Ben Reeve Lewis, a Council Enforcement Officer of many years standing, gives his view.
Local Authority Housing and the licensing question
Well here’s a light the blue touch paper and retire kind of article for Landlord Law Blog, if ever there was one.
Tessa and I had a chat about how often – when the subject of rogue landlords comes up at any time on the blog – the comments thread gets side-tracked into complaints about landlord licensing schemes.
So I thought it a good time to explain the way this works from the perspective of an enforcement officer, responsible for taking the worst of the worst to task for harassment and illegal eviction, working alongside other people who regulate slum properties and criminal letting agents.
A bit about landlord licensing – for the uninitiated
Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation was introduced some time ago. All councils are charged by Parliament with the job of running licensing schemes for properties of 3 or more floors occupied by 5 or more unrelated units.
These kinds of properties have been identified as being the most common places where poor slum conditions can exist, often with little to no fire safety and overcrowding.
Councils also have the option of introducing what is termed “Additional’ licensing schemes and “Selective” licensing schemes on a borough by borough basis. Several London boroughs run schemes where all privately rented properties have to be licensed. (There isn’t the space here to describe what these schemes are. You will need to read elsewhere for a full picture.)
Problem landlords in town and country
More and more councils are rolling out their own landlord licensing schemes based on the type of housing stock and the social problems they encounter in a particular borough.
Put simply, councils in Hereford or the Vale of Pewsey are less likely to have problems with slums and rogues than say Hackney, Birmingham or Manchester.
Not entirely though. I have spoken to council officers in rural councils who talk of overcrowding and slum conditions connected to gang master scams involving agricultural workers. It isn’t just an urban problem.
NOT a Cash Cow
Contrary to what many believe, licensing isn’t a ‘cash cow’ for councils. The money they make from the scheme is ring-fenced and can’t be used for anything other than running a licensing scheme.
Enforcement for breach of licensing rules has to come out of another budget, which is why the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are so important – they allow councils to keep penalties to pay for enforcement, meaning that you, the council tax payer, don’t have to fund enforcement.
Different schemes for different Councils
The various schemes in operation vary widely depending on the demographics of the area they are working.
Student towns like Oxford, Cambridge, Loughborough etc have a bigger concentration of licensable HMO’s even under basic mandatory licensing schemes. As a result, the teams will be larger and the costs of maintaining a scheme more expensive than say Christchurch, where there aren’t as many licensable properties.
In West London most of the housing stock is 1930’s semi detached with large gardens, so there you get beds in sheds as the main problem, whereas in South East of East London most of the rental stock is huge old Victorian buildings converted into overcrowded slums without planning permission.
These are very difficult to locate unless you have a reason for going inside or information comes from other sources such as Police or Fire Brigade.
Councils are only doing what they are told
It isn’t just the type of accommodation in an area, the variables are complex and reflected in the scheme costs and fees but it is important to understand that councils did not make this up.
Parliament passed laws requiring all local authorities to run licensing schemes and does not allow them to generate income from running them.
Those are the rules, whether or not you consider the licensing fees in your area unreasonable.
Landlords commonly complain that the good guys are made to pay for the bad guys. A decent landlord, after all will not refuse to license their property even though they consider the fee onerous and unfair. They are law abiding people.
But does it work?
Schemes might be run efficiently or inefficiently. I can’t possibly comment here on individual gripes but does it work where it is supposed to work? In essence, in uncovering poor housing conditions and promoting better quality?
I work in several London boroughs alongside licensing and enforcement teams. Some have only mandatory licensing and some have it across the board and I can categorically say it really helps us.
The importance of a good database
When a council announces a landlord licensing scheme – the decent folk sign up and just get it done. Not without a gripe, which I perfectly understand – but enforcement officers immediately have a database to start identifying the rogues. Basically, the people who aren’t on the list.
In one council area, we do fortnightly ‘Tasking days’ where a bunch of us go out at 7 am until just after lunch with iPads containing a list of PRS stock where there are no recorded licenses. Often we hit several hundred in a few hours, meeting the tenants, inspecting the conditions and chatting to them to find out if their deposits are protected, if they get receipts for rent and if they are experiencing problems with their landlord.
A useful blunt instrument
It’s a blunt instrument to an extent but without landlord licensing schemes, we would find it very difficult to identify these properties by just walking down a street and looking for broken windows or dirty curtains.
Can it be done without licensing? Yes but it’s more complex.
Different council teams use a variety of data collecting software that doesn’t communicate with each other. Some councils are better at compiling joint data and sharing information – but even when a council has a good multi-agency system in place licensing is still a useful add-on. In some areas licensing is all you have.
We all have to pay to police our society
I should say, as a freelance enforcement officer I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with good landlords being made to pay for the discovery of bad ones.
Our cultural life is full of financial burdens we have to pay for to moderate a small number of others who exhibit behaviours we don’t.
Personally, I don’t like my tax being used to fund a range of government projects I don’t agree with. I don’t have young children or family members with mental health problems but my council tax goes to pay for a variety of local schemes covering a range of services that I don’t use.
My partner, a self-employed travel agent, can’t believe how lightly landlords get off. Each year she has to sit a day long exam just to retain her license to sell travel insurance.
She doesn’t like it, she moans every time but as I say, it is what it is. It’s her job and simply one of the inconveniences for ensuring that people don’t get ripped off by people selling duff insurance on the trip of a lifetime.
