Is this the start of the end for letting agents??

A London letting agent too a number of its landlords to court for failing to pay the agent its renewal fee..

The landlords had all rented their properties through the agent for a number of years, keeping the same tenants in situ throughout, on the 7th year renewal of the tenancy, the agent again charged its 6.5% renewal fee, despite no longer working for the landlords...the agents had not negotiated with tenants regarding the renewal, they did not manage the property nor did they collect rent, yet still felt entitled to the £1,123 commission per property

The agents brought the case relying solely on their signed T&Cs specifically paragraph 8

 “Renewal commission becomes due in full whether a renewal agreement is signed or not when all or one of the original tenants remains in occupation.  Commission is due whether or not the renewal is negotiated by the agents.”

However, at the hearing at Willesden County Court, the judge dismissed the claim on the basis that although the fees, terms and conditions document was signed by the landlords, the fact that the agents would claim the renewal commission whether or not they did any work was not flagged up on the first page of the document where the fee was mentioned.

John Miller, of Miller Clayton, which acted on behalf of the landlords said: “In my opinion, it is unreasonable and unfair for agents to charge a renewal commission at a percentage near to the percentage charged on the initial letting after the fourth year of renewal, especially if they had not carried out any work towards completion of the renewal terms.

“Even if they did, only a reasonable administration fee should be charged.”

source: https://news.rla.org.uk/victory-landlords-agents-renewal-commission/

Pitchforks at the ready…… Letting agency fees to be banned.

Yesterday, Chancellor Philip Hammond announced his Autumn statement for 2016 and since the moment he stated that Letting agency fees were to be banned the UK property industry has nearly done a Kim K and broken the internet.

The majority of industry articles covering this are up in arms claiming this is Draconian and will result in rents increasing to a point where no one will be able to afford to rent and the 19% of the UK population who currently private rent will be homeless and all letting agents will go out of business and private landlords will be left with empty properties

All very dramatic don’t you think…

A vast majority of lettings agents  currently “double dip” when it comes to fees, meaning they charge both the landlord and the tenant for the same job for example drawing up a tenancy agreement, which can cost anything between £50 - £500 not a bad days work from pressing the ‘print’ button on your computer

But lets look at the facts…. To start, the ban on fees will not happen over night, there will now have to be a consultation and a policy will need to be drawn up, that policy will need to be approved, this could take months

Secondly, in 2012 Scotland did exactly this and banned letting agents from charging tenants

The research carried out by Shelter and published a year later in 2014 called ‘End letting fees: Lessons from the Scottish lettings market’ Showed that landlords in Scotland were no more likely to have increased rents since 2012 than landlords elsewhere in the UK.

Rents did appear to have risen more in Scotland than in other comparable parts of the UK in 2013; however, most of this rise is explained by economic factors and not related to the clarification of the law on letting fees.

Letting agencies in Scotland describe an extremely healthy private rental sector. All key business indicators showed very encouraging growth in the 12 months after the ban, driven mainly by increased tenant demand, possible due to the fact that tenants could now afford to rent because they saved not paying the high fees.

The majority (59%) of letting agency managers interviewed said that the clarification in the law on fees had had ‘no impact’ on their business, with only 24% saying it had a small negative effect. Not one agency manager interviewed said it had a large negative impact on their business, and 17% considered the change to be positive for their business

Less than one in five (17%) of letting agency managers said they had increased fees to landlords.

The majority (70%) of landlords in Scotland who use agents did not noticed any increase in fees since 2012. Only one landlord in 120 surveyed said they had noticed an increase in agency fees and had passed this on in full to their tenants.

So with these proven facts in place, I think we sound take comfort in assuming that rents will not see a huge rise and landlords will not see an increase in their costs, all this will mean is that agents will no longer be able to double dip

The Tenant Tax is Coming

What is Section 24

In the Summer budget 2016, George Osbourn announced the introduction of The Finance Act (No2) 2015, Section 24 of this act impacts ALL individual landlords who have mortgages will from April 2017  this will restrict mortgage interest expense deductions for private landlords to the basic rate of tax

The hugely important and Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP), where INCOME minus COSTS equals PROFIT, will no longer apply to individual buy-to-let landlords with finance costs.

put, Section 24 will mean that most landlords will have to pay extra tax of 20% or more of their annual mortgage interest and other finance costs. The tax they pay may be greater than their real profit, leaving them with a rental loss and a cash shortfall.

