Labour Councillor Wants All Landlords Registered
Most people will have seen the TV and news coverage of the problems at Windsor House. Water running down walls, damp, mould and other conditions which no one should have to live with. Portsmouth Labour Housing lead Councillor Cal Corkery wrote to The News suggesting that the solution would be to introduce landlord licences for all rented properties in the city and as a result avoid problems such as this.
In subsequent days, there were a flurry of letters in response on both sides of the argument – read on for a summary.
What Is The Problem With 'Landlord Registration'
Over the past few years, a number of politicians have suggested a 'National Register' of landlords and conceptually, we do not have a problem with the idea. To be able to look up any property, find out who the landlord is and as a result, to get issues corrected more quickly makes sense.
Our concern is that it is never that simple. Like local licensing, authorities always see it as an opportunity to add requirements like specific local standards and to charge for the bureaucracy that results from tracking and administering the process. We pay £35 / annum to the Information Commissioners Office (as part of our GDPR compliance in relation to the information we hold on our tenants) – if a National Register came with a similar cost few would begrudge it. But an HMO licence in Portsmouth costs over £700 – that would be too much for a simple register, especially as it ends up being paid for with rent increases.
So whether it is a simple register which merely identifies ownership or some form of licensing, which typically comes with pre-defined standards that need to be met, our view is still that there are plenty of rules already which authorities can apply, should they come across a miscreant landlord and additional bureaucracy is not needed.
Would A Landlord Register Affect Windsor House?
Windsor House has been a problem ever since 2 new floors and 10 new apartments were added on the roof of the original building in 2008-2010. The individual apartments are leased and some of those leaseholders let to tenants. The block itself is owned by a 3rd party, the company that did the original development and the bank that funded it have been wound up and there are at least 4 letting agents who find tenants for leaseholders, manage the legalities etc.
As with all multi-ownership properties – getting anything done is difficult. If for example, it needs a new roof – there is a process (documented with something called a Section 20) to inform all involved of the process being followed, the overall cost and the apportionment of costs between the various parties. This can work well when the managing agent is proactive and the individual parties agree on the need for whatever change is involved. If any party objects or if the managing agent is anything less than professional and focussed, getting anything done can be almost impossible.
We are not passing any comment on the specific situation at Windsor House but we are clear that having the leaseholder landlords in that specific case on some sort of register would not have made an iota of difference and there are many mistakes that could and should have been avoided over the past decade by a whole host of players, which have led us to the current situation.
If a tenant has a problem with a property, the landlord is responsible for fixing it – we have no issue with this basic responsibility. The problem is, that when that landlord is a leaseholder he has no ability to alter, or repair, the fabric of the building as that is owned by and is the responsibility of either the freeholder or the managing agent – so whilst the tenant is right to complain to the landlord, he or she needs to understand that it may take many months for a landlord to get the freeholder to get the necessary works done (there is something called a Section 20 which is part of a lengthy legal process that may need to be followed) and often, the freeholder is absent and the only way to get them to step up to their responsibilities in this case is either for the leaseholders to band together and take on the freehold, which can take several years or to use litigation which can be very expensive and equally lengthy.
So What Did Readers Say?
What Did We Say?
Our response which was published on the 21st Jan read:
No one should have to live in the conditions at Windsor House as shown in The News. However, for Cllr. Corkery to suggest that this property in some way justifies the introduction of landlord licensing is bizarre. Windsor House was built in 1975 as 28 old persons flatlets plus a warden flat for Portsmouth Housing Association. The current freeholder bought it and added 2 floors on the roof in 2008 which increased the number of dwellings to 39.
It appears that it was fine until the 2 floors were added, but conditions since then have got worse and worse due to a major leak. Everyone knew about this property – 10 years ago the News reported on the 'nightmare neighbour' kicked out after 10 months of trouble after police and Portsmouth Council obtained a court order, since then there have been constant complaints about drugs and anti-social behaviour, damp, mould, and other problems. I have spoken to council staff who have been involved with issues at this property since at least 2015.
Would licensing of the landlord have made any difference? Everyone knows the landlords of the individual flats, all the different agents who manage those flats, the managing agents, the freeholder, and everyone else involved in the renting of these properties. There are also plenty of rules which can be enforced to ensure no one has to live like this – so telling one or more parties they need to be licensed would change nothing – it could make things worse.
The issue, sadly, is that this block, like so many in the city, has multiple owners and managers and agents and deciding who is responsible for a specific issue, how the costs should be apportioned and gaining agreement from all concerned (often including insurers too) can be really difficult. That is not an excuse – Windsor House should never have been allowed to become this bad and so many people should have done more before it did, but adding a layer of council managed bureaucracy would not improve matters.
Most of the tenants affected have some or all their rent paid by the state (universal credit, housing benefit, etc). If the council inspected every property for which state aid paid some or all of the rent, and only allowed those tenants to live in properties that met the necessary legally defined standards, problems like this would disappear overnight. Such a solution would do a great deal to help the most vulnerable who frequently find themselves in sub-standard accommodation whilst not burdening the good landlords who meet all of the rules already.
Sadly, his own personal and somewhat bigoted "anti-landlord" views are driving Cllr. Corkery to irrational conclusions when instead, a focus on ensuring existing rules are better enforced, tenants are better supported and the nightmare legal ownership setup that limits leaseholders ability to take control of their buildings is resolved, would be a much better use of his time.
And What Response Did That Generate?
Sadly, on the 28th, Hilary Stainton of Milton wrote, "I am afraid I have to disagree with Martin Silman. Landlord Licensing DOES work. Prior to selling my property elsewhere in the country last year, I was required by the local authority to be licensed (I would add also that my tenants over a period of years, were in receipt of housing benefit, which did not cause a problem).
This protected both the landlord and the tenant and worked extremely well. The more properties one owns, the more expensive it is to be licensed and I suspect this is the more likely the reason for his opposition to be licensed.
Properties like Windsor House would not have been allowed to get into such a state had licencing been in place, as issues would have been dealt with within a specific timescale, long before the situation is as it is now.
The licensing organisation would also require the owner of the block to address problematic issues relating to the fabric of the building. While this is quite a long process to achieve, Windsor House would still not be in its current state.
The licensing organisation was separate from the council, although there was a licensing liaison officer who was always very approachable when input/advice was needed". Licensing didn't add a layer of 'council-managed bureaucracy', it reduced the mire of red tape.
Prior to being introduced, there were lots of workshops and Q&A sessions. It was well organised and importantly, licensing wasn't just introduced without addressing issues encountered by both landlords and tenants.
I have a family member who has rental property, who was subject to the first licensing. The area is no longer a 'no go' area of the town and the general standard of rental properties has improved considerably. This has been due to licensing requirements"
So...
Do you agree with Hilary? If not, as we have yet to respond, what would you say? Do let us know via email