The Rugg Review
Regular readers will have no doubt scanned my previous article on the launch of the new Rugg Review 2018 on the 10th September.
The review itself is well in excess of 200 pages and a lot of topics are covered in detail with supportive data. One aspect that drew a lot of interest was the recommendation that property, like cars, should be subject to an annual MOT test to ensure it meets all statutory requirements.
New enterprise looming?
Julie Rugg herself favours the creation of a private market solution, whereby, as with the old home information pack, people could be trained in multi-disciplinary skills to deliver a targeted service on a specific end result.
She argued that this would take inspection away from local authorities, already denuded of staff and create a new, independent industry of its own.
Clive Betts MP, sitting on the same panel disagreed, arguing that as with car MOTs it would be too easy to source private inspectors of loose morals to sign off a property that doesn’t meet standards.
Recently, I sat on another panel at the London Borough of Redbridge/NLA landlord’s forum in Ilford where the ever-excellent good egg and landlord extraordinaire Richard Blanco floated the MOT idea to the assembled throng, of what looked to be around 150 engaged East End landlords.
The vast majority were in favour of the idea in principle.
So what is the principle?
Well, it correlates straight over. Every 12 months, all car owners put their car under inspection, not for mechanical faults, merely for safety issues such as brakes, lights, steering etc. If it doesn’t pass, then your insurance is invalid and you can’t drive the car.
But would it work exactly the same way with property?
The first thing that springs to my mind is the fact that a mechanic is skilled and qualified to run all relevant checks but this isn’t the same with signing off electrical safety, gas safety and rising damp, which requires different disciplines.
If you were also to factor in aspects of tenants rights owed to the occupants, which I think should be part of the MOT as well, then it becomes something else entirely, requiring a truly multi-disciplinary operative to carry out their function. Someone who knows rising damp from condensation and a tenancy from a licence.
Would it be practical?
What of the differing opinions of Clive Betts and Julie Rugg about who would be best placed to carry out the MOTs?
Local authorities are already stretched to breaking point dealing with rogue landlords and slums. The government would have to slacken off from imposed public sector cuts in order to allow councils the space to employ people to do the jobs and even then there are the specialities to consider.
Whilst a skilled environmental health officer may be able to identify a dangerous electricity or gas supply on one level, they are not qualified or authorised to condemn it or sign off approval. At the moment that lies with regulated electricians and gas safety operatives.
So unlike mechanics and MOTs, there isn’t a single qualified person entitled to deal with all aspects of housing standards.
So how would the inspections be carried out?
Would a team of people make their assessments or would there be, as I understand Julie to suggest, a new vocation of multi-disciplinary housing inspectors?
The corollary would be to put your car through an MOT and have different mechanics assessing the brakes to those assessing the headlights.
Camels and committees spring to mind, not to mention the increased cost which would be ruinous, given everyone’s skilled time.
I think in practical terms Clive Betts’ idea is unworkable. Accommodation MOTs would have to be a separate industry, despite the risk of encouraging wide-boys prepared to sign off deficient properties.
That would have to be dealt with a different way such as the recent prosecution by Waltham Forest Council of gas safety engineer Muhammed Waseem for issuing 4 gas safety certificates without inspecting the appliances. He was fined and struck off the register, effectively losing his income.
And in a post-Grenfell world, he should count himself lucky to have gotten away with that wrist slap, as was landlord Tariq Hussein who arranged it.
A new industry in the making
A whole new job would have to be created, combining gas and electricity safety inspections with knowledge of damp, housing management regs and housing law. Not impossible at all and potentially a very interesting job.
The caution to watch out for would be whether the government would do what they did to the poor sods who spent thousands of pounds of their own money training to compile Home Information Packs, only to find the idea unceremoniously dropped shortly afterwards.
Personally, I’m in favour and I would go further and use the MOT to consolidate and simplify other legal issues currently confusing everybody.
In Practice
If the MOT inspector was trained to ensure that all the requirements of the Deregulation Act are followed, then tenants would know their deposits were protected and landlords would avoid challenges to s21 proceedings based on licensing, gas safety, how to rent booklet etc, because the inspector had already signed all of that off.
Tenants wouldn’t have to know all of the convoluted legal requirements for the creation of safe lettings, just their entitlement to an MOT certificate, which I suppose should really be called an MHCLG certificate. . bIn court when seeking possession, again all a judge would need to be shown is the one document and face any challenges on issues arising solely after granting the certificate such as disrepair or harassment.
Agents also would be prohibited from letting properties without one, which would simplify that end of things as well for both agents and enforcement officers. In letting terms we wouldn’t need licensing because without the MOT a rogue landlord couldn’t let property and instead of enforcement officers checking multiple breaches and wading through countless rules and regulations to secure a conviction we would just have to ask for the lettings certificate to be produced.
Simplification
In writing this I’m also working out my own thoughts on it and I think it might simplify things for all parties, tenant, landlord and enforcement officer alike.
Of course, there will be those that seek to get around the legislation, just as there are people who drive cars without MOTs and bent mechanics signing off unsafe vehicles. But the underlying principle would be easily understood by all regardless of legal knowledge. Everyone knows where they stand.
The people issuing the certificates would have a complex and multi-disciplinary role and responsibility to match but all skills can be learnt. They won’t be required to be bio-medical scientists, just learn the skills and knowledge required to set up a letting in a decent living environment.
What happens after that is a matter for people in my jobs and the courts.
