"Reduction in red tape for SEMEs"

[Paul Norman]

Really ? ! ?
Do you live in the same world as me !
I'll give you a good example of a new regulation designed "to keep us safe", which is not needed, or hasn't been for nearly two hundred years. All mainline railway coaching stock cannot have opening windows any more, or at least windows that open far enough for a brain dead to stick his head out and possibly get it knocked off. Note, prior to this latest regulation it was incredibly rare for that to happen, but these days one death is one too many, not if it can be prevented by yet more regulation, regardless of any costs.
Even more incredibly, this new regulation will, by 2025, also apply to heritage / steam railways, max speed 25mph. No more sticking your head out to see the steam engine working......
The world has gone mad, and nobody seems to care.

I have not encountered that regulation.

If I did, however, it would involve me and my business in precisely zero inconvenience

 

[Newchodge]

I do not believe that for a second.

1 - Why should landlords be any different from any other businessman who "wants to do a good job and provide a good service". For me that's just as much motivation for my own retail business as making money.

2 - If a landlord has a good tenant why would they want to displease them so they might leave ? It's a PITA having to go and find new tenants and sort out all the contracts etc. Far better to have the same tenant in for years and years.

3 - A landlord almost always owns the property, why, if he has any sense at all, would he not want to keep it in good condition ?

But at the end of the day we live in a free market, that should sort it. If some tenants want to live in a small poorly decorated house and pay less rent, why should they not be able to ? Similarly, in the other direction, if you keep your properties in good condition the market should dictate that you can charge more for them.

You have no idea of the real world. A while back I was in a very difficult position and in desperate need of somewhere to live. After 6 months searching and living in appalling temporary accommodation we managed to get offered a flat to rent. The rent was the standard amount for the area. The upstairs flat was reached by an uncarpeted staircase. There was no carpet anywhere in the flat. There were electrical wires vsible everywhere. The landlord proudly presented us with a letter from the counsil requiring numerous issues be rectified, some of which wree identified as emergency requirements, including the provision of emergency exits. He told us that, as a condition of living there, we had to rectify the issues at our cost. The council dd nothing to check the issues had been rectified. We could not afford to do anything about them. We lived there for 3 years. We could have complained to the council but it was clear that, had we done so, we would have been immdiately evicted. We had most of a roof, 4 walls and windows that, mainly, kept the weather out. If we had left we would have been on the street.

That is the reality for many tenants who have nothing.

 

[IanSuth]

You have no idea of the real world. A while back I was in a very difficult position and in desperate need of somewhere to live. After 6 months searching and living in appalling temporary accommodation we managed to get offered a flat to rent. The rent was the standard amount for the area. The upstairs flat was reached by an uncarpeted staircase. There was no carpet anywhere in the flat. There were electrical wires vsible everywhere. The landlord proudly presented us with a letter from the counsil requiring numerous issues be rectified, some of which wree identified as emergency requirements, including the provision of emergency exits. He told us that, as a condition of living there, we had to rectify the issues at our cost. The council dd nothing to check the issues had been rectified. We could not afford to do anything about them. We lived there for 3 years. We could have complained to the council but it was clear that, had we done so, we would have been immdiately evicted. We had most of a roof, 4 walls and windows that, mainly, kept the weather out. If we had left we would have been on the street.

That is the reality for many tenants who have nothing.

Very similar to me as a student

I didnt have a bankers reference and only had 1 months spare money as a deposit so my choice of housing was very limited - i was paying the same rent as others in better houses but i couldnt of paid the deposit or even got a viewing.
Our house had wires dangling from the ceiling in the kitchen jointed with insulating tape not a junction box right by the leaky boiler. As the year progressed more friends moved in as they got evicted (this was 1991 the period they fixed student grants, stopped housing benefit for students and introduced student loans but hadnt got the mix right), we finally ended up with 22 people (including 1 in a pup tent on the landing outside my room) paying between them £1500pcm to a landlord who want paying the woolwich whilst we had 1 working toilet in the only bathroom plus another with a leaky cistern and that you couldn't trust the light switch in, a condemned gas boiler, one person's "room" was the old victorian built conservatory, useful as he was a botanist but it has gape in the walls you could put your arm through. No fire doors, no fire alarms, no fire escapes was a victorian 3 storey house with people living on all 3 floors PLUS 2 living in the cellar (those we were subletting to so not the landlords fault) etc etc

 

[IanSuth]

Even more incredibly, this new regulation will, by 2025, also apply to heritage / steam railways, max speed 25mph. No more sticking your head out to see the steam engine working......
The world has gone mad, and nobody seems to care.

or they can ensure lineside structures are far enough away so no hazard is present

Isn't this due to the Wandsworth Common incident which was modern rolling stock

 

[Newchodge]

or they can ensure lineside structures are far enough away so no hazard is present

Isn't this due to the Wandsworth Common incident which was modern rolling stock

They would have to relay the tracks to avoid people's heads connecting with oncoming trains.

