Tag Archives: Property Legislation

24May 2011

Current Porperty News: TDS Legislation under threat.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

There have been reports in the press recently about the recent judgement in the Court of Appeal on the Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi. This case will undoubtedly have an effect on the Tenancy Deposit protection legislation, but rather than being a decision that will drive a nail in the coffin of the intended protection for Tenants, I believe that it will leave the door open for the matter to be addressed by the Government in the upcoming  Localism Bill and indeed this decision may encourage further legislation which could impose further requirements on the Industry as it is highly possible that such ‘holes’ will attempt to be plugged as well as any perceived problems brought to light by this judgement are considered as well.

Joint action required.

The case failed in the full award of the penalty as prescribed in the bill (Three times value of deposit as a fine) because of two problems the first being that this was a joint Tenancy and the action was bought by one Tenant (Hashemi) without the knowledge of the second (Johnston) (For clarity Gladehurst Properties Ltd were the Landlords) The implications of this are that Tenancies involving more than one person, such as Student or any joint Tenant situation, especially for example if one Tenant is not accessible (left the area, left with debt to the other parties) as it would become impossible for the second / remaining Tenant/s to take any action to recover the deposit. This is the kind of area I mean the Government may want to get involved in addressing. Then if the Tenants disagree? Well let’s just leave that one hanging!

Part returned Deposit.

Another area that could invite further legislation is the situation where some of the deposit has been returned, but not the whole. This is of course a common occurrence, especially for Private Landlords, as agents we should be aware of the implications, which will be clear no matter which scheme is used for Deposit protection. So the Landlord does not register, returns half the deposit and leaves the Tenants with no comeback or protection. This is where the main ‘hole’ will need to be fixed, but there is no doubt again that the Government will look at other areas where legislation could further protect the Tenants rights as intended under the initial legislation.

Further appeal.

I have also heard that many feel the case should be referred to the Supreme Court because of the long term implications to the TDS legislation but because of the sums involved this could be a none starter. But I think it is important to state and for Tenants and Landlords to understand that the implications are not yet fully known but it is not a case of the legislation being filed in the draw marked bin just yet! There is no doubt that it will be addressed and re-enforced by the Government 

There have been reports in the press recently about the recent judgement in the Court of Appeal on the Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi. This case will undoubtedly have an effect on the Tenancy Deposit protection legislation, but rather than being a decision that will drive a nail in the coffin of the intended protection for Tenants, I believe that it will leave the door open for the matter to be addressed by the Government in the upcoming  Localism Bill and indeed this decision may encourage further legislation which could impose further requirements on the Industry as it is highly possible that such ‘holes’ will attempt to be plugged as well as any perceived problems brought to light by this judgement are considered as well.

Joint action required.

The case failed in the full award as prescribed in the bill (Three times value of deposit as a fine) because of two problems the first being that this was a joint Tenancy and the action was bought by one Tenant (Hashemi) without the knowledge of the second (Johnston) (For clarity Gladehurst Properties Ltd were the Landlords) The implications of this are that Tenancies involving more than one person, such as Student or any joint Tenant situation, especially for example if one Tenant is not accessible (left the area, left with debt to the other parties) as it would become impossible for the second / remaining Tenant/s to take any action to recover the deposit. This is the kind of area I mean the Government may want to get involved in addressing. Then if the Tenants disagree? Well let’s just leave that one hanging!

Part returned Deposit.

Another area that could invite further legislation is the situation where some of the deposit has been returned, but not the whole. This is of course a common occurrence, especially for Private Landlords, as agents we should be aware of the implications, which will be clear no matter which scheme is used for Deposit protection. So the Landlord does not register, returns half the deposit and leaves the Tenants with no comeback or protection. This is where the main ‘hole’ will need to be fixed, but there is no doubt again that the Government will look at other areas where legislation could further protect the Tenants rights as intended under the initial legislation.

Further appeal.

I have also heard that many feel the case should be referred to the Supreme Court because of the long term implications to the TDS legislation but because of the sums involved this could be a none starter. But I think it is important to state and for Tenants and Landlords to understand that the implications are not yet fully known but it is not a case of the legislation being filed in the draw marked bin just yet! There is no doubt that it will be addressed and re-enforced by the Government

12May 2011

Current Property News: Shelter Campaign launched supporting Licensed Landlords.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone.

Shelter have produced a video in support of their call for action for the licensing of Landlords. It is an over the top production in the picture that it purveys, but there is no doubt that it does get the message across very well.

Dodgy practises.