And it’s likely to move vast numbers of landlords into the higher rate tax bracket, while simultaneously losing them their tax credits and personal tax allowance.

On 6^th October 2016, Cherie Blair QC represented landlords in The Royal Courts of Justice to request the law be overturned

----The hearing failed

Landlords have already been hit this year by the removal of the annual wear and tear allowance, which allowed landlords to claim back the cost of items they had to replace in a furnished property

Impact on tenants

The impact will be devastating for the Private Rented Sector (PRS) The National Landlord Association estimates this law will impact over 314,000 landlords with an estimated 630,000 properties being effected.

Smith Williamson Specialist accountants have calculated that landlords would need to increase rents by at least 5% to counter the impact of S24

The increase in rents will effect all tenants, both employed and in receipt of benefits, however it is unlikely that tenants will be able to afford these increases. Those working will not see a wage increase

DWP Quarterly Benefits Summary - At August 2015, state there were 4.79 million recipients of Housing Benefit, of whom almost three-quarters were aged under 65. The average weekly amount of Housing Benefit was £95.30.

86.8% of the 1.53 million Private Sector Housing Benefit recipients were receiving the Local Housing Allowance.

All of these households have the potential to lose their homes because they will not be able to afford the expected rent increases.

Social Impact

Millions of people face the very real likelihood of being made homeless if rents are increased, the main reason for this is Housing Benefit will not be raised in line with this mass increase, Housing benefit or LHA is only calculated once a year on 15^th January by Valuations Office Agency VOA, these calculations are based on the 30^th percentile of rents in the Broad Rental Market Arear BRMA and the existing LHA rate.

Tenants who have their rent increased in April 2017, will not see an increase in their housing benefit until at least April 2018, resulting in many being evicted for rent arrears, an issue that will bring its own problems as tenants will find their credit impacted as will as having a ‘black mark’ against them for leaving a previous property in arrears

Although this new regulation does not effect landlords who do not have a mortgage or are incorporated in someway, it is extremely unlikely that these landlords will be happy to sit back an accept lower market rents while others enjoy increases, the obvious knock on effect is all landlords will increase rents to set a new high market rate, which will be completely unaffordable to most, even if they are in full time employment.

This will result in many homes sitting empty it has priced people out of the market and a huge increase in homelessness.

So what is the answer?

If only it was that simple… the sensible thing to happen would be to bring S24 in to force in April 2017 but only for New BTL properties from that date on, this way landlords can go into buying a property with all the facts and their eyes open.

At present, many existing landlords will be blindsided by this new legislation and in fact could risk losing their own homes as their personal mortgage may rely on rental income and a huge tax bill could push many owners into debt.

Countrywide says buy to let purchases now at a six year low

In the three months after the introduction of the three per cent stamp duty surcharge on April 1, landlord purchases accounted for only eight per cent of all homes bought - the lowest proportion since 2010.


This comes following the surge in activity in the first quarter of the year, where landlords accounted for 18 per cent of home buyers, the highest proportion seen since 2010.


The largest change in landlord activity was in the North, Midlands and Wales.


In the North East, after 29 per cent of homes sold were bought by landlords in the first quarter of 2016, this plummetted to nine per cent in the second quarter.


Similarly, in Wales and the East Midlands, this fell from 19 per cent to three per cent and 22 per cent to eight per cent respectively.

The increased purchase activity from landlords at the start of 2016 has led to the number of homes available to rent increasing by 22 per cent in June compared to last year.

London and the South West have seen the largest growth in homes available to rent, the number rising by 33 per cent and 55 per cent respectively.

Increasing supply, as well as affordability barriers, has reduced the rate of rental growth with most regions seeing slower growth rates throughout the year.

The average rent across Britain rose to £960 in June, 3.6 per cent higher than last year.

“The lull in landlord activity is mostly due to investors bringing forward purchases in the first three months of the year but upcoming changes to mortgage tax relief and the prospect of heightened uncertainty in economy during the lead up to the referendum, will also have made investors warier of entering the market” says Johnny Morris, research director at Countrywide.