 

[IanSuth]

They would have to relay the tracks to avoid people's heads connecting with oncoming trains.

most heritage lines dont have trains passing surely (I have a mate who works on the wallingford&cholsey and for NR I will ask her)

 

[Justin Smith]

What was it we said ? There is no chance whatsoever of getting rid of red tape, in fact it'll just get worse.
I believe we discussed the excessive regulations required by landlords (incl the humungous waste of time and money that are EICR reports) and how it was putting many landlords off bothering. Thus resulting in decreased supply and increased rents.
So what happens ? :

Labour are planning to incorporate a new national property MOT. An independent annual inspection would be required for all of the landlords, in order to ensure that their properties are up to code. If properties fail to pass the requirements, landlords may be liable for substantial fines and forced repayment of rent to tenants
https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/news/labour-power-for-tenants/

How much will these cost and who will pay for them ? Is that a silly question ?

Mind you, Labour know even less about thw rental sector than the Tories if they seriously think the balance of power is in favour of the landlord ! :

The shadow levelling up secretary will pledge to abolish no fault evictions and 'tilt the balance of power' back to renters
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/lisa-nandy-vows-give-tenants-28077328

 

[Justin Smith]

You have no idea of the real world. A while back I was in a very difficult position and in desperate need of somewhere to live. After 6 months searching and living in appalling temporary accommodation we managed to get offered a flat to rent. The rent was the standard amount for the area. The upstairs flat was reached by an uncarpeted staircase. There was no carpet anywhere in the flat. There were electrical wires vsible everywhere. The landlord proudly presented us with a letter from the counsil requiring numerous issues be rectified, some of which wree identified as emergency requirements, including the provision of emergency exits. He told us that, as a condition of living there, we had to rectify the issues at our cost. The council dd nothing to check the issues had been rectified. We could not afford to do anything about them. We lived there for 3 years. We could have complained to the council but it was clear that, had we done so, we would have been immdiately evicted. We had most of a roof, 4 walls and windows that, mainly, kept the weather out. If we had left we would have been on the street.

That is the reality for many tenants who have nothing.

No you do not.
If there is a shortage of rental properties now, why would making it even harder to be a landlord increase the number of rental properties available ?
We live in a free market, who are the government to tell landlord and renters (nicer house = more expensive) what they are allowed to rent out ?
My wife has had enough of it, even before the labour party's latest "brainwave" (see above) and wants out. There is no chance whatsoever she will be the only one.

 

[Newchodge]

No you do not.
If there is a shortage of rental properties now, why would making it even harder to be a landlord increase the number of rental properties available ?
We live in a free market, who are the government to tell landlord and renters (nicer house = more expensive) what they are allowed to rent out ?
My wife has had enough of it, even before the labour party's latest "brainwave" (see above) and wants out. There is no chance whatsoever she will be the only one.

You seem to be replying to a different post.

 

[Justin Smith]

or they can ensure lineside structures are far enough away so no hazard is present
Isn't this due to the Wandsworth Common incident which was modern rolling stock

Banning opening windows on trains was the biggest over reaction in the world up to that time (Covid knocked it into a cocked hat though).

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trains

Ian Skinner Head of Heritage, Trams & Light Rail (13 August 2019)
Droplight windows can be dangerous. GTR was recently fined £1 million for health and safety failings after a passenger lost his life when his head passed through a window on the Gatwick Express in August 2016. (his head "passed through" a window, really ? Interesting use of words, and if it's that common why are you quoting an incident from 3 years ago ?)
Although some trains on the mainline railway use droplight windows, they are used more on heritage railways and we know that operators - and passengers - want to continue using Mark 1, 2 and 3 carriages, so we are working with heritage railways to ensure they can provide an authentic experience which passengers can enjoy in safety (a totally meaningless thing to say because "safe" is a relative term, so how safe ? I mean compared to driving a car for one year ?)
Mainline operators, and charter operators using heritage stock on the mainline, are already looking at ways to meet safety standards expected after December 2019, including fitting internal door handles and lockable windows. From 31 March 2023 , we expect all heritage stock on the mainline to be fitted with internal door handles and lockable windows.
Heritage railways are different – the simple fact that they run at a maximum speed of 25mph makes the windows safer to have in place – but more is needed (in your paranoid opinion)
We want to see every heritage railway conduct a thorough risk assessment and then take appropriate and reasonably practicable measures including moving lineside structures such as signal posts away from the track, cutting back vegetation, restricted window opening to allow ventilation only , putting up prominent signs and making announcements over the public address system (sounds a right barrel of laughs, both for the passengers and the volunteer staff).
And, in cases where it is clear that passengers’ actions are putting themselves at risk, the railways need to have a sufficient number of stewards in place who are empowered to remove passengers from the train if they won’t obey safety instructions (heritage bouncers, for putting ones head out of the window of a 25mph steam train, does Mr Skinner live in a parallel universe somewhere ?)
There are more than 200 heritage railways operating across Great Britain providing great days out for tens of thousands of people and employing thousands of people in a range of jobs. We are determined that they continue to thrive and passengers can enjoy a1950s/1960s experience with 21st Century standards of safety. ?
But the last sentence is not, I am pretty sure, satirical.
Does the man really believe what he is saying ?