In short – an essential tool
Landlord licensing works, for those, like me who have to track down and prosecute landlords evading schemes.
I started the London Borough of Lewisham’s rogue landlord enforcement team on the logic that if all council teams shared information we wouldn’t need landlord licensing. We could just go after the bad guys using our joint intel and leave the normal ones alone.
Given what I discovered in the 2 years we operated that scheme I now view that as naïve. Landlord licensing might not be the be all and end all but it’s an essential tool in enforcement officer’s arsenal.
NB Much of Ben’s work nowadays is done through Cambridge House & Talbot
Ollie C (Juicy Property) says
July 10, 2017 at 10:26 AMIn one area the LA took nearly a grand off me for several licenses and on visiting the properties the inspector said she was so impressed, did we have a property available she could rent from me?
It’s frustrating to feel that I’m paying quite a bit of money (a new boiler for a tenant, in practical terms) to help enforce the rules with the bad guys. I would prefer the scheme be cheaper (say £20 per year per property, paid annually), a national or at least regional standard, and for (higher) penalties to be used to fund enforcement against the rogues.
I appreciate law change may be required to do this. Getting the better landlords to almost entirely fund the enforcement against the bad guys (of whom there are clearly a lot) is somewhat unhelpful in improving relations between LAs and the better landlords. Too much stick, no carrot.
But I try to be pragmatic. I rent myself, family & friends rent, and standards must be improved. I’ve often wondered if the council tax database and the Land Registry data should be used to identify PRS properties but I’m you will have thought of this Ben.
Now I think about it seems odd the Police can easily check if a vehicle has an MOT and insurance, but an LA cannot so easily check if a PRS property has records in gas safety and tenancy deposit databases. Maybe technology will, in time, make it a little easier for LAs to find those not in the register.
hbWelcome says
July 10, 2017 at 10:26 AMThe ‘ring fenced so not a cash cow’ argument is sidestepping the point.
Councils want licensing for Empire building, it ‘creates’ jobs, grows careers and provides gold plated pensions.
It also diverts attention from the real problem and is seen to be doing something along with a genuine mistaken belief by some that it might work.
Does it work?
There is no solid evidence whatsoever that it does, only anecdotes from council workers with a vested interest.
Who actually pays?
Good landlords certainly but also tenants. Licensing puts upward pressure on rents, drives out good landlords, lowers property standards and creates further opportunities for rogue landlords.
The failed Scottish experiment here;
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/19482/multimillion-pound-government-landlord-scheme-branded-a-failure
http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/189734/Landlord_registration_3_years_on.pdf
Tessa Shepperson says
July 10, 2017 at 10:40 AM@hbWlecome Ben has explained in the post how having a database of good landlords allows them to exclude them from investigations so they can target the bad landlords.
As the licensing fees must only by law cover the cost of the scheme and cannot include, for example, enforcement, there have been problems in enforcing standards due to lack of resources in Local Authorities due to Austerity.
However, under the Housing & Planning Act, 2016 Local Authorities can now keep fines for housing offences and payments made under rent repayment orders, which they can use to fund enforcement work.
Hopefully, this means that they will now be able to afford to take more aggressive enforcement action against the rogues.
I’m not sure what you mean by ’empire building’. Can you explain this, please?
hbWelcome says
July 10, 2017 at 10:59 AMhttp://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/empirebuilding.asp
“What is ‘Empire Building’
Empire building is the act of attempting to increase the size and scope of an individual or organization’s power and influence. In the corporate world, this is seen when managers or executives are more concerned with expanding their business units, their staffing levels and the dollar value of assets under their control than they are with developing and implementing ways to benefit shareholders.
BREAKING DOWN ‘Empire Building’
Empire building is typically seen as unhealthy for a corporation, as managers will often become more concerned with acquiring greater resource control than with optimally allocating resources.”
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 10, 2017 at 10:40 AMThanks Ollie, I get your points and I agree as I have said above that licensing is not essential for tracking down properties but it’s very useful until other laws are introduced that would allow enforcement teams to more easily gather information.
Your suggested parallel with police powers to vehicles is only available because all cars must be registered in the first place.
The new Housing and Planning Act powers allows a council to enforce against landlords using money from penalties so landlords wont be paying for the bad ones in that sense, it is self funding once it gets up and running but at the moment licensing is still key being able to identify properties of concern.
On your point about a £20 licence fee you wouldn’t get the money to run the licensing scheme and costs would have to come out of council tax, which, as you know is a vote killer for any local authority, Labour or Conservative. Plus it isnt always about the fee. Most rogues I deal with dont want anyone from the council anywhere near their property because of what is going on. Often the tenants tell you that they have been instructed by the landlord not to talk to you or let you in. They try to stay off the radar keeping their fingers crossed, which, against their hopes simply alerts you to the property.
Jon says
July 10, 2017 at 5:13 PMBen
You say that you cannot comment on whether various schemes are efficient or not. And consequently whether they are good value for landlords or not. Then you dismiss concerns about this as “gripes”. You seem to imply that value is all a bit irrelevant because at the end of the day it makes things easier for you. This is the problem. You have no incentive to deliver value to those being charged. You are not accountable to the people paying for the scheme. And it is clear from the article that you have little sympathy with this.
You operate close to me (Lambeth). Are you familiar with the report out this week by The People’s Audit – independent professional scrutiny of Lambeth Council’s management and finances? “We have unearthed evidence of extensive financial mismanagement that suggests millions of pounds of tax payers money is being wasted. Lack of governance within Lambeth Council appears to be systemic.”