It manages to cover several dodgy practises in a very short time, including illegal eviction, lack of proper procedure, unfit housing to name but a few, I would recommend all to watch it not just because of the content, but because as an industry we should think how Shelter feel they need to promote this issue to highlight the trend they report to have witnessed in recent times. Please note carefully, that during the video, Agents are added to the situation as being part of the problem!

Several messages.

At times it feels like those of us who are constantly calling for legislation to support us in our professional aims are knocking against closed doors, so I am grateful of any action that highlights the need for Registration of both Landlords and Agents. But it is a pity that it is not our own Industry professional bodies that are not the ones shouting the loudest! We need to recognise that many would see this video as a true representation of our Industry and not that farfetched. Agents, Landlords and bodies that truly care should be joining the call for the Government to take up the recommendations of the Rugg review of 2009. Otherwise, whilst rogue Landlords still exist and the evidence is still present for all to see, this tardy image will never go away.

Hard Times.

We should all be aware that during harder financial times for us all, the temptation to cut costs and corners is high, so whilst I feel Cambell Robb’s (Shelter CE) comment that ‘Landlords are cashing in’ a bit too simplistic and an easy jibe to make, we cannot hide from the fact that Shelter’s Campaign casts a very poor shadow across the whole of the rental market and it’s effect will touch us all one way or another. Follow the link above and you will not find one shred of comfort in the headlines, comment or follow up added to the page.

Join the call.

So yet again I find myself singing the same song, but this time my comments are directed towards the bodies that govern our Industry, the very same bodies that should such legislation be introduced, would want to be the people who oversaw its introduction, have a large say in how it was put together, would probably wish to police it and most importantly want to set the standard by which Landlords and Agents could be approved! I feel that the fact that organisations such as Shelter should be the party to start a Campaign and petition to promote professional standards reflects badly on your own efforts, efforts which we fund through our fees. Think and reflect on why your thunder has been well and truly stolen – this should be an Initiative that we should control within our own walls!

29Apr 2011

Property Landlord advice: 'Local Housing Allowance cuts' interpretation still in the grey!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

Many Landlords aware of the proposed cuts in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) formerly Housing Benefit understand that the cuts only apply to new tenancies commencing from the 1st of April onwards. But we have become aware of a case where the tenancy commenced on the 16th of March on a 12 month tenancy. The rent was £2300 a month on a London 5 bed house which the local LHA office had agreed to pay when the claim commenced on the 16th March.

However in early April the tenant received notification that as from the 1st April, LHA of £1500 only would be paid. Can this significant shortfall be right?

If the LHA prove to be in error and will in fact pay the agreed figure of £2300 for the 12 month duration (because the tenancy was created before the 1st of April deadline when the changes were introduced in London), this raises another question. What of existing tenancies created before the deadline which have gone periodic? My guess would be that a periodic has the same new rules applied. After all it could stay periodic forever and never be subjected to the changes which rather defeats the object of them. 

The danger here is how the new rules are interpreted, and local variations are not unknown as with Council Tax where, for example, when discounts applied on unoccupied properties some CB offices said a property had to be uninhabitable as opposed to what the rules said – uninhabited!! Similarly when the under 25’s rules on the then Housing Benefit came in many years ago they were only supposed to apply to new claimants not existing ones and not even on their annual reassessments.

In fact many HB offices (wrongly) reduced the payment down to the new room allowance for all under 25 year old existing claimants though admittedly from their next annual reassessment.

In terms of what an LHA office will allow and what they will not they are bound by the terms of the Regulations and the rules are clearly laid out in the guidance manual at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-guidance-manual.pdf  and scroll down to

8.030.  

But there are a number of possibilities in this particular case. Firstly, this could simply be a misunderstanding. The rate for that property is capped to a 4 bed rate from 1 April, but any existing tenants would enjoy 9 months transitional protection. It is possible that the letter from the LHA office is simply informing of the new benefit level, ignoring the protection that exists for any current tenant. So maybe the LHA office will honour the existing rent for one month only before applying the cut?

21Apr 2011

Current Property News: TDS Figures from DPS seem impressive but do not give the whole picture

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The Deposit Protection Scheme has recently had some figures released in a recent press article and on the face of what they state, they do look impressive. Indeed, I would say that the scheme has been vindicated as one of the best available to Agents and Landlords as they approach ¾ million active deposits. I could not help but notice though a couple of what I believe to be very pertinent facts behind the figures, which in no way reflect on DPS as an organisation, but what they do show is that the Industry is still far from committing itself 100% behind the legislation.