“Those extra homes bought by landlords at the start of the year are still making their way to market. Despite tenant numbers still growing, the increased supply is slowing rental growth.”

source https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/7/countrywide-says-buy-to-let-purchases-now-at-a-six-year-low

Landlords avoiding benefits tenants due to Osborne's tax changes

Landlords are looking to house tenants less likely to miss rental payments in order to minimise the impact of a number of tax changes to the Private Rented Sector (PRS).

According to a survey by the National Landlords Association (NLA), this means that tenants on benefits could miss out on rental homes as they are typically viewed as 'riskier'.

Some 60% of landlords surveyed by the trade body said that the Chancellor's decision to restrict buy-to-let mortgage interest to the basic rate of income tax from 2017 will reduce their profitability.

In order to make sure all costs are covered, 20% of those landlords who'll be affected told the NLA that they feel they'll need to prioritise other tenant types over perceived 'riskier' tenants.

In the last year, 64% of landlords with tenants in receipt of housing benefit experienced rent arrears, according to the NLA.

It also claims that just 20% of landlords let to benefits tenants in the first quarter of 2016, down from 36% in Q1 2012.

“Many of those who once would have expected to live in social housing now have to compete for private homes with other types of tenants," says Richard Lambert, chief executive of the NLA.

"It’s a real concern because a significant proportion of landlords already choose not to let to tenants who receive benefits because the perception is they are too risky. Rightly or wrongly, young professionals or working families are seen as more likely to be better payers and less hassle to manage."

He says a perfect storm of tax changes and the diminishing availability of social housing could mean some tenants struggle to find any housing at all.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/5/landlords-avoiding-benefits-tenants-due-to-osbornes-tax-changes

Why not-for-profit letting agencies are the RightMove for landlords

We have all seen the shocking headlines and watched the “tell all” TV programmes portraying all Benefit claimants as potential 2 legged property wrecking scroungers with no intention of paying rent

Sadly when scenes like this are drip fed into our living rooms and breakfast tables we can be forgiven for thinking this is the norm rather than the exception.

It is estimated that over 80,000 of the poorest families in Britain are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable accommodation because Landlords have been scared off this section of society convinced they will not pay their rent, they will cause damage and disruption to the property and neighbours , so choose instead the “safe” option of renting to tenants in full time employment – but as we all know in this current unsteady climate we can all face the possibility of redundancy or the liquidation of the company we work for.

Centre of Social Justice Director Philippa Stroud commented: “We understand that for most the era of a guaranteed social sector house for life is over. However, we must make the private rented sector work better for low-income families. Currently, the instability caused by not knowing how long a tenancy will last has a huge impact on children’s education and on parents’ ability to retain a job. -

And as all landlords know, once the rent stops being paid, it is a very expensive and stressful few months before your once ‘perfect’ tenant is evicted by the bailiff and it is unlikely that you will see the rent that’s owed to you.

Letting agents charge on average between 14%-20% to manage your property on top of this there maybe additional costs for set up, admin fees, additional property inspections to name but a few

From This...........

 To This.........

So what is the way forward?

Social lettings agents are not-for-profit so have no big over heads to cover we don’t advertise on all the big portals and we have the tenants vetted and ready to move in so you have no void period.

The main benefit of social letting agents is the Rent Guarantee lease option which pays you an agreed rental every month even if we don’t receive the rent. Social lettings agents will also cover maintenance costs and with no renewal fees or added hidden extras the savings just keep coming.

DENs Rent Aid is the Social letting agent for Dacorum in Hertfordshire, assisting people who for many reasons such as, breakdown of relationship, loss of job, or family and friends no longer able to accommodate them, it is not just those with additions or previous rent arrears that find themselves homeless it really can happen to any one of us.

Social lettings staff are not letting negotiators or deal closers, they are trained support works with social work and counselling backgrounds who can not only find housing but also get people off benefits and into work with training and education, they will also work with tenants to help resolve problems such as drink and drug addiction, with weekly support meeting and housing benefit paid directly to the agent they ensure we have already firmly shut the gate before the horse has considered bolting.

We are always looking for property to rent and offer full management at ONLY 8% with no added extras, you will receive your rent each month in full and on time and we will look after the maintenance for your too.

If you have a property and would like more information on what we do and how it will benefit you are a landlord please call Julie Ford on 01442 253 923 or email Julie.ford@dens.org.uk

1st April brings New energy laws for Private rented

Tomorrow, 1^st April sees the New Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards come into force

All tenants living in private rented accommodation with F and G rated homes, as measured by Energy Performance Certificates, will be able to request improvements, such as more insulation.