This is no surprise to those of us who have to work with the councils on a regular basis.
I can see how a system of registration or licensing could be useful and have no objection to a well run, low intervention one in principle. But it should cost only a nominal sum and should not require costly renewals every year. If you want us to pay for your services by ourselves, you should be accountable to us so that we can monitor success rates and income from fines – which are really what should be funding you.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 11, 2017 at 11:46 AMHI Jon,
I have stated categorically above that I do think it is valuable because it gives people in my position information that we cant always get. I make no apologies for taking that position.
You state “You seem to imply that value is all a bit irrelevant because at the end of the day it makes things easier for you. “. Yes…that’s exactly what I am saying. Not because I am lazy but because I am committed to doing what I can to make people’s lives safer in rented property. That’s what I do day in day and have done for 27 years. Licensing helps me find properties and protect people from criminals
.
And I stand by my statement about gripes. I also referenced my wife’s gripes at travel agent exams. I don’t think it diminishes the argument. Everyone is entitled to gripe.
I also said I cant comment on the value for money or fees of individual schemes as your problem with Lambeth. I said above that all scheme costs will vary from area to area, dependant on the vicissitudes of each scheme. That some schemes may run inefficiently I can well believe and this happens in all walks of life from the Police to Asda’s or Foxtons. Nothing ever goes smoothly when lots of people are involved.
I fear you are falling into the same argument that always turns any debate on licensing regardless of the angle that the article comes from. In a name the costs and fairness of licensing and this is what I have been at pains to mention here and in my previous piece last week about rogue landlords.
I don’t expect any PRS landlord to think that licensing is fair or that the costs are reasonable. All I keep making is the single point that it helps enforcement officers like me to find slums run by criminals.
That this may be unpopular with landlords is not my concern. You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs
Jon says
July 11, 2017 at 1:23 PMYou conclude that you would not expect any PRS landlord to think that licensing/registration is fair. Yet two of your respondents have clearly said that they can see the benefit of a well run good value system. Your issue seems to be that they do not want to write a blank cheque so that you can do what you like regardless the costs or results.
“I don’t care” seems to be the gist of your argument. Whilst you are entitled to it it’s not particularly constructive and not one which there is ever any point debating with. Which really is my unfortunate experience of dealing with the public sector and their unaccountable contractor buddies (well highlighted in The People’s Audit report – have a read).
As they concluded in the report:
“This is about accountability – it is very easy to spend other peoples’ money. Now Lambeth needs to be held to account for their spending decisions.”
It’s clear that you do not welcome any suggestions of accountability – why might that be?
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 11, 2017 at 2:17 PM@Jon
Always up for a reasoned debate.
You quote me in saying I dont care if good landlords are made to pay for the bad ones. I dont defend that argument. I dont care.
I keep banging on about one simple point “LICENSING SCHEMES HELPS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FIND PROPERTIES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IN DANGEROUS, OVERCROWDED AND UNSANITARY CONDITIONS THAT WOULD BE HARDER TO FIND IF THERE WASNT A LICENSING SCHEME IN PLACE”….END OF.
The perceived fairness or unfairness of licensing does not concern me.
Let me give you a real life heads up.
2 years ago I went to a property that was not on the licensed scheme. when we arrived it was evident that the property was being used as a brothel. Police and relevant officers were all called to the property, run by a local letting agent on our radar.
Upon entry we got into a back room that was hidden and found 3 Romanian women chained to the wall as part of a sex trafficking ring run by gangsters.
If it hadnt been for property licensing schemes we would probably not have found that place.
If landlords complain about poorly run or expensive schemes my mind always returns to that case.
Licensing enabled us to find that property and protect those women. I know that this is a far cry from a landlrod messing up a section 21 but thats where I ply my trade so you can forgive me for being out and proud and saying “I dont care about complaints of price or unfairness”
Jon says
July 11, 2017 at 5:21 PMBen.
I’m not all that familiar with the version of “reasoned debate” characterised by shouty allcaps statements and concluding .. “end of”.
The case you reference is an emotive one for sure – but it is not particularly helpful in making a reasoned argument.
No one in their right mind would criticise you for having stumbled across and alerted the police to an illegal brothel. But you readily admit that you have no real idea whether the licensing scheme actually contributed towards the discovery of this brothel. You even admit to being happy to remaining ignorant about whether it did or not – or whether the same scheme could be delivered far more affordably. Apart from a slightly archaic “even my wife, gawd luv’er” type analogy, this case is the only evidence you offer as to why licensing schemes (and their representatives) should not have to be accountable for quality and cost.
To be honest, given that you appear to be a representative of it, I am a little surprised by the quality of your argument and reasoning on a legal blog of all places.
donald berry says
July 17, 2017 at 6:16 PMThat worries me that you cannot identify poor housing or such without having track of every household what about normal non residential properties being registered using your logic. my experience in is that my local council charges an awful lot for few prosecution. just walking round an area can quickly identify bad landlords and tenants. Surely it is just as important to get tenants in poor properties to complain to the council who have plenty of existing powers to act.
hbWelcome says
July 11, 2017 at 12:46 PMJon,
“should not require costly renewals every year.”
You’re missing some of the beauties of these scams.
They are for 5 years, with no other option and no refunds if you exit early.