Where have they been?

Firstly and separated from the main section if facts and figures  in the report is the somewhat surprising fact that as a Company, DPS are still registering around 200 new Landlords a day. This is allowing for working days alone, a rate of around 10,000 a year. Now my mind immediately asked where they have been until now, because even allowing for cross registration when Landlords decide to change or indeed new Landlords coming to the system for the first time, this figure shows a large percentage of Landlords were outside of the legislation, which do not forget, is now four years old.

Time for teeth?

It would be interesting to see if companies such as DPS, who of course must accept the contact and register the deposit at face value, actually take data about the history of the Tenancy. For those of us who wholeheartedly accept and encompass such legislation, do so with the hope that the legislation will deal with those who do not. Of course I am fully aware of the costs and penalties associated with not registering a deposit, but surely there has to be a time when you have to ask Landlords to prove why deposits for the property concerned were not registered prior to this date and for me four years is long enough for such situations to be questioned!

Landlords found wanting.

The second and more important fact that most Agents would have picked up on will be that two in three adjudications where sole culpability was awarded was awarded against the Landlord. Now what I would like to know and I believe should know, is how many of these cases (3518 in number using the figures quoted) were tenancies in Management and how many were through Agents. I am aware through the cases involving Castle Estates that where the correct paperwork and procedures have been presented, that the Landlord is usually successful, because if we believe that he would not succeed, we would recommend settlement and negotiate with the Tenant rather than go through adjudication in the first case.

Proof is in the figures.

The figures that I believe should be included in this release are those confirming how many unsuccessful Landlords were self managed? And indeed it would be good to see what percentage was managed by unlicensed Agents who are not connected with Industry regulators. (NALS, ARLA, RICS) This is an age old problem and such numbers would indicate how successful the recent legislation introduced by Government has been at changing the face of the Industry. So conversely we would also need to know what percentage were Managed by what I have always referred to as Professional Agents who do believe in running their businesses to the standards set by such bodies. The second half of this request is probably impossible for DPS to judge, but I believe that we would start to see justification of our shout for professional registration for all Agents and Landlords if they were made available – anybody listening?

29Mar 2011

Current Property News: Letting Agent Kitemark – Yes Please!

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

The National Approved Lettings Scheme (NALS) are to champion a new Kite mark for Letting Agents with compliant CMP (Client Money Protection) and as the owner of the Castle Estates brand, I would like to throw my weight totally behind the scheme and the principals that the scheme promotes. I have long stated through these pages that I firmly believe in and openly support any move towards confirming professionalism in our industry and can only congratulate those behind this move.

Public will benefit.

Every Agent should embrace this scheme, which is free for those who already have CMP. It is now down to every qualifying Agent to sell the system and advise our Landlords that we both embrace it and what the scheme means. In simple terms, every Agent who carries this Kite mark will by definition, protect and insure the Landlords money. It is time for us not to just sell the advantages but also make sure that both our existing and potential Landlords are aware of the implications of NOT being able to display the Kite Mark. It is time we stood loud and proud and waved the flag of Professionalism as often as possible!

Government take note.

But to me this is also an opportunity to say to the Government that as an Industry we believe they made the wrong decision in not following through with registration of Agents as recommended by the Rugg review of 2009. This is another reason why I champion the decision, if the Government will not support us as an Industry through legislation, then as an Industry we must legislate ourselves. I am not suggesting we do not need the Government, because as the report (link above) states, this is not law, but hopefully, sufficient Agents will adopt this opportunity that the Government has to take note and will in time back us with the type of legislation that will once and for all confirm our Industry as Professional.

Why do we need legislation?

As an Industry, like so many others in difficult times, we are offering our services at reduced rates through Competition. I firmly believe that no matter what price we offer our service, they should always be accompanied by the Guarantees offered by CMP and professional membership to bodies such as NALS and ARLA. Such membership does have its costs, which can be significant and along with having qualified staff to carry out the full range of services that a Professional Letting Agency should offer we can quite often find ourselves competing at a disadvantage to Companies that risk the implications of operating without Guarantees for their clients and at a reduced level of service.

Legislation equals Professionalism.

Unfortunately the papers are still full of Offices that have collapsed because of discrepancies in Client accounts (monies held). Confirming the continued need for legislation, especially at a time when so many have been attracted to what is unusually at present, a growing market. Further proof of this is the Financial Increase we are currently paying for continued CMP cover. An increase which comes about purely because of claims made against the scheme. In summary, this Industry is doing something positive to combat the difference to services available, but the Government can make it happen through Law. The Kite Mark is therefore very welcome, but legislation is still needed and as soon as possible please, in the meantime we can show our commitment by joining and letting the public know, why and what difference professional Agents make to this growing industry.