Upon this request the landlord will then be legally bound to bring the property up to at least an E rating, although not (for the moment at least) if it requires upfront costs.

If a tenant considers that the landlord has not complied with the request to upgrade energy efficiency to at least E, they can take the case to the Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber, which will hear and determine applications.

This is just the first of several MEES reforms in years to come:

April 2018: by this date it will be unlawful to let out a property with an F or G Energy Performance Certificate rating, as a new let. There will be a few limited exemptions;

April 2020: by this date the requirement for a minimum E rating will apply, not just to new lets but also to existing tenancies;

2025: the target is for a minimum D rating;

2030: the minimum target will be a C rating.

Of sink holes and strict liability

I will be very honest, I have stolen this piece from Giles Peaker of NearlyLegal, the reason for the steal, is in my local town of Hemel Hempstead, we had a huge Sink Hole incident which left over 40 families unable to live in their properties and many fighting what appeared to be a losing battle with the local housing association which built and owned them.
Then last year on a few miles up the road a second sink hole opened up in a sleepy street in St Albans.

 Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council [2016] EWHC 320 (QB)

Does section 4(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 create a strict liability on the landlord for any defect, such that it covers latent or undetectable defects? The short answer is no. This appeal sets out why.

Ms L was the tenant of Newark & Sherwood. The tenancy included standard section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 repairing obligations and a right of access to repair.

In 2010 Ms L was hanging up laundry in the garden when a hole suddenly opened up and she fell into it, sustaining injuries that would have been assessed at £12,000 of damages, subject to liability. The cause of the hole opening up was found to be a fractured underground drainpipe that had lead to erosion of the soil. It was common ground that the pipe fell under the council’s repairing obligation. At first instance, the Judge had found “that there were no external signs or warnings of this potential problem. In short, no reasonable inspection of the garden could have discovered it”.

It was a relevant defect for the purposes of section 4(3) DPA – but as a latent defect, s.4(3) was not engaged. S.4(3) states:

(3) In this section “relevant defect” means a defect in the state of the premises existing at or after the material time and arising from, or continuing because of, an act or omission by the landlord which constitutes or would if he had had notice of the defect, have constituted a failure by him to carry out his obligation to the tenant for the maintenance or repair of the premises;

Ms L’s case was that s.4(4) amounted to a strict liability, regardless of notice. This was dismissed at first instance and Ms L appealed.

S.4(4) states

(4) Where premises are let under a tenancy which expressly or impliedly gives the landlord the right to enter the premises to carry out any description of maintenance or repair of the premises, then, as from the time when he first is, or by notice or otherwise can put himself, in a position to exercise the right and so long as he is or can put himself in that position, he shall be treated for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) above (but for no other purpose) as if he were under an obligation to the tenant for that description of maintenance or repair of the premises; but the landlord shall not owe the tenant any duty by virtue of this subsection in respect of any defect in the state of the premises arising from, or continuing because of, a failure to carry out an obligation expressly imposed on the tenant by the tenancy.

Ms L argued that:

Either the effect of the sub-section was to impute knowledge to the landlord, or (albeit this may have been a different way of advancing the same point) the landlord was impressed with an obligation to inspect, maintain and repair which was unavoidable. The relevant defect, for sub-section (3) purposes, fell within the scope of that obligation, and this was sufficient to secure recovery for the Appellant. The whole point of sub-section (4) is to preclude landlords from asserting Nelsonian ignorance of defects. On my understanding of his submission, Mr Colville’s related core contention was that sub-section (2) has no application in a sub-section (4) case, because were it to apply the later sub-section would always have no practical effect; and that the Judge was wrong to hold that the deemed obligation arising by virtue of sub-section (4) was qualified by the earlier sub-section.

The Council argued that:

section 4 created one obligation, not two, and that it was an obligation to exercise reasonable care in all the circumstances. Accordingly, there simply was no scope for the type of strict obligation contended for by the Appellant. Mr Godfrey submitted that sub-section (4) was a gateway provision: when its preconditions were met, the obligation was deemed to arise; and, critically, this was exactly the same obligation as one sees in sub-section (1). Thus, on this approach sub-section (4) was enacted to close a lacuna in the law (viz. cases where there was no express or implied repairing covenant, and only a right of entry), and achieved that closure not by placing the tenant in any better position than one who had the benefit of an express covenant, but in precisely the same position.