They sucker landlords in with the teaser rate;
“It is only 25p a day Sir, surely any decent landlord wouldn’t begrudge that for the safety of their tenants and to clamp down on those terrible rogue landlords”
-Cue picture of overcrowded criminal slum, usually paid for without the most basic of checks by the councils very own benefits department. Which has no relation to any even half decent landlord.
£450 (per property) once-in-a-lifetime special introductory fee for 5 years.
Then they’ve got you, for life.
They hit you with the renewal fee with no once-in-a-lifetime special introductory fee
– £850.
Plus inflation. May as well call it a Grand. It is all justified as it is ring fenced and can’t be used for anything else.
That it has been a complete failure for closing down rogue landlords for those 5 years is only down to councils being too busy administering the good landlords.
Landlord licensing, the scam that keeps on giving. It would make an ’80’s timeshare salesman blush.
Guest101 says
July 11, 2017 at 1:59 PMBut if you don’t like it, you can liquidate your assets and invest elsewhere, so I fail to see the issue.
hbWelcome says
July 11, 2017 at 3:24 PM@Guest 101,
Firstly, the Left don’t have a monopoly on moral outrage. I’ve seen these places and want them shut down as much as anyone irrespective of whether I am a landlord or not.
Licensing doesn’t work and it is a smokescreen for dealing with the real problem.
Secondly, property is an illiquid asset and it takes years to sell up and invest elsewhere and I’m reluctant to do so where I have taken an active interest in improving the area. Not so much for altruistic reasons, I’m not pretending to be a saint, but because it makes good business sense.
But in cities like Nottingham where they are trying to bring it in, I do stop investing and I am already in the process of selling up.
The rental demand will still be there. The Council can’t cope. Corporate landlords aren’t filling the gap. Who will supply the market?
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 11, 2017 at 5:46 PM@Jon hahaha al;right you got me on the shouty Caps Lock. Fair play. My feelings do run high as I am trying to make a single point only here but I feel nobody gets it.
And the comments about my Missus. Gawd love her doesnt really rflect the situation. She’s a Brixton girl by way of Barbados so is more likely to say “D’ya nah what I mean innit?” 🙂
But you were completely wrong when you quoted me saying “you readily admit that you have no real idea whether the licensing scheme actually contributed towards the discovery of this brothel.” when I actually said “Licensing enabled us to find that property and protect those women.” Direct quote of myself
If you are going to quote me at least get it right.
You also state, while we are dealing in quotes “I am a little surprised by the quality of your argument and reasoning on a legal blog of all places”
What is there not to get? Licensing helps enforcement officer track down slum properties run by criminals. (no caps) That is my sole point. There isnt any complex argument to mount. This is the plain truth of it. There doesnt have to be any quality in the reasoning of it. There is nothing to justify other than that simple fact, as unpalatable as it may be to landlords.
Jon says
July 12, 2017 at 9:30 AM“I am trying to make a single point only here but I feel nobody gets it.”
Under such circumstances it takes a very particular mindset to be able to remain wholly convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Just calm down and listen to what people are saying.
hbWelcome says
July 11, 2017 at 6:33 PMNewsround #;
10/07/17
by Sir Robin Wales
Cutting through the emotive spin to the hard facts;
“Banned 28 of the worst landlords from operating in the borough – forcing them to sell up or hand their properties over to reputable managing agents”
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/comment/comment/the-government-must-back-newhams-efforts-to-crack-down-on-rogue-landlords–51326
28 rogue landlords. After 5 years.
After throwing the kitchen sink at licensing with endless resources in the biggest English landlord licensing scheme ever.
Don’t know how many housing staff they have but it must be hundreds, lets be conservative and say 150.
1 rogue landlord per annum for 25 housing staff.
How many good landlords have left or not bothered investing in Newham?
How many more rogue landlords have taken their place?
If a small fraction of the vast resources and money on licensing had been spent targeting criminal landlords, how many would have been closed down?
I Dunno but I reckon a lot more than 28.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 11, 2017 at 7:29 PMHB I am going to put aside my general rule, which is to ignore your ill informed and personally offensive comments and drive to the heart of what you have said there about only 28 rogue landlords being prosecuted by Newham.
At Lewisham we were approached by the Met Police in exasperation at being called 32 time in 28 days to the same property including on one occasion a firearms team because they didnt know where else to take it.
One landlord, one property. He had previously tried digging out an illegal basement using illegal immigrants where the wall collapsed and killed one of them. Because his identity was unknown the landlord didnt get get prosecuted on a technicality.
Neighbours complained following the police referral that his new, unauthorised basement excavation was causing their neighbouring properties to lean in dangerously at the sides because there was no shoring up of the walls.
Us clipboard jobsworths were called in to protect not only the tenants but the owners of neighbouring properties because the Police were out of ideas.
Then there is the case of Dr M. A rogue landlord connected to a major, high profile ritual child murder case whose 300 tenants were regularly threatened and assaulted by him, including in one case providing a fridge, when requested that was full of blood, in order to dissuade the occupiers from further complaints .
Dr M Also rented a basement unit to a family where the only access point was a hole in the garden where the occupiers had to crawl through to access their accommodation. Once again us clipboard jobsworths jumped in to make people safe.
Oh and then there was the 2 bed flat with 32 people forced in. Chinese women trafficked on an unnamed debt that had to be paid off by working in the sex trade, DVD factories or booby trapped cannabis farms, where their children were exposed to pots of acid balanced on doors to deter rival gangs taking over while the hapless tenant had the landlord on speed dial. Us clipboard jobsworths were called in by the Met Police to deal with that one as well
And the landlord renting a 3 bed property to 30 people renting beds by the hour on night and day shifts.
