Regulation of the private rented sector is one of the hot subjects under current debate in the kingdoms of our neighbours Scotland and Wales and has spread now to Northern Ireland.

Proposals for changes include regulation of letting agents and subjecting properties built before 1956 to rent control. They also want to ban letting agent fees.  Consultation closing on 3 April 2017 is in the 2nd stage in the communities department’s review of the role of the PRS and their proposals can be read here.

Other proposals include extending notice periods, fast track eviction service, landlord advice line, tenant information packs being mandatory and making smoke and carbon monoxide alarms mandatory.

How long before England is subject to some of these proposals?  That said proposals for a selective licensing scheme has been approved by the Bournemouth Borough Council running until 1 May 2017 which if adopted will require landlords to manage their properties in accordance with conditions which the Council specifies.  Failure to do so could lead to enforcement action.  To us, this sounds like reform of the PRS in parts of Bournemouth.

 

 We heard this expression from the American election last year and it was recalled when we heard about the parliamentary committee report on dress codes in the work place.  A female member of staff was mistreated by her employer, when she refused to wear the high heels insisted upon by her employer.  The government’s response to the parliamentary report was that dress codes must be reasonable and apply to all.  The argument arising from this is: are high heels reasonable?

Probably a subjective issue, especially when appearance to customers is important.  From some employer’s point of view, high heels are more attractive; from the employees point of view she wanted comfortable feet. So when they went high, she wanted to go low.  You decide.  The report is here

 

 

  On our twitter feed we ask the question whether the leasehold model is the answer to the nation’s huge housing needs.  During the referendum, we heard that to keep up with demand we need to build a new house every 7 minutes.  If true, it seems probable that building blocks of flats which can accommodate many more people than a house, would be the way to go.

Not so, according to new analysis released in January from the Home Builders Federation which reveals that the household industry is building bigger homes with more bedrooms and that the number of houses built last year was higher than 10 years ago.  According to the report the number of bedrooms built increased from 385 000 in 2008-2009 to 478 000 in 2015-2016.

This is as a result of a shift to building family homes.  Over the same period the percentage of flats built halved from 50% of new homes in 2008-2009 to 25%.  Houses increased from 80 000 to 120 000.  The average size of a new build increased by nearly 15% from an estimated 801 sq. ft to 918 sq. ft.

Banning Agents Fees – the discussion goes on – due to take place in March/April 2017. See previous blog on this subject.

 

Competition is the lifeblood of consumer friendly pricing.  From the 1 April, it will be possible to have competition to supply water to non-household premises in England.  In theory, this seems to mean that households will not be able to benefit from this new deregulation and the new companies being formed to market water supply services.  However, it is yet to be seen whether mixed developments and the commercial section of the building will be able to offer to the households the benefit of this new legislation.  Watch this space…

The department for communities and local government is currently taking views in a survey from anyone who wants to contribute on their definition of banning order offences. The offences would be caused by landlords or letting agents towards their tenants and the banning orders against landlords and letting agents are meant to be used as a last resort where other types of enforcement action have failed.

The worst case scenario is that a letting agent or property manager who has a banning order against them, could find their name on a national database of rogue landlords / property agents.  Banning orders can also be introduced for the most serious and prolific offenders.  What would the consequences of the banning order be?  They are listed succinctly in section 14 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and include:

• Being banned from letting housing in England
• Being banned from engaging in English letting agency work
• Being banned from engaging in English property management work
• Doing two or more of the above

There is more to this and can be viewed in the Government Act.

What are the offences under discussion?  A couple of case studies are offered in the survey document.  Both are pretty horrific.

In the first one an illegal outbuilding in the rear alleyway of flats and shops identified using street surveys and aerial photography.  It was found that a make shift timber roof with no insulation, had been constructed from the back of the shop premises, covering the entire court yard to connect to the garage in the rear alleyway.  Internally the building had been partitioned to form 4 small rooms for bed spaces, a shared kitchen and toilet/shower room.

In each bedroom, there were 3-4 single beds crammed together, causing severe overcrowding.  One of the bedrooms was situated off the kitchen area, creating no means of escape in the event of a fire.  None of the rooms had any fixed heating or ventilation and all had evidence of damp on the walls.  Electrical wiring was exposed and excessive use of extensions leads was apparent, with wire flex running across and under the main entrance door leading onto the public footpath.  The entrance to the outbuilding was a wood panel door which led to a hallway  that was exposed to excessive cold.  There was no adequate security and the outbuilding had serious category 1 hazards; no fire protection, no planning permission and did not comply with building or fire safety regulations.

