Or, simply the prosecution process and add a 0 to the existing fines.
The threat of seizure would “bring landlords up fairly sharply, because some of those properties are worth quite a lot of money”
Yes, something needs to be done. But go to far then you see even more Section 21’s issued because the (rogue) landlords can’t be bothered with everything, and just sell up. Then you have even less rental properties available, satisfactory or not, and the price goes up even higher. Then the councils will just keep paying exorbitant amounts for temp accommodation in B&Bs and hotels, instead of building more houses/flats, etc.
Who takes ownership of the social housing in bad repair?
What about a landlord “license”. Each rental require an annual or two yearly “MOT”, which the landlord must pay for. Voila, new industry, better houses. I can’t get on board with the state removing peoples lawful property.
Just seize all landlord properties, refresh the council housing stock with them. There is no place in modern society for vampiric slackers like them.
Okay, confiscate it and then what? Councils are hardly looking after their own council housing stock, so confiscating the dilapidated and black mould filled property still leaves you with tenants developing health issues and a massive expense of fixing up the property. You can’t even sell the property either because nobody’s gonna buy it unless you put it at a steep discount or fix the issues.
Now what if, you are landlord and your house looks great but tenants don’t take care. They don’t want to turn heating, bathe in extremely hot water, excess moisture, condensation, won’t clean up on each use. Maybe don’t even clean up a year and after that you have all the mould and what happens? How is that fair?
Or you installed a new cooker and after a year, it looks like nobody has cleaned up for 10 years? The deposit won’t even cover much…
What a stupidly naive idea. It will kill the rental market (blah blah good no more landlords etc). It’s also massively disproportionate. Effectively fining a rogue landlord more than for example dangerous drivers or rogue contractors. There has to be proportion and we are talking about hundreds of thousands in fines. It’s a “feel good” headline – after all who likes a bad landlord? But it makes very little sense.
Edit: if I was a landlord I would want to massively increase my borrowing as well. Banks effectively own a lot of these properties. Limit your equity and your fine is much less than for someone who owns outright.
Can we please stop endorsing authoritarian acts of government? There are better ways to go about this than giving the government free reign to seize private property.
9 comments
Or, simply the prosecution process and add a 0 to the existing fines.
The threat of seizure would “bring landlords up fairly sharply, because some of those properties are worth quite a lot of money”
Yes, something needs to be done. But go to far then you see even more Section 21’s issued because the (rogue) landlords can’t be bothered with everything, and just sell up. Then you have even less rental properties available, satisfactory or not, and the price goes up even higher. Then the councils will just keep paying exorbitant amounts for temp accommodation in B&Bs and hotels, instead of building more houses/flats, etc.
Who takes ownership of the social housing in bad repair?
What about a landlord “license”. Each rental require an annual or two yearly “MOT”, which the landlord must pay for. Voila, new industry, better houses. I can’t get on board with the state removing peoples lawful property.
Just seize all landlord properties, refresh the council housing stock with them. There is no place in modern society for vampiric slackers like them.
Okay, confiscate it and then what? Councils are hardly looking after their own council housing stock, so confiscating the dilapidated and black mould filled property still leaves you with tenants developing health issues and a massive expense of fixing up the property. You can’t even sell the property either because nobody’s gonna buy it unless you put it at a steep discount or fix the issues.
Now what if, you are landlord and your house looks great but tenants don’t take care. They don’t want to turn heating, bathe in extremely hot water, excess moisture, condensation, won’t clean up on each use. Maybe don’t even clean up a year and after that you have all the mould and what happens? How is that fair?
Or you installed a new cooker and after a year, it looks like nobody has cleaned up for 10 years? The deposit won’t even cover much…
What a stupidly naive idea. It will kill the rental market (blah blah good no more landlords etc). It’s also massively disproportionate. Effectively fining a rogue landlord more than for example dangerous drivers or rogue contractors. There has to be proportion and we are talking about hundreds of thousands in fines. It’s a “feel good” headline – after all who likes a bad landlord? But it makes very little sense.
Edit: if I was a landlord I would want to massively increase my borrowing as well. Banks effectively own a lot of these properties. Limit your equity and your fine is much less than for someone who owns outright.
Can we please stop endorsing authoritarian acts of government? There are better ways to go about this than giving the government free reign to seize private property.