Or the 9 bed ex-children’s home being run by a villain to 47 people, mainly ex children in care who he would threaten with eviction if they didnt sleep with him. The standard joke being that he would take them to Wickes to collect some building materials while everyone knew he would sexually assault them in his white van. Again the clipboard jobsworths dealt with that one.
Or if you dont fancy that, how about the 4 Columbian families living in the downstairs of a 2 up 2 down property, crapping in a chemical toilet full of mice while three prostitutes lived upstairs in a property rented by a Nigerian landlord in prison for kidnapping the father of a local MP to dissuade him from standing in the elections against him.
Or how about this? 17 People in a 2 bed flat while the landlord charges people living in cars behind the property to use the showers, all the while waiting for one of the tenants to move out so they can vacate their cars. A sort of informal housing waiting list.
Or how about The letting agent who used a decorative conch shell as a boxing glove to punch a tenant in the face. The assault being so bad that even the landlords gave evidence to the council. Us clipboard jobsworths dealt with that as well.
Or how about………..
After 27 years I really could go on.
I’ll say this yet again. Licensing schemes help people like me find people like them.
If landlords have a problem with that I dont give a s**T
Tessa Shepperson says
July 11, 2017 at 8:14 PMCalm down, Ben!
HB has a point – many times Council’s don’t prosecute when perhaps they should. I suppose reasons include:
The funding for licensing does not include funding for enforcement
The amount of work involved in running a prosecution and lack of staff to do it (due largely to cuts)
Lack of staff with the know-how to bring a prosecution (not an easy thing to do) – again due to cuts and staff redundancies
The problems in having to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ bearing in mind
The fact that tenants may be too scared to give evidence, or
The prosecution taking such a long time (due to delays in the courts system) that they have forgotten all about it, or gone away or whatever
Those sorts of things. Right?
hbWelcome says
July 11, 2017 at 9:05 PMBen, no one is arguing there isn’t a problem but none of that is a rational argument for landlord licensing.
Sorry you can’t see the wood for the trees.
Apologies if you’re offended by my comments, please put me back on ignore.
hbWelcome says
July 11, 2017 at 9:13 PMYes, I can buy that Tessa but most of it didn’t apply to the massively funded and resourced Newham licensing scheme.
It hasn’t worked.
So what now? Throw even more money at it and see if it works after another 5 years or scrap it now and concentrate on the real problem.
Dave Griffith says
July 11, 2017 at 10:11 PM“When a council announces a landlord licensing scheme – the decent folk sign up and just get it done. Not without a gripe, which I perfectly understand – but enforcement officers immediately have a database to start identifying the rogues. Basically, the people who aren’t on the list”
“Contrary to what many believe, licensing isn’t a ‘cash cow’ for councils. The money they make from the scheme is ring-fenced and can’t be used for anything other than running a licensing scheme.”
Ben – these two statements sum up why I disagree with licencing schemes. The scheme I have experience of, in round numbers, charges £500 for 40,000 properties ie £20 million pounds over 5 years. So £4 million a year to employ an office full of people who can do nothing but file forms supplied by the “decent folk” that bothered to sign up. If they were actually allowed to do something useful like prosecute a criminal landlord I might have more sympathy.
It seems the only benefit to you and others actually doing something about the massive problems we have is that it provides a list of properties that are probably not run by criminals. HMRC could provide that list free of charge – I have to provide them with the addresses of all my rental properties on my annual tax return. I am sure they would also be interested in any rental properties you find that are not on their list.
This is what I think will do more to solve the problem than any licencing scheme:-
“Enforcement for breach of licensing rules has to come out of another budget, which is why the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are so important – they allow councils to keep penalties to pay for enforcement, meaning that you, the council tax payer, don’t have to fund enforcement”
Tessa Shepperson says
July 12, 2017 at 9:41 AMNo-one wants criminal landlords to be allowed to carry on running brothels manned by women kept as slaves, etc etc. As per Ben’s stories above. Ben sees these situations day in and day out whereas we don’t. It may be difficult for us to fully appreciate the horror of it. I’m not surprised he gets a bit emotional about it.
Ben’s experience is that licensing helps him track down these illegal landlords and close them down.
You say that is wrong. So what do you suggest is done instead to help people like Ben find the criminals?
If we live in a civilized society we cannot allow this sort of thing to continue. And I am afraid the innocent will have to pay to track down the guilty – that’s why law abiding people help fund the police force through their taxes. That’s the way it works.
What are your suggestions?
Jon says
July 12, 2017 at 3:10 PM“Ben’s experience is that licensing helps him track down these illegal landlords and close them down.
You say that is wrong. So what do you suggest is done instead to help people like Ben find the criminals?”
Ben has failed to make any coherent connection between licensing and his tracking down illegal landlords. The most confident has been is to say that the it “probably” helped in the brothel and captivity case – which frankly is extreme and only loosely a housing matter. Let’s face it – use of houses as brothels and prisons is not a uniquely PRS issue – it occurs in council let properties, housing association properties and other privately owned property. However he managed to do so, it is great that he discovered this and reported it but it really is a police matter.
Nevertheless, a number of posters including myself have conceded that they can appreciate that a registration scheme could be helpful in some circumstances. But that any scheme should be proportionate, affordable and assessed for its efficiency. I simply cannot understand what rational objection there can be to this.