Ms L raised the comments of Laws LJ in Alker v Collingwood Housing Association [2007] 1 WLR 2230:

“It can be seen that the duty under section 4(1) arises if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. The landlord owes an obligation to the tenant under the tenancy for the maintenance or repair of the premises – section 4(1).2. The landlord knew or ought to have known of whatever is the “relevant defect” – section 4(2).However those requirements are qualified by section 4(4): the landlord is treated as under a section 4(1) duty if he can exercise a right enjoyed by him to enter the premises in order to carry out works of maintenance or repair. The duty itself, however, is only to take reasonable care to protect potentially affected persons from injury or damage caused by a “relevant defect”. That is defined by section 4(3). I repeat the definition for convenience:“… a defect in the state of the premises … arising from, or continuing because of, an act or omission by the landlord which constitutes or would if he had had notice of the defect, have constituted a failure by him – that is a failure by him to carry out his obligation for maintenance or repair”.Here it is common ground that the conditions are met. The appellant owed an obligation for maintenance or repair (clause 3.1 of the Tenancy Agreement). Section 4(2) (the second condition) was not fulfilled because the appellant had no notice of the putative defect, but that omission is repaired by the application of section 4(4) which, as I have said, qualifies the conditions. The appellant had a right of entry for the purpose of repair or maintenance by force of clause 3.12. Accordingly, the only question in the appeal is whether the state of the glass panel constituted a “relevant defect”. The appellant, by Mr Underwood QC, said that it did not because the glass panel was in no need of repair or maintenance. The respondent, by Mr Hartley, says that it did because it was dangerous. That antithesis articulates in essence the short and important point on which the appeal turns.” (Emphasis added)

However, that case turned on whether there was actually a defect for the purposes of 4(3). Laws LJ’s comments were obiter.

On the appeal, the High Court held that the purpose of s.4(4) was to address a situation “where the relevant defect falls outside the ambit of sub-section (1) altogether, either in the absence of an express repairing covenant or because the implied covenant under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is inapplicable to the defect in question”.

Rather than being concerned with creating a different obligation, s.4(4) was to make clear that s.4(1) obligation – to take reasonable care to see tenant and others reasonably safe from injury caused by the relevant defect – applied even in the absence of express or s.11 repairing obligations, at least where there was an express or implied right of access to do works.

When sub-section (4) applies, so does sub-section (1); and for the purposes of sub-section (1), in establishing the content of the duty, regard must be had to whether the landlord “ought in all the circumstances to have known of the relevant defect.” To my mind, this mandates an inquiry by the court into information which the landlord obtained, or ought to have obtained, during the course of carrying out any inspections, and information which he would have obtained had he carried out such inspections as he ought to have performed properly. In my judgment, liability may be established in a sub-section (4) case either in circumstances where a landlord’s inspection(s) are negligently performed, or where the landlord fails to carry out proper inspections because he abstains from implementing a reasonable system for performing them. I am not intending to set out exhaustive categories, but these must the paradigm instances.

In the present case, although there was no apparent evidence of the landlord’s system for inspecting the property referred to in the first instance judgment, it was accepted that no reasonable inspection could have identified this defect.

Appealed dismissed.

The cost of condensation: Why drying clothes inside isn't such a good idea

Damp and mould can create major problems for your home - and purse

It’s still the time of year when many of us wake up to wet windows, as the cold outside air outside causes moisture inside to collect on windows and even walls.

At the same time more of us dry clothes inside, using radiators and clothes horses, which adds to the damp atmosphere.

But condensation can be more than unsightly and cause thousands of pounds in damage to your home.

A burgeoning problem

Modern fittings and energy-saving techniques could be exacerbating problems with condensation turning it from a minor inconvenience to a potentially major issue for homes and health, according to damp proofers Wise Property Care.

“Condensation is largely the result of improved standards of insulation, double glazing and draught proofing of properties that all give the benefit of better heat retention, but results in a lack of air ventilation, stale air and trapped moisture,” explains the company.

Fewer homes have large fires and fireplaces, which previously would suck away some of the moisture.

Okay, but how bad can it be?