 

[Justin Smith]

You seem to be replying to a different post.

No I am not, I am replying to your post which, AFAIK, is advocating increased regulation of landlords. Please correct me if I have got the wrong and of the stick and you are not.

 

[Newchodge]

No I am not, I am replying to your post which, AFAIK, is advocating increased regulation of landlords. Please correct me if I have got the wrong and of the stick and you are not.

In that case

No you do not.

I do not what?

The rest of your ramblings have absolutely nothing to do with my post as quoted.

 

[Bob Morgan]

Dare I mention the UKCA Mark?

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

I hope lots of landlords are put off by this and sell their stock asap

The increase of people buying properties to rent has added to the increase in property pricing and a reduction in stock for sale, putting home ownership out of reach of too many.

I don't have an issue anyone who does invest in property and becomes a landlord, but whilst there such such a housing problem, they contribute to many social issues.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

Re the UKCA mark, this is totally unnecessary red tape.

On the whole, it is the same as CE, but it won't generally be accepted outside of the UK!

More time, more cost, more beaurocracy.

 

[Bob Morgan]

Re the UKCA mark, this is totally unnecessary red tape.

On the whole, it is the same as CE, but it won't generally be accepted outside of the UK!

More time, more cost, more beaurocracy.

I read an article about it yesterday - Apparently costing industry Billions AND Delay after delay.

 

[The Byre]

Madness - sheer bloody madness! The answers are obvious. Nobody needs more red tape or indeed any red tape. No MOT for housing, no inspections - all that is totally counter-productive and a total waste of time.

There are three main components to a thriving housing rental market -

• Rent control. So much for old, so much for old and renovated, so much for new-builds, so much per sq m, so much for a garden - and so on. Rates will vary according to the area, but rent controls are vital. I am a landlord in a rent-controlled country and it gives me certainty. I know what I can charge and the tenants know what they will have to pay. I also know what standards to comply with and that the tenants can either take me to a rent tribunal or unilaterally improve the property and take the cost off the rent.
• Rent Tribunals. Like ACAS, a rent tribunal decides who is right and who is wrong and awards costs, etc. accordingly.
• Tax breaks for long-term property ownership. Imagine that you are a bank or a manufacturer of whoopee cushions - or whatever. You have a few million that you need to wash clean of tax liabilities. Even a local retail outlet can easily end up with one million in profits that would otherwise be liable for CT - what to do? Easy! Use all that money to build some social housing. Hold it for at least ten years and then sell it tax-free.

I do not have to get any inspections done. I do not have to guess how much to charge. The market has enough rental property so that almost everyone can get a home and they will know what the costs will be. The law lays down what standards must be maintained.

You could add to the above a few more specific rules, but those are the bare bones of a civilised rental market. The tenant makes sure that the property is up to snuff and complies with the laws governing insulation, safety, etc. Yes - all rental properties MUST be insulated and double-glazed. The owner makes sure that the property is cared for by the tenant and that the rent is paid. No government inspectors. No electricians waving bogus PAT machines and tut-tutting. No pointless red tape.

BTW - and landlords are only allowed to evict for continued non-payment of rent or abuse of the property. Almost no other grounds can be allowed.

All you have to do is look elsewhere and see what others are doing in other counties - and then copy the best.

Simples!

 

[Newchodge]

ent control. So much for old, so much for old and renovated, so much for new-builds, so much per sq m, so much for a garden - and so on. Rates will vary according to the area, but rent controls are vital. I am a landlord in a rent-controlled country and it gives me certainty. I know what I can charge and the tenants know what they will have to pay. I also know what standards to comply with and that the tenants can either take me to a rent tribunal or unilaterally improve the property and take the cost off the rent.

Sounds like regulation to me.

