A second local authority in England is set to bring in compulsory licensing of every private rental property on its territory.
Liverpool City Council has launched a consultation for the introduction of a citywide licensing scheme affecting over 50,000 properties.
The move follows that of Newham, in London, which became the first council to introduce mandatory licensing of all private rental properties on January 1. Its scheme covers an estimated 35,000 households.
Liverpool City Council is planning to introduce its scheme later this year, with the consultation due to run until April.
As in Newham, it would mean that all property owners who rent out their properties would need to apply for a licence, agreeing to comply with a minimum set of standards. A breach of the conditions could lead to a fine or revocation of the licence.
The city council says the plans aim to “support the city’s pledge to work with the majority of responsible landlords, support their businesses and create a level playing field for all, while cracking down on landlords who do not manage their properties properly.
“The licensing scheme would also help empower tenants – who currently have no way of knowing the quality of their prospective landlord – and help them make informed choices.
“And it would protect residents who have suffered from neighbouring properties being bought by landlords who have then let them indiscriminately to unsuitable tenants.”
Liverpool’s cabinet member for housing, Cllr Ann O’Byrne, said: “It’s vital that we do all we can to work with landlords across Liverpool to drive up the quality of our private rented properties. Many areas which suffer blight in the city are characterised by large numbers of poorly managed private rented properties, leading to problems such as anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping.
“The proposed licensing scheme would recognise the majority of good landlords who manage their properties properly, while enabling us to deal with the minority who choose not to engage with us, and whose letting and management practices are poor.
“Licensing would create a minimum standard for the private rented sector, with landlords needing to show that they have adequate systems in place for their tenants – for example, to report repairs and defects. It would also enable tenants to be confident in their choice to rent, and neighbours to be confident in landlords’ ability to effectively manage their properties.
“We believe this scheme would be really beneficial for the city, but we will be consulting closely with landlords, tenants, residents and other stakeholders over the coming months, to make sure their views are fully taken on board.”
The council’s move to license 50,000-plus properties would build massively on Liverpool’s compulsory licensing of 1,250 Houses in Multiple Occupation.
During the 12-week consultation period, tenants, landlords and advice agencies will be asked for their opinions, with questionnaires being sent out to tenants. There will also be roadshows and other events.
A report will then be presented to the council’s cabinet in May.
Liverpool City Council has signed a statement of support for Shelter’s national campaign to stamp out rogue landlords.
Last year, Liverpool City Council took legal action against eight landlords whose property did not meet legal requirements, resulting in fines and court costs totalling more than £31,000.
Comments
I'm amused by words like "vital" and by remarks like "The proposed licensing scheme would recognise the majority of good landlords who manage their properties properly, while enabling us to deal with the minority who choose not to engage with us, and whose letting and management practices are poor."
I mean, are we stupid? How would a scheme "recognise" good landlords? How would they "deal with [those] who choose not to engage" if they did, in fact, choose not to engage?
They then go on to say that "The council’s move to license 50,000-plus properties would build massively on Liverpool’s compulsory licensing of 1,250 Houses in Multiple Occupation."
What they mean of course is that it would "build massively" on the city's revenues.
What a load of tosh. It's all about money and politics (in the 'slopey-shouldered' sense).
Dear 'agent'
I would like to get in contact with you regarding your interesting views and experience on selective licensing. I would appreciate it if you could call 01258 85 85 85 and ask for David d'Orton-Gibson.
@ agent
With you all the way on your comments down to the middle of your post and the reference to every 3 years. By the way how much is the fee per registration?
Now the rest of it rather shows why registration is such a good thing.
I have had countless situations referred to me where action was needed not against our tenant but by our tenant (or Landlord) against a neighbouring rented property and its tenant and landlord. But could do nothing because the Landlord or agent of the offending property was not known.
Being able to identify the agent or Landlord of a rented property has big advantages and not just for the Council.
On the defrocking of Landlords are you unaware of the big case reported a few months ago where an Edinburgh Landlord was struck off the register?