Let’s face it – the charges being made are only to fund administration of the registration scheme rather than any enforcement. There are many ways that a licensing / registration programme could be implemented which provides all the information required by the current system. You only have to look at the insurance tenancy deposit schemes which provide a whole host of data registration, advice and arbitration services as well as deposit insurance for a one off payment of about £25 per tenancy, however long that tenancy may last (usually 2-3 years in my case). The periodic charges levied to date are simply unjustifiable – if they do represent the genuine cost of the scheme then they are being set up and run irresponsibly.
“If we live in a civilized society we cannot allow this sort of thing to continue. And I am afraid the innocent will have to pay to track down the guilty – that’s why law abiding people help fund the police force through their taxes.”
I agree. But I don’t see it as any more my responsibility (as a landlord) than yours to pay for a scheme intended to root out pimps, people smugglers and slave traders. Ben seems to think such schemes would be vote losers if paid for out of general taxation. If that’s how people feel, perhaps we don’t live in such a civilised society after all.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM@ Dave Griffiths you state “It seems the only benefit to you and others actually doing something about the massive problems we have is that it provides a list of properties that are probably not run by criminals. HMRC could provide that list free of charge ”
You woefully misunderstand the intricacies of working with HMRC They have what is called the “Hidden economy team” which has specialist teams below that concentrating on landlords not declaring rental income and another team investigating landlords who arent registered for tax at all
I work alongside them and they rely a lot on information councils give them, not the other way around and some of that information, as I keep mentioning here, comes from licensing schemes.
Also HMRC will give very little information from their files. You have to negotiate what is called a “Gateway exchange protocol” to determine what information can be shared.
One London council I know has negotiated a specific Gateway exchange whereby HMRC helps the council find HMOs.
When I was at Lewisham we used to take HMRC officers on property raids with us, such properties coming to our attention where they werent licensed
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 12, 2017 at 3:44 PM@Jon you have a very selective reading technique there Jon. You say “Ben has failed to make any coherent connection between licensing and his tracking down illegal landlords”
I have said over and over and over again “Licensing helps enforcement officers identify slum properties run by criminals” how can I be any more emphatic or clear? Its my job to do just that and it works Its not the only tool but its a major one that I am glad we have.
You also display a remarkable naivete in saying the brothels are only loosely housing related. It would be a poor criminal who used his own property to run a cannabis farm or brothel. Its always in rented properties. You are right when you say it isnt restricted to the PRS, thats true but enforcement officers dont just target the PRS when there are other problems. We go where the problem is.
Rented properties used for criminal purposes is what my article and other articles on this theme are about. Shelter’s view of a rent rogue landlord is very one dimensional and not indicative of what is really going on and often, whether a brothel, a cannabis farm or merely an overcrowded or unlicensed HMO you often find certain names connecting up, which is why we get invited out on Police actions for the extra input we can provide to their investigations. We know more about the connections than they do.
And those connections often arise through………wait for it……drum roll. Licensing schemes. Get over it
Jon says
July 12, 2017 at 4:20 PM“Jon you have a very selective reading technique there Jon. You say “Ben has failed to make any coherent connection between licensing and his tracking down illegal landlords”
I have said over and over and over again “Licensing helps enforcement officers identify slum properties run by criminals” how can I be any more emphatic or clear?”
Ben – if I were to tell you the World is flat, would you consider that a coherent argument that the World is indeed flat? I feel confident that you would not.
All you are doing is repeating “because I say so”. I admire your self belief but it seems to arise from a somewhat myopic view.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 12, 2017 at 4:47 PMJon with respect its you that is myopic. If a builder tells me I have rising damp I dont disbelieve him. He is the one who does the job.
My job is track down and prosecute criminal landlords. I’ve been doing it since February the 2nd 1990. I’ll say it again, now simply to annoy you. Licensing helps enforcement officers identify slums run by criminals. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly that that’s your affair.
I had a phone conversation 2 weeks ago with a landlord when I was explaining the ins and outs of the Protection from Eviction Act and he said he didnt believe there was a law on it. I replied that it didnt matter that he didnt believe because all I have done for 27 years is prosecute people who dont believe there is a law protecting tenants from harassment and illegal eviction. Whether or not they choose to believe it is entirely irrelevant
Jon says
July 12, 2017 at 6:39 PMBen,
I’ve accepted from the start and in almost every post that licensing could be of some help – despite rather than because of your inability to explain why it works. So it is, I think difficult for you to argue that I am not looking at this with a relatively open mind. As you know, my main argument is with costs, scope, efficiency and accountability.
It does not annoy me when you keep saying “Because I know best”. Every time you repeat it you reminds the board that you have no answer other than “Trust me – I just know”.
Your analogy about the rising damp is a good one. As a developer (as well as a landlord) I rarely take everything a builder says at face value simply “because they are a builder”. This is particularly true in relation to identifying causes of damp since it can be such a notoriously tricky issue.
If you have ever sought a quote for damp repairs you will usually find that three different builders will provide three different conclusions with three different solutions. I would respectfully listen to their reasoning which brought them to their conclusion and then decide how to proceed. Any builder whose explanation of their conclusion was “I know because I’m a builder” would have their number deleted from my phone after they left.
Why would someone with experience and knowledge rely on such a transparently ridiculous argument? The answer is that they would not.
hbWelcome says
July 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM“What are your suggestions?”