As does: BTW - and landlords are only allowed to evict for continued non-payment of rent or abuse of the property. Almost no other grounds can be allowed.

 

[The Byre]

Sounds like regulation to me.

As does: BTW - and landlords are only allowed to evict for continued non-payment of rent or abuse of the property. Almost no other grounds can be allowed.

Well, of course, there is regulation! All laws are types of regulation - thou shalt not! But I am saying that there is no need for red tape.

Just as I do not need a license for being a human being but I still cannot kill or injure others or create a nuisance, my life is insofar, regulated. We are always regulated and we always have been regulated - either by the law or by our peers - usually both. It is what we call society!

Rent controls, rent tribunals, the condition of the property and tax breaks for building social housing do and can exist without any red tape. I do not have to register my properties in order to rent them out. The very fact that I or someone working for me has signed a rental agreement and the tenant has also signed that agreement, makes us all subject to rental laws which can be adjudicated (for a modest fee) by a rent tribunal.

The process only then becomes slightly bureaucratic in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant.

_____________________________​

We could also lose those silly words 'Landlord' and 'tenant' - I do not, nor do I ever intend to lord over any land. Given my Germanic origin, I prefer the German words Mieter and Vermieter - renter and rentee. Like interviewer and interviewee - no need to imply any given status when none is intended and should never be sought!

"I'm from Channel Four News and I want to be your interview lord - would you agree to be my interview serf?"

 

[Newchodge]

Well, of course, there is regulation! All laws are types of regulation - thou shalt not! But I am saying that there is no need for red tape.

Just as I do not need a license for being a human being but I still cannot kill or injure others or create a nuisance, my life is insofar, regulated. We are always regulated and we always have been regulated - either by the law or by our peers - usually both. It is what we call society!

Rent controls, rent tribunals, the condition of the property and tax breaks for building social housing do and can exist without any red tape. I do not have to register my properties in order to rent them out. The very fact that I or someone working for me has signed a rental agreement and the tenant has also signed that agreement, makes us all subject to rental laws which can be adjudicated (for a modest fee) by a rent tribunal.

The process only then becomes slightly bureaucratic in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant.

_____________________________​

We could also lose those silly words 'Landlord' and 'tenant' - I do not, nor do I ever intend to lord over any land. Given my Germanic origin, I prefer the German words Mieter and Vermieter - renter and rentee. Like interviewer and interviewee - no need to imply any given status when none is intended and should never be sought!

"I'm from Channel Four News and I want to be your interview lord - would you agree to be my interview serf?"

I don't think many UK rentees would like the idea of rent control. I remember when Thatcher abandoned it in the late 80's - the theory was that Landlords would not charge more than tenants could pay, so rent control was not necessary. That worked well.

 

[Justin Smith]

I hope lots of landlords are put off by this and sell their stock asap

The increase of people buying properties to rent has added to the increase in property pricing and a reduction in stock for sale, putting home ownership out of reach of too many.

I don't have an issue anyone who does invest in property and becomes a landlord, but whilst there such such a housing problem, they contribute to many social issues.

Most people rent because they cannot or do not want to buy. They may have to be mobile, or they cannot get a mortgage because of a poor credit history or only earn low wages or have no savings. I would have thought that house prices would more or less have to crash for it to make a significant difference to how many of those kind of people could buy rather than rent.
Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the fewer rental properties that are on the market will put up the price of renting.
But the $64,000 point is if you really are right and renting should be discouraged, surely that should be through the tax system (which, for the state would be a positive outcome : more tax for it to spend) rather than through increasing levels of expensive burdensome and disproportionate regulation. Who "wins" from that ? Other than the tradesmen who have to be employed to carry it out, and we are pretty short tradesmen as it is, have you ever tried getting quotes for anything, they give the distinct impression they're not that bothered about getting the work ! I am not surprised, much easier to go round doing a survey with a clipboard for £50 than actually have to get their hands dirty doing any real work.....

 

[Justin Smith]

I don't think many UK rentees would like the idea of rent control. I remember when Thatcher abandoned it in the late 80's - the theory was that Landlords would not charge more than tenants could pay, so rent control was not necessary. That worked well.

But we live in a free market, there should not be any price controls (other than for provable monopolies or stuff like railways which are subsidised as a public service to get cars off the roads).

 

[The Byre]

OK, let's go through what would happen to the case of that poor little boy that died of lung infections from mould spores - but this time in a jurisdiction subject to rent controls as outlined in my post.