My company operates in England and Scotland so we have a fair amount of experience of landlord registration I would urge any letting agent in England to start getting involved in these consultations and the ongoing campaign by Shelter against our industry because if you dont you will end up with expensive, time intensive red tape to deal with. I am a strong supporter of any scheme which improves the credibility and professionalism of letting agents but landlord registration has not achieved this in Scotland, the reality is that local coucils have simply used this to palm off their responsibilities for anti social behaviour and at the same time generated regular income at the cost of letting agents and landlords. In Scotland letting agents need to register with EVERY authority where they rent properties, so despite being a single letting agency we are registered and pay fees to 11 local councils to enable us to be registered where we operate. Landlords have to pay a registration fee for every single property, incidently fees have to be paid every 3 years. Now that letting agents and landlords are registered they can now refer on ANY example of anti social behaviour and warn you that as a landlord and letting agent we are responsible for our tenants. We regularly receive formal warnings that the neighbourhood noise team have driven around an area and found loud music to be coming from a rented property which is registered to ourselves, under our registration we must take responsibility for anti social behaviour and arrange to visit our tenants and warn them about this matter. They do the same for dog fouling, litter and dumping rubbish and surprisingly they always manage to trace it to the flat in the block that is rented. It is absolutely outrageous the way this is abused by councils and they are simply making landlords and letting agents do their work for them. I have yet to hear of a single rogue landlord being removed from the register for failure in their responsibilities. This will be bad news for your business and i strongly recommend you get involved in the consultation.
@Colin Bentley
I don't mean to knock a laudable initiative which is what I often get criticised for doing, and hate to ask but.....
40 - 50 Landlords at a meeting. How many private landlords are there estimated to be in each of the three areas you mention?
The other problem I am sure others would highlight is that of course it tends as usual to be the good guys that attend and support these Forums anyway. The bad guys just go further underground
@Ray - I did the exact same calculation as you and came to the same conclusion.
The Letting Market should rightly be concerned to ensure that tenants of lettable residential property are protected within the Law from rogue and/or ill informed Landlords.
Protection can take two forms, Liverpool is giving consideration to Licencing and Regulation whereas Mansfield, Kirkby in Ashfield together with Newark on Trent have collectlively joined together to form a Landlords Forum which meets quarterly throughout the local area. They invite and attract between 40 and 50 Landlords for each meting; speakers address the group regarding Landlord responsibility and further contact is encouraged during the pre and post meeting light buffet/coffee sessions.
I suggest that the Mansfield group have correctly identified a problem and built up mutual trust and understanding with their local Landlords. The Liverpool example does nothing to aid Landlords, is expensive and may only serve to build up resentment between the parties.
Landlord registration has been in place for 4 years in Scotland....only 1 prosecution in that time sums it up. The rogue Landlords ignoring system along with manufacturing "ghost" deposits. All at the expense of the good Landlords and Council Tax payer. The Councils have no funding or the will to police the system
How long will it be before Councils start selling the addresses of landlords to insurance companies..... etc
This process will mean that before long local councils will effectively totally CONTROL all of the rental market in their area - private as well as social housing.
It is political and not necessary - they should spend the money enforcing the current laws.
Useless! Time to abandon ship in these areas
I was in a seaside town recently and got talking to the owners of an Indian restaurant. 4 brothers all let out their council flats in East London and use the rent to pay for their luxury 5 bed house in a posh suburb. I cant see them subscribing or confessing.....
Good landlords will sign up pay the money. bad landlords wont - they will continue to evade tax, buy to let rates, rent out their council flat and the vulnerable tenants upon whom they prey still wont have anyone to whom they can turn.
“The proposed licensing scheme would make money out of the majority of good landlords who manage their properties properly, while enabling us to use their money instead of our own to deal with the 0.016% minority who choose not to engage with us, and whose letting and management practices are poor"
There, that makes more sense now with a bit of editing
WOW! That's more than I get paid!
Good grief. It won't change anything until the Courts get tough and impose meaningful sentences which serve as deterrents. One agent near us pinched £150,000 and got 200 hours community service. That's £750 per hour!!