If you’ve noticed black mould in areas that routinely become wet with condensation, then you’ve got a problem.

This mould is thought to be bad for health and potentially harmful to people with conditions such as asthma as it gives off tiny spores that float through the air.

And it’s also bad for your walls and the structure of your home. The mould is most likely to appear in corners of rooms, or near windows or even behind furniture.

It begins with the mould but can soon cause walls, plaster and fittings to rot. Wallpaper and paint can blister and peel off. It’s not long before there has been real damage done and redecorating is the only option.

How much will the damage cost to fix?

If it’s just a little bit of mould then you may be able to simply wipe it away, perhaps touching up the paint or sealant. However, if the plaster is damaged then you may need a professional to repair the ceiling or wall, which can cost around £120.

While you may be able to repaint and re-seal the affected areas yourself, if you do need a handyman or decorator to carry out the work it will easily cost more than £70 as few will book for less than half a day.

In extreme cases condensation can contribute to a dry rot problem, which can damage the structure of a home, and the bill for repair and proofing can run into thousands.

How to prevent problems with condensation forming

You must remove mould or it will spread. The first thing to do is clear away the mould using a special cleaning solution or use one part bleach to four parts water (this can strip colour so be careful).

Next, there are several steps you can take to reduce the water in the air of your home, and they may be enough to resolve the problem.

If your windows don't have trickle vents, consider getting them installed - they can make a big difference to the amount of moisture in your home. They can be ought online for as little as £5 and for those, who are DIY inclined you can install them yourself. Otherwise get a handyman out - the job should only take around 10 minutes per window.

Try to avoid putting towels or wet clothes and clothes onto radiators to dry as the moisture will simply reappear as condensation once it gets colder. But if this can't be avoided, look at investing in a dehumidifier - they can be picked up from about £50 - and pick one with a good energy efficiency rating so that you don't rack up expensive energy bills. 

If you use a tumble dryer then make sure it is vented to the outside by putting the hose out of the window if it’s not self-condensing. You can buy hose kits at most DIY shops.

There are a few simple steps that you can take too. Aim to open windows after cooking and washing as this helps the steam condense outside. After a shower or after a meal, keep the kitchen and bathroom doors shut for at least 20 minutes to stop the moist air escaping – but the rest of the time leave the doors open to spread heat evenly throughout your house.

If you can, move furniture away from walls to help air circulate, and try to keep the property above 18°C, as colder temperatures encourage condensation. If you let it get cold enough to make the walls and windows wet, and you then crank up the temperature, you’re giving the mould the conditions it needs to thrive.

What if I’m a tenant?

If you’re a tenant then you may not be overly worried about any long-term damage caused to the property; after all, it’s not yours. But aside from questions over whether you have a duty to take better care of the property, you could also find yourself losing your deposit.

One letting agent we spoke to issues a leaflet to its tenants at this time of year, warning: “It is almost certainly not a defect with the property itself, but a result of the way you are using the property.

“Therefore, as it is your fault, you the tenants need to take immediate action to prevent further damage. Preventing the problem in the first place will be far cheaper for you than the cost of the subsequent repairs.”

However, tenancy legal advice websites all suggest that it can be a problem with how the property is ventilated, or could be caused by damp getting in via a damaged roof. If you’re confident that your use of the home is not to blame then consider contacting your local authority’s environmental housing officer.

Source: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-cost-of-drying-clothes-in-your-home-114924829.html

MP Landlords refuse to vote-in Homes Fit for habitation

The row over Tory MPs who voted against a bid to ensure all homes let to private tenants were “fit for human habitation” has taken a new twist.

This is because it has been revealed other parties also have MPs who are landlords and who did not vote for the proposal

Last week a Labour amendment to the Housing & Planning Bill called on landlords to ensure their properties were kept to a fit standard for human habitation; Conservatives declared this to be a stunt and say it would create further red tape for landlords.

A row broke out over 72 Tory MPs - who each earned at least £10,000 each per year from letting out homes - who were amongst those who voted against the bill.

However, it now appears substantial numbers of other ‘landlord MPs’ didn’t vote for the measure too.

Research by the International Business Times suggests 25 Labour and seven SNP MPs, along with a Liberal Democrat MP, were themselves landlords receiving in excess of £10,000 a year, and did not vote for the measure.