• Step one - the father complains and gives the landlord one month to rectify.
• Step two - as no action has been taken, he can now choose - rectify the situation himself (charging materials and living wage rates and taking that sum off the rent), commission a company to rectify the situation (and take their fee off the rent), or apply to the rental tribunal to issue an injunction to have the situation rectified.
• Step three - the rental tribunal issues an injunction to have repairs completed within a set time.
• Step four - assuming that he has not got the funds to get things done himself and assuming that the landlord has ignored an injunction, the landlord is now guilty of the criminal offense of disobeying a court order - if it is a first offense, it will just be a hefty fine. He/she/they will however now have a criminal record.

But we live in a free market, there should not be any price controls (other than for provable monopolies or stuff like railways which are subsidised as a public service to get cars off the roads).

As much as I would normally agree with you wholeheartedly when we are talking in general about price controls, rent controls do work for BOTH sides - BUT only if the rest of the legislation is applied. i.e. including tax-free sales of property used for social housing if held for a minimum period of, say ten or fifteen years.

Price controls on their own with no other measures can never work because nobody wants to sell a good or service for a price at which they do not make a reasonable profit. But if we factor in the washing away of 30% CT, the calculation looks completely different!

It also means that society has a constant and steady supply of good quality housing at prices people can afford.

BUT​

Right now, jurisdictions with rent control that have taken in vast numbers of Ukrainian refugees are struggling (Germany in particular) their rental markets are getting bent out of shape. The carefully balanced and nurtured German rental market is struggling - but that is happening everywhere! With or without rent controls, tribunals and tax breaks.

 

[Newchodge]

OK, let's go through what would happen to the case of that poor little boy that died of lung infections from mould spores - but this time in a jurisdiction subject to rent controls as outlined in my post.

• Step one - the father complains and gives the landlord one month to rectify.
• Step two - as no action has been taken, he can now choose - rectify the situation himself (charging materials and living wage rates and taking that sum off the rent), commission a company to rectify the situation (and take their fee off the rent), or apply to the rental tribunal to issue an injunction to have the situation rectified.
• Step three - the rental tribunal issues an injunction to have repairs completed within a set time.
• Step four - assuming that he has not got the funds to get things done himself and assuming that the landlord has ignored an injunction, the landlord is now guilty of the criminal offense of disobeying a court order - if it is a first offense, it will just be a hefty fine. He/she/they will however now have a criminal record.

As much as I would normally agree with you wholeheartedly when we are talking in general about price controls, rent controls do work for BOTH sides - BUT only if the rest of the legislation is applied. i.e. including tax-free sales of property used for social housing if held for a minimum period of, say ten or fifteen years.

Price controls on their own with no other measures can never work because nobody wants to sell a good or service for a price at which they do not make a reasonable profit. But if we factor in the washing away of 30% CT, the calculation looks completely different!

It also means that society has a constant and steady supply of good quality housing at prices people can afford.

BUT​

Right now, jurisdictions with rent control that have taken in vast numbers of Ukrainian refugees are struggling (Germany in particular) their rental markets are getting bent out of shape. The carefully balanced and nurtured German rental market is struggling - but that is happening everywhere! With or without rent controls, tribunals and tax breaks.

The thing that struck me most about the child killed by poor housing conditions is that the landlord is not a rogue out to get everything they can with the least outlay. The family was in social housing!

 

[The Byre]

A court injunction forcing them to act and naming the directors of that company as the defendants would have focused their attention and forced them to act.

Slothful incompetence is not a defense!

 

[IanSuth]

Most people rent because they cannot or do not want to buy. They may have to be mobile, or they cannot get a mortgage because of a poor credit history or only earn low wages or have no savings. I would have thought that house prices would more or less have to crash for it to make a significant difference to how many of those kind of people could buy rather than rent.
Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the fewer rental properties that are on the market will put up the price of renting.
But the $64,000 point is if you really are right and renting should be discouraged, surely that should be through the tax system (which, for the state would be a positive outcome : more tax for it to spend) rather than through increasing levels of expensive burdensome and disproportionate regulation. Who "wins" from that ? Other than the tradesmen who have to be employed to carry it out, and we are pretty short tradesmen as it is, have you ever tried getting quotes for anything, they give the distinct impression they're not that bothered about getting the work ! I am not surprised, much easier to go round doing a survey with a clipboard for £50 than actually have to get their hands dirty doing any real work.....

An interesting "fact" I just heard on the radio earlier and didn't know is that apparently the vast majority of social landlords (as in housing associations & authorities) are exempted from the regulations that private landlords have to adhere to.

So whilst if you (Justin) rented a house to a family and it was full of mould and their child died you could be liable to an unlimited fine or imprisonment, there is no equivalent sanction possible in a case like this.

That is surely the biggest market inefficiency, if regulations exist they should exist for all in the same marketspace.