11Mar 2011

Property Landlords advice: Resident Landlord agreements (Part 2)

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Mike Edwards

The starting point and the fundamental factors in determining whether you are dealing with a Resident Landlord (ResLan) or not is whether the building is largely as originally constructed or has been converted. Or a purpose build block of flats no matter how small. If the latter and the builder/Landlord reserves one of the units to themselves not a problem it can never be a ResLan case. Similarly if the Landlord does not use the property as their main residence then equally it will not be a Reslan case.

What is a RESLAN Tenancy?

For it to be a ResLan tenancy therefore one of two things must happen, but in either case the accommodation must be self-contained even if it is a shared communal access – such as the hallway of a converted house. The 1988 Act says quite specifically that if both Landlord and Tenant live in the same original building and it is not a block of purpose built flats, then the tenant cannot have a 1988 Act tenancy. Therefore if you have a self contained flat upstairs and one downstairs and the landlord lives upstairs and the tenant lives downstairs, the tenant can have a Common Law contractual tenancy, but not an AST because it is Resident Landlord, and that puts it in the excluded category.

Licensor and Licensee.

Next assume a simple house and the tenant has their own bedroom but shares the kitchen (even if meals are not provided). If the Landlord was not living there this would be a Hybrid AST situation like any other sharer. But if the sharer or one of them is the Landlord then this is a typical lodger agreement and only a license will be granted and the wording throughout will be Licensor and Licensee – though in construction it could look very much like a normal tenancy agreement. However that may look like overkill for what is a fairly informal arrangement compared to a full blown tenancy. If the occupier where the Landlord lives in the same building (as originally constructed though possibly converted) shares any of the essential living accommodation (bathroom, kitchen even a lounge) then that occupier does not have exclusivity over all the accommodation and is a licensee and can only be granted a licence and not a tenancy at all. For licences it is generally recommend to use weekly periodic agreements to make it easier to get rid of co-habitees who the Landlord ends up not rubbing along with. Basically if you grant the licence on an initial fixed term and payment period of a week then you are contractually bound and can have complications and longer notice periods.

Notice procedure.

If a weekly licence is granted then a simple letter stating all the necessary detail and dates and giving a week’s notice is all that is required and no Court Order is needed to evict either. If it is a Common Law tenancy (Landlord living in same property and tenant having exclusive accommodation again like the flat example above) then a normal Notice to Quit is used giving a month’s notice. As far as tenant or occupier protection and rights are concerned all occupiers who are licensees or tenants are covered by the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 (PFE) except those living with a resident landlord, where a Court Order is not needed. Hence the weekly licence.

Check PFE status.

If they do because they are a tenant then you will have acted illegally if you evicted them only with a letter giving them a week and then entered their room and put their belongings out on the street. You can do this if they are a licensee and don’t leave at the end of the week’s notice – but you cannot if their status gives them PFE protection meaning you should have given them longer notice (minimum one month) and obtained a Court Order

Link to Res LL Part 1

04Mar 2011

Current Property News: Approved Agents would provide improved Housing.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It’s time for me to bang on the same drum again, as another slice of news has appeared on my desk and the opportunity to improve a situation by ensuring that licensed or approved Agents and or Landlords looked after the Private rented sector through a Government sponsored (but in my opinion Industry monitored) system immediately suggested itself. Well it does to me and I would welcome commitment or debate about my thoughts!

33% of Private rented stock in poor condition.

 

This information is taken from the recent English Housing Survey, just released by the Department of Communities and Local Government. This figure is a surprise, especially as the same paper suggests that Social housing is in better condition (some 23%) The headline figures for the Social and Private rented sectors are now very similar, with 17% of stock forming the Social sector and 15.6% the Private sector, this translates in big round numbers to 850,000 Social houses and over 1 million Private houses. But my own experience would suggest that the majority of these lie in the self managed sector, for in my own Company (as I would expect from all professional agencies) we would recommend what was needed for property to be acceptable to offer to the rental market before accepting the property on our books. This of course means we will not manage property that was unfit and I have indeed wiped my feet on the way out of many houses in the past. Of course, most Landlords follow our advice and repair, renew and renovate as needed.

Professional Industry creates Professional standards.