Charles Smith says
September 25, 2018 at 8:57 AMIf you look at the case of Chartered Surveyors, who are required to carry out mortgage valuations, then there is a reasonably good comparison. In mortgage valuations they tend to either say ‘the sale price reflects the condition’ or they will ask for another specialist company to report on: rising damp, electrical defects or other building defects. This also happens if they are doing more detailed Home Buyer Reports or Building Surveys.
So I think that once a professionally liable person looks at any house they will start to call for further reports to reduce their liability. It would give a blank cheque to electricians and damp proof installers (the gas shouldn’t change as it is already regulated). Also what about e.g. lead water pipes and uneven steps in listed buildings, where does it start and end ?
In my view you should do an electrical check every 5-10 years and check for e.g. damaged sockets on each tenant change over and in a six monthly safety check. And every six months landlords should inspect and complete a brief safety check for various things which gives the tenants the chance to report any defects or issues.
In my case I do a one and a quarter page check list which the tenant sees and signs. Good landlords should be able to protect themselves and this would help to isolate rogue landlords who deserve all they get. The Government needs to be very careful about driving good landlords out of the sector.
hbWelcome says
September 25, 2018 at 9:50 AMWhat happens when the tenant denies access?
The MOT system works because it is illegal to use a vehicle without one.
Do tenants actually want it? Most tenants resent property inspections.
It would be very costly to implement, who ultimately pays?
We need less legislation, better enforced, aimed at the criminals not the law abiding majority.
Tessa Shepperson says
September 25, 2018 at 9:55 AMThe only way we could be sure that tenants would grant access would be to make it a mandatory ground for possession if they refuse.
Maybe if the landlord can show three documented attempts to grant access.
hbWelcome says
September 25, 2018 at 10:10 AMI agree, something like that would be the only way it could work.
Allow the State to inspect your home every year or be evicted.
Orwellian.
Peter Jackson says
September 25, 2018 at 8:11 PMHaving read the report I do not have a lot of respect for the authors, Still the MOT is not the silliest idea in it.
There is no need for the inspectors to be skilled gas and electrical engineers. They could just check that there are current certificates and no obvious problems.
Cars decay a lot faster than houses. It could be done every 3 years or more. Or like school inspections, there could be a range of results, fail – report to council; bare pass – recheck the following year, good – check again in 3 years, excellent – check again in 5 years. That would partly address the main problem of it imposing extra costs on good landlords whilst being ignored by the criminals and thus favouring the criminals.
Of course first a standard would have to be developed. The Decent Homes one is not fit for that purpose. A property should not fail just because the kitchen is over 20 years old provided it is in good repair.
Neil Harvey says
September 25, 2018 at 10:11 AMQuote
“We need less legislation, better enforced, aimed at the criminals not the law abiding majority.”
Couldn’t agree more. Very well said hbWelcome
Neil Harvey says
September 25, 2018 at 10:09 AMWhilst in principle this sounds like a good idea, there is of course the potentially enormous cost of this.
Even if you could find people with right skills to carry out these MOT’s, these people with these skills could (and would have right to) charge an absolute fortune for their time. People with these skills would obviously be very sought after in the building trade.
Also, as with car MOT’s, the car is only assured to be safe on the day the MOT takes place. Any time after that defects can arise that would mean that it would not pass a further MOT if inspected again.
On balance, I feel my costs are already high enough and do not relish the thought of paying hundreds of pounds for each of my properties simply to assist my financially struggling local council with their employee numbers.
Ken says
September 25, 2018 at 12:18 PMFrankly there is already enough legislation covering the private sector. This definitely goes a step too far and if introduced I for one will be selling up. Pity the Govt doesn’t ensure that Local Authorities carry out their landlord duties better eg right to rent, as from my local authority experience there are many local authority properties sub let despite the fact that there are staff whose specific role is to monitor this.
John Cart says
September 27, 2018 at 4:15 PMOrwellian indeed, and just more, very, very expensive jobsworths for the Councils to employ. What about dealing with the rogue landlords…………..sorry, that’s far to much like hard work for the poor dears, this is just another excuse to screw money out of good Landlords.
Elaine Janes says
September 25, 2018 at 4:36 PMRedbridge have just brought in selective licencing in my area…isn’t this meant to flush out rogue landlords and alert the borough to dangerous properties? I fear a property MOT would give private companies a licence to print money as they think up more and more checks that have could be made Orwellian in deed!
Michael Barnes says
September 30, 2018 at 5:30 PMBen,
As an expert in the antics of criminal landlords, how would you see this making it harder for them to operate, given that you have written previously on how they prey on the most desperate in society, who are unlikely to know or try to enforce their rights?
You do not seem to have considered that properties are let without the involvement of agents, and that there are criminal agents out there too.
And how much would you expect this to cost the tenants of good landlords (which I believe are the majority)
hbWelcome says
September 30, 2018 at 9:15 PMGet with the programme Michael.
Obviously, once local authorities have eliminated all the 1.9 million good landlords from their enquiries, they can spring into action and sort out those naughty rogue landlords.
Although it would cost millions and take an army of council workers to implement, in 50 years time, the rogue landlords will be shaking in their boots.
Sarah says
October 3, 2018 at 11:18 PMI think this is a great idea, especially for tenants who are more vulnerable and less likely to notice or inform a landlord when the property isn’t up to scratch in terms of safety – take student housing for instance. Unfortunately, not all landlords perceive safety as as important as the money they are being paid per month. But, then again, good landlords will be subjected to this extra complication, and extra expense, just because of the reputation of poorer landlords. So there are good and bad points – but ultimately I feel this just won’t happen because of the complications for all parties involved – not to mention the inevitable backlash.