So either we accept the level of regulation in the social housing sector (which led to this death) and let private landlords work to that level as well (which reduces costs and theoretically therefore rents) or we raise it in the social housing sector to equal to private landlords (which makes things fairer for the private landlords and should increase supply)

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Step one - the father complains and gives the landlord one month to rectify.

What if the Landlord cannot afford to rectify the problem, cash flow problems etc.,?

I had a couple of houses let some years ago, got hit with interest rate rises to15%, lost my job and had two tenants (students) move out all in a couple of months. I know what potless is!

 

[The Byre]

What if the Landlord cannot afford to rectify the problem, cash flow problems etc.,?

When renting out a dwelling to a tenant, you are entering an agreement to provide your tenants with a safe and suitable home. They are entering an agreement to pay you £x every month and take due care of that dwelling. If your finances are so precarious that you cannot guarantee the continued provision of that home, the blunt answer is to not enter into such an arrangement.

It would be like buying a washing machine from a store, only to discover that it was bust and they were skint and did not have the finances to honour your rights under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 and you have bought so much scrap metal.

I know that this sounds harsh, but there can be no other way to look at the situation - both morally and legally. Providing someone with a home for a set fee is a major responsibility and not one to be entered into lightly and without the necessary funds to cover all eventualities within reason. Beyond reasonable contingencies such as repairs and those improvements required by law, one is obliged to take out suitable insurance.

If a landlord does hit a bad cash flow shortfall and cannot perform the necessary repairs, they must come clean with the tenants and tell them what is going on. That allows the tenant to be able to perform those repairs and take the costs off the rent.

The whole object of running a business is to provide a service that is of benefit to the customer and allows you to amass wealth over an extended period - it should not be to turn a quick profit and hope for the best - hoping against hope that nothing goes wrong!

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

If your finances are so precarious that you cannot guarantee the continued provision of that home, the blunt answer is to not enter into such an arrangement.

Agreed, but the arrangement was entered into a couple of years previously. A particular set of circumstances, not dissimilar to those facing the nation today came together at the same time. Like many folk in the late 80's early 90's, I hadn't got a stack of cash behind me but was riding the wave, earning well until someone turned the tap off as interest rates rocketed.

There was nothing about my properties that was injurious to anyone's health but if something needed doing they had to wait.

 

[IanSuth]

Agreed, but the arrangement was entered into a couple of years previously. A particular set of circumstances, not dissimilar to those facing the nation today came together at the same time. Like many folk in the late 80's early 90's, I hadn't got a stack of cash behind me but was riding the wave, earning well until someone turned the tap off as interest rates rocketed.

There was nothing about my properties that was injurious to anyone's health but if something needed doing they had to wait.

Maybe then there is a gap/deficiency in the insurance market - all landlords (inc social landlords) should be able to demonstrate they have the resources to cover likely repairs or have an insurance policy in place to do the same.

I am not talking about "the toilet door is a bit iffy", "the bush in the garden is annoying" or one of the rings on the hob has died but things with real impact to a tenants quality/cost of living

The heater has bust
The provided fridge/freezer has died
Front door lock has bust
The roof is leaking and running down the bathroom wall

Things like that their needs to be more of regulation of how long a landlord has to fix before a tenant has the right to get mended themselves and deduct from rent.

I know a lot of landlords are fine (my son's delivered a replacement fridge/freezer within 24hrs in lockdown when theirs died) but where there are ones that aren't it is hard to get anything done (and some of the social landlords appear to be the worst)

 

[The Byre]

Maybe then there is a gap/deficiency in the insurance market - all landlords (inc social landlords) should be able to demonstrate they have the resources to cover likely repairs or have an insurance policy in place to do the same.

It would cost a disproportionate sum IMO.

The heater has bust
The provided fridge/freezer has died
Front door lock has bust
The roof is leaking and running down the bathroom wall

Our tenants provide their own furniture, so I've never had the fridge die. But I have had all the others over the years. Tenants pay rent. The rent goes onto an account and we keep a float on that account large enough to cover these things - in fact, we have just had a recent major set of repairs to a property, including a roof repair.

Some tenants are very reasonable and some are a PITA and some are hilariously daft! One mad woman called me all the way to the UK to complain that the village snowplough was not mounted on the tractor properly - and what was I going to do about it!

Another called to complain that the new terrace was uneven.
"New terrace? Did we put in a new terrace?"
"No, my husband built it and it's now all uneven. Are you going to fix it?"

(It transpired that the husband had a brain tumour and had to stay in bed to stay alive long enough for his condition to stabilise so that he could have it removed. He built the terrace and he died! We fixed the terrace after she moved!)