 

My own point being, that improving the state and condition of property in this Country is rightfully a main target for Government (no matter what colour) by ensuring those responsible for the care and standard of rented property were approved and this approval relies on the correct standards, then the improvement in property would be dealt with, I would suggest, very efficiently and rather quicker than any Government targets are currently achieving.

Same old same old.


It is not the first time I have championed professional membership or approval schemes and it will not be the last. What we need to do and what I do at every given opportunity as a Professional Letting Agent, is to open this debate with and actually put our conclusions in front of those who make the decisions at every given chance. What I hope is that the bodies that represent our Industry are continuing to do the same. I would think it would be difficult to argue against my conclusion in this case and only those who could not afford to renovate properties currently rented would find a reason for doing so, but is this not the objective? Because then the alarming figure of over 1 million properties rented in poor condition would be removed from the market, allowing better quality property to replace it. This of course is providing Landlords can get the right Mortgage to allow renovation or buy new housing stock – but that is another topic for debate.

08Feb 2011

Current Property News: NLA Chairman fights back, but legislation is still needed!

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I was busy doing those Saturday morning chores this weekend, when I report on BBC Breakfast caught my attention. What I then heard was the BBC once again doing what they do best, trying to put a negative slant on a housing matter, this time the report was about the standard of rental property nationwide. Answering the main point that a large proportion of rental property in the private sector in the UK is in poor condition, was the Chairman of the National Landlords Association, Mr David Salusbury. Very calmly and with clear comments he put the presenter straight about the standard of the majority of rental property in the Country, to the extent, I thought of reducing the length of the report as I felt the presenter had very little left to pick at once David had made his point with such authority and presence!

Missed opportunity.

Of course what David could not do in any depth, was to get the conversation round to what should have been the made drive of the report, which the BBC report failed to do, namely that legislation recommended by the Rugg review and rejected by the current Government, is what is needed to address the issues that do exist with rogue Landlords.

Councils to look after us.

The Housing Minister Grant Shapps, has stuck to the line that Local Councils have the powers already, but two things struck me from what was stated that really have an effect on what is actually happening on the ground. Firstly and most importantly, Councils may have the powers, but there is no way they have the man power to carry out this role! I remember being advised when the HMO regulations came in, that it would take our Council several years to inspect the property they already knew was due for inspection, before they even got around to investigating the property they did NOT know about! (Therefore the property where real action was needed) because we all know that the property the Council are aware of is that owned by responsible Landlords (probable members of such organisations as the NLA or managed by professional agents!)

Let’s not forget the work carried out so far!

Secondly, what is not mentioned is how the market has improved greatly over the last ten years. I can remember being asked to look at some property in the past where I have wiped my feet on the way out not that long ago! Now Landlords listen to what we agents say, because they know they need to compete in this market and prepare in a way to ensure prospective Tenants want to live in their home, not the opposite.

Let’s catch the rest.

So what needs to happen is recognition that bad Landlords do not operate through professional Agents, we need as a profession, to keep making this blindingly obvious statement until bodies such as the BBC and more importantly the Government, listen to us. This is why the registration is so important, because it would catch everybody who does not operate in this way and if our industry could be self policing, which could be operated through a qualification needed to operate for both Landlords and Agents, then what problems do exist, would be dealt with very quickly.

Conclusion.

 This is why I keep stating the same point again and again! Stop emphasising the bad points, speak about the good, let’s get a balanced opinion of our industry, housing and the need for more and then we just might start to get positive ways forward. And for what it is worth, my way would be a simple qualification that all Landlords and Agents would need to qualify for, run within the industry, by the industry, which, when Landlord or Agent fall foul off, would remove the ability to trade in this way. (on a sliding scale which could include penalties dependent upon the severity of the offence, right up to dismissal from the scheme, removing the ability to Manage property themselves)

This would force bad Landlords to be Managed by professional Agents and would stop any bad Agent from trading at all.

Now, let’s consider what effect this would have on the quality of rental housing stock in the UK?

03Feb 2011

Property Landlord advice: Rent Increase time of the year.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

If being involved in the rental market for over ten years has taught me anything when it comes to increasing rent for a sitting Tenant, then it is that thoughts turn to the subject in the spring, more than at any other time of the year. So much so that it is the time of the year, that as an agency we review all of our rents on behalf of our Landlords so that we can actually advise our Landlords with knowledge of having done the work before we get asked.

Important procedure.

