Labour has achieved many things for the millions of private tenants in the UK. The 2004 Housing Act made it easier for local authorities to prioritise action on health and safety hazards in privately rented homes, as well as introducing the more well-known tenancy deposit protection which came into force in April 2007.
But this has by no means guaranteed that every tenant rents a property which is fit to live in. According to the English House Condition Survey 2007, 45% of homes in the private rented sector in England fail to meet the Government's Decent Home Standard – that's defined as 'warm, weatherproof and [with] reasonably modern facilities'. So almost half the private tenants in England are cold, or exposed to the elements, or effectively living in the last century.
I see some of these tenants every day in the CAB – the family who despaired at the mould in their baby's bedroom; the students who went without hot water for weeks at a time; the woman whose landlord failed, despite repeated promises, to provide even the most basic furnishings, and sexually harassed her for good measure – and every time I see a case of sub-standard privately rented housing, my day gets a little bit worse, because I know how hard it is going to be for the tenants to do anything about it.
If the problems in their house constitute a health and safety hazard they can get the local authority to enforce standards. If they can afford the time and the expense, they can take their landlord to court. If not...in short, they can put up with it, or they can find somewhere else to live.
And if they do choose to use the courts or the council to try and make their house fit to live in, their friendly local CAB adviser will have to be sure to remind them how vulnerable they are. A combination of the demand for housing and landlords' powers of eviction renders some tenants so effectively at their landlords' mercy that it's no wonder 1.8 million families would rather queue up for social housing than brave the cruel world of private renting.
In 2007, Citizens Advice produced a report - 'The tenant's dilemma' – showing how landlords can use Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 to evict tenants for daring to complain about the state of their accommodation. The report recommended a mechanism for tenants to halt their eviction under Section 21 if they could show that it was a retaliatory eviction; it also suggested a longer term measure whereby the use of Section 21 could be restricted to landlords registered with a national accreditation scheme.
Something resembling this scheme is in the pipeline. In May, along with much-needed protection for the growing number of tenants whose landlords are repossessed, the government announced proposals to introduce a 'light-touch national register' of every private landlord in England. This is to work alongside an improved complaints procedure for tenants to register official complaints about sub-standard landlords, who could then in some circumstances be removed from the register.
I'm delighted at these proposals, but concerned about their reach. Studies have shown that tenants in the worst accommodation are often the most vulnerable: very young, very poor, disabled or with limited English. These are often people who have never heard of tenancy deposit protection: how do you enforce a right you don't know you have?
If the onus remains on tenants to report sub-standard housing – particularly if landlords retain powers of retaliatory eviction – then progress for those in the very worst housing will be slow. To protect the most vulnerable, the proposed national register must be backed up by a regulatory body to monitor and enforce housing standards and prevent the misuse of Section 21. While Building Britain's Future, we need to make sure it's a warm, safe, properly furnished future once it's built.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Whilst I fully agree with the sentiments (I was left without hot water for 3 weeks in February - and the temperature was regularly going sub-zero, fine for me, I was young, not so funny if I'd been old or vulnerable), I really don't think an over-arching bureaucracy is the way forward. I would be concerned that it would reduce the availability of private rented accommodation at a time of dire need and end up becoming an expensive (and thus rent increasing) box ticking exercise for the majority of landlords, as well as diverting attention away form the worst cases. It is as well to remember that many landlords are good people who care about the quality of their property and their tenants’ welfare!
However, I do think that if it were made worthwhile for Landlords to improve their properties then we would see a rapid improvement in the quality of accommodation. Therefore, I would propose that maintenance/improvements on property up to a certain limit should be made 100% tax deductible. I would also ally this to a restriction on the tax deductibility of mortgage interest for landlords to help pay for/make revenue neutral the proposal, discourage landlords from highly leveraging their property portfolios as a tax shield (fine until the property market goes south, then highly damaging to landlords, tenants and banks alike) and finally to level the playing field for young people attempting to enter the housing market.
Thoughts?
Charlie
Any chance of a law regulating tenants.
Such as the delightful middle-class, well-spoken couple, who left my house after three years requiring £5,000 of repairs (a dishwasher leak that wasn't reported and rotted the kitchen floor, crayon marks over the paintwork, dents in teh joinery where their delightful children were expressing themselves by riding their tricycles into the skirtings and door jambs, a new garden fence caused when the existing one fell over because they couldn't be bothered to trim the overhanging ivy which eventually pulled it over with the weight).
And who demanded their deposit back in full because it was all 'fair wear and tear" and tried to say they had never signed the tenancy agreement despite their initials being on every page.
It went to Small Claims Court. They lost.
The Unintended Consequences of this law - if it came into force- would be :
fewer rented homes and more expensive rented homes.
After all the increase in homes to rent has come solely from private sector landlords in the past decade.
There is nothing extreme in leaving people with sufficient money to house themselves suitably. 12 years of untrammelled power and spending and the poverty gap has increased under Labour. Now why could that be?
Heads back in the sand boys and girls- no need to think any further...............
1. What is your solution?
2. What is the role of a Social Democratic Party?
3. Why do you believe Billy Blofeld is a 'fringe libertarian'?
4. What is a 'fringe libertarian'?
Don't local authorities have the power to inspect and require improvements of properties that don't meet the Housing Health and Safety Rating System that the Government set up in the Housing Act 2004? Why don't they use these powers to improve properties?
There's a really good report that looks at the whole of the sector from the University of York, http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/Projects/PRSreview.htm.
The interesting thing about the review is that it points out that there are as many as 1.2 million landlords in England and Wales, with about another 100,000 in Scotland. So there's presumably not a single picture of a typical landlord.
Another interesting aspect is that the English House Condition Survey 2007 shows that 34% of owner occupied homes are non-decent and 35% of local authority homes. All this even though the Government have spent billions on decent homes programmes for social housing.
We need to continue the debate on housing, in fact we need to broaden it out.
If you leave enough money in our pockets we can, feed, water and house ourselves.
Shrink government, tax us less, and leave us sufficient money to pay for home improvements, or to afford a nicer house that is 'warm', 'weatherproof' and has 'reasonably modern facilities'.
The more money Labour takes from us, the worse the nations collective hovels get. Landlords aren't going to pay for improvements, if there is not enough rental money available in the system.
Good idea but ( theres always a but) What about the illeagel aliens (cant spell the i word ) there will always be a black market and that is where the main problems would be , As per say the people who reigestered on the register would in genral be good landlords but what would we do with the ones who dont and take cash , in realltiy we wont know who there are , I dont know the answer there are more intelligent people out there than me , Maybe this article might find a way ?
ricki