Cats in the roof space. Abandoned vehicles. None payment of rent. Misuse of the property. Criminal activity. Impromptu knocking shop. We've had them all! I've even had a letter insisting that I provide one tenant with a lawnmower and other garden tools (we declined!)

And about once a year, something will need repairing on every property. It can be something cheap like the heater going down - or something really expensive like that damn terrace or the roof needing to be totally replaced with timbers. That is what the float is for.

Things like that their needs to be more of regulation of how long a landlord has to fix before a tenant has the right to get mended themselves and deduct from rent.

The magic word there is reasonable - central heating in Winter - straight away. Roof - within a few days. Door sticking - when our Mr. Fixit gets around to it - maybe a week or so.

We have never had a tenant want to take us to a rent tribunal, but they can issue an injunction to have repairs made within a set time. In cases of extreme hardship such as the roof blowing away and the place being uninhabitable, the landlord has to meet all costs such as hotel bills. (So always pay close attention to the condition of all roofs!)

In Germany, the tenant is always free to go to the society for tenant protection (Mieterschutzbund) and get free legal advice - that is what I did in my younger years when faced with an unwarranted eviction order. I assume other countries have similar societies and systems.

 

[IanSuth]

It would cost a disproportionate sum IMO.

Our tenants provide their own furniture, so I've never had the fridge die. But I have had all the others over the years. Tenants pay rent. The rent goes onto an account and we keep a float on that account large enough to cover these things - in fact, we have just had a recent major set of repairs to a property, including a roof repair.

Some tenants are very reasonable and some are a PITA and some are hilariously daft! One mad woman called me all the way to the UK to complain that the village snowplough was not mounted on the tractor properly - and what was I going to do about it!

Another called to complain that the new terrace was uneven.
"New terrace? Did we put in a new terrace?"
"No, my husband built it and it's now all uneven. Are you going to fix it?"

(It transpired that the husband had a brain tumour and had to stay in bed to stay alive long enough for his condition to stabilise so that he could have it removed. He built the terrace and he died! We fixed the terrace after she moved!)

Cats in the roof space. Abandoned vehicles. None payment of rent. Misuse of the property. Criminal activity. Impromptu knocking shop. We've had them all! I've even had a letter insisting that I provide one tenant with a lawnmower and other garden tools (we declined!)

And about once a year, something will need repairing on every property. It can be something cheap like the heater going down - or something really expensive like that damn terrace or the roof needing to be totally replaced with timbers. That is what the float is for.

The magic word there is reasonable - central heating in Winter - straight away. Roof - within a few days. Door sticking - when our Mr. Fixit gets around to it - maybe a week or so.

We have never had a tenant want to take us to a rent tribunal, but they can issue an injunction to have repairs made within a set time. In cases of extreme hardship such as the roof blowing away and the place being uninhabitable, the landlord has to meet all costs such as hotel bills. (So always pay close attention to the condition of all roofs!)

In Germany, the tenant is always free to go to the society for tenant protection (Mieterschutzbund) and get free legal advice - that is what I did in my younger years when faced with an unwarranted eviction order. I assume other countries have similar societies and systems.

It sounds like the German system is sensible with "reasonable" taken into account. Only comment i would make on you list of gripes was if your tenancy agreement said the tenant must keep the garden mowed and in good order then i would expect some tools to allow the same (just a simple push mower) to be in the shed

Any comment from a UK landlord?

I think currently most uk rentals seem to be furnished or at least things like a fridge are included - def for student/flat rentals

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

I had a female student who's bedroom door lock kept 'falling off'. I learnt after she left that she had a reputation as a bit of a tease and the door had been kicked open by a series of short changed boyfriends.

I had another tenant who fled after just a couple of weeks. No damage done other than some marks around the loft hatch that warranted further investigation. It turned out that he'd removed enough bricks from the party wall to the semi detached next door to create a hole to crawl through whereupon he dropped through their hatch to nick whatever he could lay his hands on. Fortunately the resident was a single man with very few possessions, the only loss he'd noticed being a dodgy video.

 

[Justin Smith]

What if the Landlord cannot afford to rectify the problem, cash flow problems etc.,?

As a short term measure why did they not just supply him with a dehumidifer ? Possibly even temporarily cutting his rent a bit to pay for its leccy ?

The fact we are all trying to save electricity will inevitably mean much more draught prevention work undertaken and fewer windows will be left open, which will inevitably mean more damp

 

[Philip Hoyle]

In your line of work, perhaps Grenfell should stand as a reminder of the need for proper and properly enforced regulation?

