the scheme (other than the cost!) It may or may not succeed, but something needs to be done in our area and as local residents it has our full support.

So, there you go, sorry for the long post but hopefully some reasoned debate from the other side of the argument! As a write this, next door to us is now up for sale and to be honest, we are dreading what might happen.

Regards,

Chris

124
Guest Avatar
Beryl 2nd December, 2016 @ 13:48

28/10/2016 comment 119. why oh why have I not heard from any of you re fighting this dreadful licencing fiasco. It benefits no one except the councils.
Please, please get in touch and with unity we will have strength.
db.williams@hotmail.co.uk

125
Guest Avatar
Alun Owen 19th December, 2016 @ 17:19

I've registered, successfully completed the course, and am now waiting for my landlord's licence - total cost £330. You can't pick and choose which laws you must obey. Not having a landlorzYrd
The Rent Smart Wales people npw need to chase up the law-breakers - the unlicensed ones - and start fining them. Otherwise, I want my money back.

126
Guest Avatar
Maz 23rd January, 2017 @ 18:06

There is a new even more expensive scheme just entering consultation for the whole of the Nottingham City Council area. The fee will be £600 for five years for any PRS property. There's precious little additional benefit as far as I can see on their site nottinghamcity.gov.uk/qualityhousingforall apart from material they have lifted from other scheme's spurious claims. There will be a 77 strong enforcement department in year 1 of the scheme earning £25m for the council. Consultation runs from Jan-March 2017 and hardly anyone seems to have even heard about it yet..

127
Guest Avatar
Claire 21st February, 2017 @ 13:05

Any chance you can confirm the last date this list was updated, is it recent?

128
The Landlord Avatar
The Landlord 21st February, 2017 @ 13:40

@Claire
I update the list as and when I can- usually after someone leaves a comment or emails me directly with an update. I believe I last updated it a few weeks ago.

However, I wouldn't rely on the list to be up-to-date. If you wish to find out accurate information regarding a particular borough, you should either look on their website, or contact them directly.

129
Guest Avatar
j smith 12th March, 2017 @ 00:30

Liverpool city council licencing have chosen a blanket selective licensing.
council charge full payment for 5 years straight away.
landlords in liverpool are all too frightened to speak out against the licencing scheme who has no benefit to tenants and the city.
altogether is in vilation of data protection act as the forms require a lots of information about all parties which is confidencial.
they have implemented a blanket scheme whereas this is called selective licensing not blancket licensing.

130
Guest Avatar
Beryl 12th March, 2017 @ 10:29

No one except the council benefits. Money rolling in. So few enforcement officers only pen pushers. Disgusted with it all and so many hundreds of pounds worse off.

131

Please leave a comment...

Nobody

Nobody

Landlord

Landlord

Tenant

Tenant

Agent

Agent

Legal

Legal

Buyer

Buyer

Developer

Developer

Enthusiast

Enthusiast