For latest show news visit www.landlordshow.info
feature
opinion counts ...
Tougher sanctions for criminal landlords…yes please!
Richard Lambert supports the call for tougher sanctions for criminal landlords but remains concerned over enforcement and blacklisting
The Local Government Association
(LGA) has called for tougher
sanctions to punish and deter
criminal landlords who let out
substandard properties to the
detriment of their tenants.
The LGA argued that the current
maximum fine for landlords found
guilty of committing a housing offence
was no more effective in tackling poor
standards in property management, or
in changing behaviour, than a £1,000 fine
would be in preventing a Premiership
footballer from speeding again.
It’s an interesting comparison to say
the least, and while we might think the
LGA exaggerated to make a point – I
mean, landlords and footballers, really?
– there was very little to argue with, and
in most cases the LGA were right.
Do some rogue and criminal landlords
simply set themselves up to absorb such
fines and treat existing penalties as an
occupational hazard? Yes.
Are tougher sanctions needed for
rogue landlords who deliberately
and maliciously prey on vulnerable
tenants? Yes.
Are fines paltry and should they be
stiffened? Well, yes – but this one is a bit
trickier. The LGA called for sentencing
guidelines and minimum penalties.
We’d prefer to leave the discretion to
the courts, so that judges can ensure
the penalty is painful enough, even for
the wealthiest, but not so substantial
that the offender is unable to pay or
rectify the issue they were fined for. And
realistically, where’s the logic in fining
someone beyond their means and to
the point where the council has little
chance of getting them to cough up?
I like the LGA’s suggestion of an
either/or approach, so that the judge
can impose a jail sentence instead of a
fine. That would be a real deterrent, but
it would have to be reserved for the very
worst cases.
Finally, should there be a blacklist of
rogue landlords? Depends what you
mean by ‘blacklist’ – in this context,
the term is a bit misleading. For me, a
blacklist conjures thoughts of some kind
of public record that names and shames
the worst offenders and prevents them
from doing whatever it is they are on
the list for. But the LGA is responding to
an idea floated by the Government that
is very different from that description.
The Government is simply proposing a
way to help track persistent offenders
and in reality it would only be of use
to regulatory authorities, not the wider
public. While this is still a sensible idea
that would no doubt have its benefits,
there are questions that would need
consideration, not least:
• What behaviour or conduct would
warrant a place on a blacklist?
• Who should manage such a list?
• How would its accuracy be maintained?
• If someone is wrongly on it, how would
they go about getting off it?
We’re open to discussing the idea,
but we’d be far more interested in a
system that bans outright criminals
who persistently flout the law from ever
letting property again.
Nevertheless, talk of more regulation
and tougher sentences distracts from
the bigger issue: enforcement.
Enforcement of existing laws that
govern the private rented sector is the
biggest problem faced by local councils.
The reality is that most councils simply
don’t have the resources to carry out
anywhere near enough enforcement
which sends a message to rogue
landlords that they can get away with it.
It’s no surprise that so many local
councils are looking to selective
licensing as the answer. They see it
as the only real tool they have, but
it’s a naïve response that assumes
compliance automatically follows
once a scheme is imposed. Even
Newham, the pioneer of boroughwide licensing, the only council
we know of which has completely
restructured its budget to ramp up
housing enforcement, and now brings
half of all the enforcement cases in
the country, has yet to license all
properties in the borough. The rogues
still operate under the radar.
It’s time we all looked beyond the
Rigsby image and saw the reality.
Often as not, with a truly “rogue”
landlord, there will be links to some
form of organised criminality – drugs,
prostitution, money – laundering,
people trafficking.
Adding to regulation and penalties
is just tinkering at the margins. If the
Government is serious about tackling
rogue landlords, it needs to provide the
means to do so, by recognising that the
issue goes beyond housing and setting
up a cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary
national taskforce with the power and
the resources to make a difference.
Richard Lambert is Chief Executive Officer
at the National Landlords Association (NLA).
28 Landlord & Buy-to-Let Issue 61 • September 2015