I don't think Grenfell is a good example, because there was all the regulation, checks, inspections etc in force, they just weren't done properly, with it not being obvious exactly "who" was responsible, and so many people were involved, they all seemed to assume "someone else" had checked things were right. Quite a few witnesses in the enquiry saying that they thought it was someone else's job to check, and assumed they had. It will certainly be interesting to see the enquiry findings. It certainly doesn't look to be lack of regulations, more like uncertainty as to responsibility.

I think that's exactly what some posters are alluding to, i.e. regulations which either aren't enforced, or where there's ambiguity are often worse than not having such regulations in the first place, as people can "abdicate" responsibility and common sense by "assuming" someone else was responsible.

 

[Newchodge]

I don't think Grenfell is a good example, because there was all the regulation, checks, inspections etc in force, they just weren't done properly, with it not being obvious exactly "who" was responsible, and so many people were involved, they all seemed to assume "someone else" had checked things were right. Quite a few witnesses in the enquiry saying that they thought it was someone else's job to check, and assumed they had. It will certainly be interesting to see the enquiry findings. It certainly doesn't look to be lack of regulations, more like uncertainty as to responsibility.

I think that's exactly what some posters are alluding to, i.e. regulations which either aren't enforced, or where there's ambiguity are often worse than not having such regulations in the first place, as people can "abdicate" responsibility and common sense by "assuming" someone else was responsible.

Did you miss this part of my post? properly enforced regulation?

 

[The Byre]

I don't think Grenfell is a good example, because there was all the regulation, checks, inspections etc in force, they just weren't done properly, with it not being obvious exactly "who" was responsible, and so many people were involved, they all seemed to assume "someone else" had checked things were right.

As I have a friend who is a surveyor who specialises in this field and has been telling me where the Grenfell builders and owners went wrong, I happen to have a fair idea of where things went wrong and continue to go wrong.

The answer (according to my surveyor friend) is a culture of sticking plaster.

The laws around buildings are a myriad array of sticking plaster measures, some even contradicting others! Every time something happens, say an electrical fire - some Herbert drafts a new regulation or a must-have certificate that does nothing to redraft or even alter the existing laws. The result is the legal equivalent of a dying patient covered in small bits of sticking plaster. Silly footling rules for everything, but no overall concept.

Putting cheap PU boards with wooden frames covered in aluminium on the outside of a building is a sticking plaster measure. It was cheap and quick and even looked sort of nice. The right way is to renovate the building on the inside and insulate every flat on the inside and provide proper fire escape exits and other measures. That would entail moving every tenant out and finding them all alternative accommodation. "Ah, F-it! Just stick some cheap cladding on the outside and that's that box ticked!"

More sticking plaster!

Story -

I managed to tear a ligament in my shoulder over the weekend whilst playing with my Great Dane. With great trepidation, I went to our local GP practice on Monday as the pain was getting worse. There, a remarkably pretty young female GP sent me straight to the local hospital.

(A few years ago, that hospital came in for huge criticism for having bad management and management practices and was forced into a root-and-branch reorganisation. The whole place was totally difunctional and chaotic. The old guard were shown the door!)

Half an hour after talking to that GP, I rocked up at A&E and they knew that I was coming. They ushered me into orthopedics and I was x-rayed and the consultant examined me and a nurse put my arm in a sling and just half an hour after coming in, I was sent home - all fixed up.

Yes - even the NHS can be made to work! But it took a root-and-branch reorganisation to achieve this!

And that is what is required with building regulations. Throw the entire chaotic blizzard of silly rules and pointless certificates out of the window and put in understandable regulations that do not contradict one another.

Some of those rules are antiquated nonsense and some are even dangerous - a typical example would be the ring mains rule, which was introduced to save copper during the war years. It is not only dangerous but also completely pointless!

 

[UKSBD]

And that is what is required with building regulations. Throw the entire chaotic blizzard of silly rules and pointless certificates out of the window and put in understandable regulations that do not contradict one another.

The problem is, the guy (building control inspector) right at the bottom of the chain, is the guy who will probably be the fall guy.

Pressurised by everyone else to sign off any work done and probably not really understanding what he is signing off and what the consequences are if anything goes wrong.

 

[Newchodge]

The problem is, the guy (building control inspector) right at the bottom of the chain, is the guy who will probably be the fall guy.

Pressurised by everyone else to sign off any work done and probably not really understanding what he is signing off and what the consequences are if anything goes wrong.

I thought the big firms w3ere allowed to employ there own building control inspectors (legally I mean)?

 

[UKSBD]

I thought the big firms w3ere allowed to employ there own building control inspectors (legally I mean)?

Yes, that's why I didn't say, council building control inspectors.

I don't know about the big firms, but when I was on the building it was outsourced to a 3rd party, we used to have a Zurich building control inspector do the inspections and monitoring.