Instead they abstained, as did 23 other Tory MPs who are landlords receiving £10,000-plus.

source https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/1/labour-and-snp-buy-to-let-mps-did-not-vote-for-controversial-amendment

Somewhere over the rainbow....EPCs are coming... again.....

The government has announced new dates for energy efficiency compliance in rental properties, this will mean all properties to be rented out, including those already rented will be subject to the new energy legislation.

The proposed dates are as follows

From April this year (2016) tenants living in private rental sector property with F and G rated homes, as measured by Energy Performance Certificates will be able to request improvements, such as more insulation. The landlord will then be legally bound to bring the property up to an E rating.

Then from April 1st 2018 agents and landlords with properties rated F and G will be unable to let them out legally

April 2018: by this date it will be unlawful to let out a property with an F or G Energy Performance Certificate rating, as a new let. There will be a few limited exemptions;

April 2020: by this date the requirement for a minimum E rating will apply, not just to new lets but also to existing tenancies;

2025: the target is for a minimum D rating;

2030: the minimum target will be a C rating.

With the recent abolition of the Green Deal it is unclear how landlords will be expected to pay for the renovation works that will be required on the millions of homes on the rental market
Watch this space for updates...

Do you have the Right! The rent?

From the 1st February new legislation comes into force Under section 22 of the Immigration Act 2014 requiring all landlords and letting agents to check the immigration status of potential tenants before granting them a tenancy

The Scheme was piloted in parts of the West Midlands in December 2014 and the extension to England is the next phase of what the government intends to be a UK-wide roll out
Following a recent Freedom of Information Request, Right2Rent.co.uk, received confirmation that as of the 7^th August 2015, 7 Civil Penalty Notices had been issued to Landlords in the pilot areas. The penalties ranged from £80 to £2,000. A further 21 Civil Penalty Referral Notices were issued before the 7^th August 2015, notifying Landlords that they may be liable for a penalty.

So what is Right to Rent
In short, it means ALL landlords and agents MUST check the immigration status of your potential Tenant or lodger, to ensure they have the Right to live in the UK, you can check the status here:
https://www.gov.uk/check-tenant-right-to-rent-documents

These new laws apply to anybody who sublets or takes in lodgers,Liability only applies to NEW tenancy agreements entered into after the commencement dates (i.e. existing tenancy agreements will not be affected).

Failure to do these checks will result in a financial penalty of up to £3,000 per tenant and to add insult to injury The Immigration Bill 2015/16 contains proposals to broaden the liability that individuals face under the Right to Rent scheme. If this bill becomes law, as appears likely, then the persons with responsibility for carrying out the checks will become CRIMINALLY liable if the right to rent provisions are not followed. Such persons if convicted will face a custodial sentence of imprisonment for up to 5 YEARS and/or a fine.

For once the Government have published a useful guide for landlords on how to carryout these checks, you can download it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489675/2016-01-5__Document_Guidance_For_Landlords_V1_1.pdf

So... I'm sure we can all see whats coming..... Landlords and agent will just default to renting to obvious British Citizens ONLY.... Thankfully someone has actually thought this through and it would be in breach of discrimination laws to discriminate on grounds of nationality by only renting to British citizens. A landlord adopting this approach could face a discrimination suit which would have uncapped damages.
In order to comply with the Right to Rent scheme, landlords should carry out checks on ALL prospective tenants, regardless of appearance, to ensure that they are complying with the new scheme

These checks are not a one off either, if you renew the tenancy or were aware of a  ‘time-limited’ right to rent is established then a further check will be needed after the longest of the following:
a) one year, beginning with the date on which the checks were last made;
b) until the period of the person’s leave to be in the UK expires; or,
c) until the expiry of the validity period of the document which evidences their right to be in the UK.

Mistakes
The main issue with all new legislation that requires audience participation of some form usually has its teething problems and the odd innocent mistake is made, interestingly as the Government is make us de facto immigration officers with no training or immigration knowledge, they have stated that there is no excuse under the statute if the Landlord makes a mistake in interpreting documentation or commits an innocent error. In these circumstances, unless landlords have passed on liability to an agent, they will remain liable for breaching the requirements of the Right to Rent scheme.


I do wonder though, how the Government will manage to police yet another Bandaid policy given that all these great ideas such as Compulsory advertising of Fees, EPCs before letting, protection of deposits..  have slipped seamlessly under the radar