But it is not just a matter of advising the Tenant and awaiting the increased rent to arrive. Far from it! There are several considerations, not least of which, that rent can only be increased once in any one year and perhaps more importantly, rent should be increased by issuing the correct notice, in line with the requirements of the Housing Act 1988.

Once per year.

This sensible rule ensures that Tenants, who are outside of any fixed period as stated in their Tenancy Agreement, know exactly how long they have between rent increases. An increase raised through agreements or renewals, can be the best way to achieve an increase, as the Tenant knows again that the period is fixed and therefore so is the rent for the same period. This also means that after any fixed period and for example after the traditional initial six month period rent can be increased, but only once per year. Now I have had many conversations with Landlords about the impact of increasing rents within the first year of a Tenancy and any such request has be to handled with care to avoid the Tenant immediately giving notice to leave.  

Correct Section notice

Again, by using the prescribed documentation, you can ensure that the procedure is dealt with in accordance with the Housing Act that introduced the legislation, allowing increases to be served whilst Tenants are outside of any fixed period agreement. (Periodic) This ensures that there can be no argument about the legality of the new rent. Also, I cannot write about rent increases without stating that any increase should consider the Tenant, the property and what it would rent for if empty at that time and the market and current financial situation. Then and only then can the increase be justified if the Tenant does question the increase, and yes, it is right and proper that it can be.

Investment requirement.

It is part of the market in the same way that investments can go up or down, that Rent Increases are part of owning a rental property. There have been occasions, most noticeably when property could not sell, that rents have gone in the opposite direction, as Tenants, realising that there were many properties available at the time, made offers to Landlords who needed a Tenant in their property rather than waiting another month for the full asking price. After all, in the lettings market you cannot recover rent for the period property sits empty, but that is not the case now and it has been well documented that rents will increase this year. For Letting Agencies, now is the traditional time to carry out the preparation and be ready to carry out the role on behalf of our Landlords, most importantly, correctly and professionally!

26Jan 2011

Current Property News: HMO Licensing could cost £millions.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I am not one to look at matters with a doom and gloom outlook, but I do believe in being factual about the outcome of actions when there is a danger that there could be far reaching implications of a change to legislation, or changes carried out by any legislative body, as is the case with the decision by Oxford City Council in reference to ALL of the Houses of Multiple Occupation within the City.

 The decision.

What they have done, is to decide that every property that falls under the description of an HMO will, on a timetable spread across the next two years, need to be licensed by the owner with the Council, in order to improve the standard of the property and in order to receive approval from the Council to continue to operate as an HMO.

What is an HMO?

The HMO’s which fall under Mandatory Licensing are those under the three storey and five people rule, but any property where more than two unrelated people abide as their main residence, is an HMO as designated by the 2004 Housing Act. Not as so often been mistaken in the past, mandatory licensed property only. Indeed, the legislation confirms that all HMO’s are subject to exactly the same safety regulation inspection as the licensed properties. And this is the potential problem for every Landlord who operates Houses of Multiple Occupation.

The implications                   

This applies on two fronts, firstly the charges for licensing every property, as every license has to be paid for by the Landlord, are set by each local Council respectively, so charges can both vary and are entirely at the whim of the Council’s concerned. Reports for Oxford state that this number could be as many as 4000 properties in the City. Should they decide to charge the average cost as confirmed by a Communities and Local Government survey (Executive Summary) £387 per application (The range goes as high as £1500 per application) then Oxford City Council at a time of great austerity, would raise a total of £1.5 Million. Even allowing for the stated intent of the act that charges should reflect the cost, this kind of income has to be looked at seriously. (Although what should happen with a major increase in licenses to be issued is a reduction of the average cost) It does not take a huge leap of faith to see how much this could interest any Local Council at present as Local Councillors struggle to cope with achieving budget targets imposed by Government. (At a time when suggestions such as heating swimming pools with heat generated by crematoriums are being put forward and seriously looked at, all such methods of income are bound to be considered) Secondly, the result of any inspection by the local Council, may not result in lifts and fire escapes all round, but my experience is that minor recommendations, such as fire doors and walls when deemed necessary, could result in costs up to £1000 per property with ease.  

Who pays?

Well this is where the effects of any such move are always badly judged in my opinion, because whilst the bill will of course become the Landlords, the costs are almost bound to be passed on to the Tenants. Especially where there is knowledge that every rental property is being treated in the same way! So improved accommodation is the stated desire, increased rents is the effect, but unusually for me, I would finish by repeating the warning, Landlords beware, Licensing may be just around the corner for your HMO, even if it is a Bungalow or any other form of ground floor accommodation!