Targeting the rogue landlords like this would seem a great idea, particularly if now financed through H&P Act 2016;
https://landlordlawblog.co.uk/2014/03/21/ben-reeve-lewis-friday-newsround-146/
Councils also need to get their own house in order. A huge amount of these properties are paid for by the council (well, the taxpayer). Carrying out some very easy basic checks would weed a lot out.
Doing it retrospectively would be a practical nightmare but doing it going forward easily achievable- if the will is there.
Tessa Shepperson says
July 12, 2017 at 4:20 PMI think Ben’s answer to this will be that they target them using the database provided through the licensing scheme.
hbWelcome says
July 12, 2017 at 4:42 PMThere was no licensing scheme involved in that article but at least that answer would make a change from “Because Ben knows best”.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 12, 2017 at 4:30 PM@HB Welcome. Sit down, make a cup of tea and move any objects that you might fall over on and hurt yourself. I agree with you 100%
I will not abandon my position that Licensing works in helping enforcement officers identify slums run by criminals. It is a really important tool but its not the only tool.
I have done several presentations at local authority conferences to a range of enforcement staff and senior managers and whilst I am emphatic that licensing works in this context I am equally emphatic that there is so much more that councils can do in terms of internal information sharing and joined up thinking and I make this unpleasant truth known wherever and wherever I can to senior manager’s who sometimes treat me with the same regard as posters on here..
I know.I ran THAT scheme and saw it’s success moving from 9 prohibition notices served in 2 years to 84 in the following 2 years by a combination of information sharing and licensing information.
I’ve never said that licensing is the only tool, only that it is one of them and an important one at that. Its not the only tool we use either but enforcement teams sharing information really needs embracing more, you are absolutely right
Tessa Shepperson says
July 12, 2017 at 4:54 PMYes, but we can listen to what they say. I can understand landlords feeling aggrieved when they pay out thousands of pounds to Local Authorities and then learn that no rogue landlords have been prosecuted.
Come to that, it bothers me too.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 12, 2017 at 5:04 PMThat’s Shelter’s argument as well Tessa but prosecution is not the only fruit. There are more ways to skin a cat than just prosecutions. Often relentless and persistent action against rogues, even if you cant take them down in a conventional sense can still drive them out of business or out of the area.
I once worked in partnership with the Met on a rogue agent. We didnt do a single housing prosecution for but he is now doing 6 years for money laundering based on information we gave them from countless visits in a housing enforcement context.
Or the partner working we did with HMRC that again resulted in nnot a single housing prosecution but a £10 million tax bill over 32 properties.
Result
Dave Griffith says
July 12, 2017 at 5:59 PMBen you say that licencing helps you but unless I have missed something in all the replies the only way it has been of any help has been to provide a list of properties that you probably do not need to bother with.which has allowed you to concentrate on the remainder.In what other ways has it helped?
Sharon Crossland AIRPM says
July 15, 2017 at 10:46 AMHaving read Ben’s post with a great deal of interest I found it informative and I totally got it!
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 15, 2017 at 2:28 PMThank you Sharon, I was, I confess, feeling I was going mad trying to make a simple truth that nobody was prepared to listen to
Sharon Crossland AIRPM says
July 16, 2017 at 11:00 AMGlad to have saved your sanity Ben although after what you have seen and dealt with I have to express surprise that you had any left!! 🙂 You’ve been doing a great job and I’m sure many people are more than thankful for your involvement in their (beyond) dire situations over the years. More power to you!
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 15, 2017 at 3:57 PM@David
Mate I have already said everything above that I could say on the subject. If you aint listening I’m out of time and the will to live.
I have written some companion pieces to this in which I talk about other methods that enforcements officers use to track down properties on top of licensing and also the difficulties we encounter in securing prosecutions
Dave Griffith says
July 16, 2017 at 7:34 PMBen I am listening intently but you aint talking so I will try again:-
Ben you say that licencing helps you but unless I have missed something in all the replies the only way it has been of any help has been to provide a list of properties that you probably do not need to bother with.which has allowed you to concentrate on the remainder.In what other ways has it helped?
hbWelcome says
July 16, 2017 at 10:55 AMI think we all get it Sharon, the difficulty is in accepting it just “because I know best” when all the results point to the contrary.
Sharon Crossland AIRPM says
July 16, 2017 at 11:43 AM@hbwelcome….Ben has made it perfectly clear how licensing assists him and others like him to deal with rogue landlords….Perhaps the overall picture of how successful landlord licensing has been is not so positive but it isn’t going to go away. Perhaps we should all be coming up with ways to improve it across the board, rather then highlighting its flaws….which it obviously has.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
July 16, 2017 at 2:00 PMAt the risk of boring myself stupid answering any more posts on this thread, the posters seem to be confusing figures on prosecutions with what my post is actually about which is how licensing allows us to track down slums.
What happens to them after we find them is a different matter, one I have written another post on for publication and an issue that is dealt with differently by different authorities, depending on a wide range of factors and responses by the people who run them and there are more sanctions that can be brought to bear than merely prosecuting
I have been asked repeatedly to justify my point but what is there to justify? The only approach here being “We dont believe you”. Well fine. That’s your choice.
Steve says
July 16, 2017 at 5:51 PMBen, I have to say I still don’t see how licensing in its current form can be seen as an efficient way to spotlight rogues (use the £20m over 5 years example).
The £20m is used to create a database that lists rented properties that (assuming an inspection has actually happened) are up to standard.