In the second four adjoining properties in a terrace within a residential area, were found to be houses in multiple occupation let on a ‘per bed’ basis.  Almost 50 people were living in the four properties with some of the bedrooms having 3 bunk beds occupied at the time of inspection.

All the rooms were over crowded and conditions very poor in terms of sanitary and kitchen facilities available.  3 of the 4 rooms had no form of central heating, the boilers removed and there was no hot water.  Occupants were relying on electric heaters plugged into the overloaded sockets, some of which were scorched, along with fridges, toasters, phone chargers and chargers for power tools used during the day.  Fire hazards were multiplied by lack of any fire precautions or working detection systems.  Kitchen and bathroom facilities were defective, unsanitary and overused.

Our initial response at 2 Rivers to the idea of a banning order against our fellow colleagues in the property management industry seemed harsh and unfair ~ until we read what some tenants are living with.  We have completed the survey and supported the idea of a banning database.  Landlords and letting agents cannot be allowed to continue treating tenants in such an awful way.

Finally on a positive note, it was reported in the survey document that there are some 4.3 million households in England in the private rented sector.  82% of these are satisfied with their accommodation, and stay in their homes an average of 4 years.  It is the 18% who are letting us all down and need to be made accountable for their management practices.

 

 

 

 

 

Currently under consultation by survey, the Government is tackling the thorny issue of offences committed by a landlord or letting agent which enables the FTT to issue a banning order.

Potential offences include things like housing, immigration and crime. The purpose of it is to establish what tenants would define as an ‘offence’ serious enough for a landlord or letting agent to be banned.

It is being so seriously considered that those who do face the banning order would be entered onto a data base of ‘convicted’ offenders.  The survey is open to anyone and although this is not mentioned, 2 Rivers would imagine that they are most interested in hearing from members of the public who have been tenants of a particularly nasty landlord or letting agent.

If you are interested, click here to connect to the survey forms.  The deadline is 10 February 2017 and completed forms after this date will not be considered.

 

 

  The current threshold of £250 per unit for major works on leasehold blocks, at which S20 notices have to be posted to leasehold residents who would be expected to pay, was set 10 years ago and it is at the centre of one of the campaigns of the Federation of Private Residents’ Association.  They are asking their members to write to their MPs to ask for this figure to be raised and in a model letter they have suggested raising it to £1250.

The issue of S20 is particularly difficult for small resident management companies because they feel it adds huge bureaucracy to their responsibilities of day to day maintenance of their buildings.  There is considerable truth in this observation and this campaign is likely to attract support from leaseholders and managing agents alike.

Mainly to spare the directors of the resident management companies the cost and time involved in applying to the FTT for dispensation of S20 for what are very often mainstream repairs for which money has been set aside, they hope to have MPs approach the Secretary for Communities and Local Government to make a simple change on existing powers.

There is certainly truth that if they succeed in this campaign it will be easier for resident directors to get on with major works which are needed on a site and particularly when they are an emergency.

However, S20 was put into the legislation to stop unscrupulous landlords from making repairs or improvements for huge costs on their buildings and then expecting the residents to pay the bill.  In instances of emergencies such as a flood or a roof blowing off, the dispensation is there to be used when time is important.  Where the repair is not an emergency S20 can add at least 60 days to the delay and forces directors to consult and get quotes from any contractors suggested by the leaseholders and to reply to any queries raised in response to the notice.

When the resident management company becomes the landlord, they too have to follow the requirements of S20 even though their directors will pay their share of the cost.

There is something to be said for S20 having less protective importance when directors will also have to pay for repairs and improvements, as opposed to a Landlord who will have their own reasons for the improvement and could even add commission onto the bill.

 

 

 

 The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations has an excellent article by Belinda Thorpe Hon Consultant, in it’s winter 2016 newsletter.  It lays out the information directors need to understand and cooperate with the requirements in the legislation.  It explains in simply English the main issue in the Act as well as some dos and don’t for directors and those who deal with insurance on their residential property site.

Have a visit to their website, http://www.fpra.org.uk – it is very good and user friendly for residents and their leaders.

To all our visitors and partners, Happy New Year!  May 2017 be peaceful and prosperous.

To all our visitors, we wish you all a peaceful Christmas and a prosperous 2017.