The rented proportion (yes it varies wildly) might be, say, 15%.
So the £20m provides a list of ‘up to’ 15% of properties that you can ignore.
Somewhere in the remaining 85% are the rogues….is that it?
Maybe we need a ‘prove you live there’ licence fee for all homeowners (let’s say £100 per year each) to reduce the 85% – after all we should all expect to pay to root out the criminals?
The point I’m making is that the scum are hiding in and operating from properties….not ‘landlords’. That’s the basis for the outrage – ‘we’ aren’t ‘them’.
Glad my £500 saved someone from knocking on one door though…..well worth it.
hbWelcome says
July 17, 2017 at 8:33 AM“Perhaps the overall picture of how successful landlord licensing has been is not so positive but it isn’t going to go away.”
I wouldn’t be so sure Sharon.
The rules allowing councils to abuse their powers and impose blanket licensing have changed. From April 2015, councils need permission from the secretary of state to license more than 20% of their areas;
https://news.rla.org.uk/government-revisit-selective-licensing-rules/
Coincidentally, at exactly the same time as this puff piece*, Newham council are applying for permission to renew their blanket licensing. They are going to need more evidence than just council workers employed in the scheme saying they think it is a great idea.
*https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puff_piece
puff piece (plural puff pieces)
an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary.
hbWelcome says
July 17, 2017 at 8:44 AMhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11984977
Designer lights at £111m office of Newham Council
Ed Davey
BBC News, London
A council in east London spent more than £111m on one office block, including more than £1,800 on individual designer lights, an investigation has revealed.
Paul Barrett says
July 17, 2017 at 9:27 AMLicensing per se is something that few LL would have a problem with if as it seems it does assist tracking down rogue LL.
The problem is the cost..
It is simply unfair to expect a fee structure to ensure a council run scheme, any scheme is self financing.
LL are not a cash cow to be milked because there are issues with bad LL.
The idea of councils having comprehensive details of EVERY PRS property is a good one.
It has to be accepted that like other licensing schemes the majority if costs are paid out of the common purse for the greater good.
This is part of the social contract that means for about 6 months a year we all work for the Govt and councils!!!!
The licensing fees should be reasonable and proportionate
I would suggest £100 for a 5 year licence would be appropriate
For those rogue LL that refused to licence and are subsequently discovered it should be £2000 per property for that 5 year period
Thereafter the licence fee would reduce to £100 for the next 5 year licence.
If it is considered that the cost of the schemes must be self financing then inevitably licence fees would massively increase.
Council employees and their facilities aren’t cheap!!
So as a general principle and following some of the Rent SmartWales scheme methodologies national licensing should occur operated by councils, but with licenses being charged at no more than £100 per property.
But with say a £2000 per property license fee for LL who refused to license.
Yes it may require councils requesting Govt assistance to partially fund the scheme.
It should not be the LL that has to pay fees commensurate with what it costs the council to operate.
Good LL want the rogue LL put out if business..
They are unfair competition.
Such action as required by councils is usually paid for with COUNCIL TAX, the common purse if you will!
LL yes should pay a notional amount for a licence, but certainly NOT the costs of operating a licencing scheme.
It is the whole of society’s interest that rogue LL should be put out of business by the regulatory authorities.
That burden should NOT be borne by the good LL, just because they happen to be LL.
There are many and various licencing schemes in the UK for many and various situations.
Few of them if any are expected to be self funding.
A contribution yes from those who are required to have a licence but the majority should come from central or local govt funding
The financial burden is spread across the many and not the few poor old LL!!
Making a licensing affordable and not iniquitous is the way to go to encourage LL on side.
Charging LL who comply with registration requirements anymore than a notional licensing fee is tantamount to putting a gun to a LL head and saying pay up or else.
Of course all that will happen is any licensing costs will be passed onto tenants who will always pay if increased costs are imposed on LL
Do we really want LL having to further increase rent to cover even more expensive regulation.
The mantra should be to keep it cheap and they will come.
LL will register if charges are reasonable.
Currently they simply AREN’T.
Even the RentSmartWales scheme has failed comprehensively to ensure every LL is registered.
Any such licensing scheme must be made sufficiently cheap to make it worthwhile LL registering.
Let’s us not lose sight of what this licensing is all in aid of.
To build a comprehensive data set or ALL PRS properties to enable and facilitate relevant enforcement action.
The current reality is that the licence cost is simply too much and so LL are refusing to play ball.
You can’t really blame them especially in light of the other significant cost burdens being imposed on them by Govt etc, Luke S24, extra SDLT and so on.
LL simply will NOT absorb these costs and it is the tenant that will be ultimately paying..
Surely we don’t wish to burden tenants with more rent increases just cover ridiculously expensive tax and licence schemes!!?
Jon says
July 17, 2017 at 4:41 PMRather than run by the council, perhaps the licensing and registration scheme should be set up in much the way that the deposit protection schemes have been set up, so that there is choice and competition. These seem remarkably efficient and good value to me. Although central government originally had to part fund the custodial schemes (because interests rates on custodial deposits which were supposed to fund the schemes fell to almost nothing) the insurance premium scheme is self funding.
Any five yearly inspections could be carried out by trained private inspectors in the same way that building control, EPCs, gas safety, home reports, etc.. are all external (well, BC is both but a world apart in terms of service where I operate). Much like an inventory report, the first inspection could be more costly than subsequent one unless there have been a lot of changes.