Metropol

Mr Q wrote:Well, that's not entirely clear to me if in just a matter of months lukey's property has been subject to three different reviews by relevant authorities. Is there really a huge safety issue with loose sink plugs instead of having them chained like a pen at a bank?

I know it's not a major point, but I should clarify (I realise my original post was not too clear on this) - the three checks we've had are really not the norm. As I understand it, the council only has to do one full inspection per three years (the length of a license) but can do additional spot checks if, as Hyma suggested, they have known dodgy landlords, etc. It so happened that my landlord's license was being renewed around about July, hence the inspection then, followed by another two follow-ups to pick up on specific things that failed first time round.

Hymagumba wrote:what is of particular note however is the manner in which landlord's behave. If i were a landlord, it would make sense to me to get the properties as near to flawless with regards to the regs as possible, so although its a greater initial spend, when new rules such as fitting strips to doors appear, it's pretty minor to make sure I'm still up to date.

Yes, but that assumes there is consistency over time in the regulations. There's not much landlords can do if councils choose to tinker with their rules on a regular basis. They simply have to play catch-up with the whims of policymakers.

Mr Q wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:what is of particular note however is the manner in which landlord's behave. If i were a landlord, it would make sense to me to get the properties as near to flawless with regards to the regs as possible, so although its a greater initial spend, when new rules such as fitting strips to doors appear, it's pretty minor to make sure I'm still up to date.

Yes, but that assumes there is consistency over time in the regulations. There's not much landlords can do if councils choose to tinker with their rules on a regular basis. They simply have to play catch-up with the whims of policymakers.

I’ve had the same attitude as Hyma would adopt since I became a landlord in 2003. In addition I’ve tried to provide protection over and above the regulations for private letting: although the property isn’t an HMO, so the regulations are probably similar to those for Gav’s accommodation in Scotland. I'm comfortable that we are well ahead of any 'tinkering' the local council may do with their regulations.

We’ve always tried to maintain an environment which was equal to, or better than, we were prepared to live in ourselves. In terms of health and safety that’s not quite as altruistic as it might appear: there is a need to protect your property as much as the tenants within. That may extend to fixing ‘chainless plugs’ for aesthetic purposes, but smoke and burglar alarms connected to a response service actually produce savings on building insurance costs, as do the regulatory annual checks on gas and electrical appliances provided as part of the tenancy agreement.

If anything did happen to the property, or the tenants, I would hope never to be found in breach of any safety regulations or regret the missed opportunity of reducing any structural damage or personal injury because I wanted to save a few quid. The same, of course, applies to my desire not to be burgled or prematurely cremated/electrocuted/gassed in my own home!

I live in an HMO (albeit we jointly let the house with a single contract which may make a difference legally) and I'm fairly sure that our letting agency/landlord is breaking every rule in the book with regards to our house. The landlady (which on the authority of the guy who first showed us round the place is an ageing alcoholic virgin who exists through using a letting agency to rent out a number of houses which she inherited) frankly does not give a shit about the place we live in - it is simply being left to rot.

Things which break do not get fixed unless we pay for them to be fixed as the house was 'sold as seen' - nothing was guaranteed to work. An improvement programme started before she inherited the property has never been finished; the back of the house is double glazed but the front isn't, the upstairs bathroom is uber-modern with a power shower and floor-to-ceiling tiling whilst the downstairs one looks like something from Victorian times.

We also have extremely crap heating - although we have a central heating combi boiler there is only a single radiator connected to it (which I'm fairly sure is some sort of legal loophole). The rest of the house is heated via an assortment of gas and electric heaters, some of which work, some don't (one of our gas heaters was disconnected by the engineer who carried out our gas safety inspection as he considered it dangerous). We've had to augment rooms with non-functional heating by putting in our own electric convector heaters. The lack of a timeswitch (except for the one lucky bedroom with central heating) combined with crap/non existant insulation means the only way to keep the house warm at this time of year is to leave all the heating running at full pelt 24 hours a day.

We only have battery powered smoke detectors - neither with lights - and I do infact wonder whether either of them actually work as there appears to be no programme to test them or replace the batteries. The internal doors are not fire doors, and some of them are so old that they are starting to hang off their hinges (my own bedroom door has a half inch gap at the top) - there are no fancy fire-sealing strips in this place.

As I said above, the letting agency/landlord gets away with leaving the place in this condition because until now it has only been let to families, this is the first time its been let in an HMO way.

As I also said above, the property fails to meet several basic requirements for an HMO let - but I don't care. Because it's cheap. It's done us fine for the past 10 months and will continue to serve until we go our own separate ways into somewhat nicer places.

Identifying 'rogue landlords' and forcing them to up-spec their lets will only push rents up - and mean that the savings which we have enjoyed over the past year so that we can afford to go somewhere nicer we wouldn't have been able to make - instead we'd live in a safer, warmer house, but would be stuck here for eternity because no one would be able to afford to leave.

And - as ever - to me the harsh regulations are being applied to the wrong tenants and are exempted from the right ones. Students who move every year and HMO's where people live as a group casually should not be priorities when it comes to increasing the standards of rented accomodation. I'm happy with my house - because I won't still be here a year from now. Families are groups who need stability - they can't afford financially or logistically to relocate very often. They need their housing to be a home, not just a place to lay their head. Yet it seems that they apparently can legally live in shit conditions whilst students and casual houseshares have to be protected.

At the expense of sounding like the Daily Mail, yet another example of where this country doesn't have a fucking clue.

Stuart* wrote:We’ve always tried to maintain an environment which was equal to, or better than, we were prepared to live in ourselves. In terms of health and safety that’s not quite as altruistic as it might appear: there is a need to protect your property as much as the tenants within. That may extend to fixing ‘chainless plugs’ for aesthetic purposes, but smoke and burglar alarms connected to a response service actually produce savings on building insurance costs, as do the regulatory annual checks on gas and electrical appliances provided as part of the tenancy agreement.

Which itself is an interesting point: if it's already in your interests as a landlord to do those things, why the need to regulate that they be done?

cwathen wrote:As I also said above, the property fails to meet several basic requirements for an HMO let - but I don't care. Because it's cheap. It's done us fine for the past 10 months and will continue to serve until we go our own separate ways into somewhat nicer places.

Identifying 'rogue landlords' and forcing them to up-spec their lets will only push rents up - and mean that the savings which we have enjoyed over the past year so that we can afford to go somewhere nicer we wouldn't have been able to make - instead we'd live in a safer, warmer house, but would be stuck here for eternity because no one would be able to afford to leave.

That's exactly right, and regulation in this area - however well-intentioned it might be - only serves to restrict that choice. I don't think there's any doubt that we would all like to enjoy a certain level of safety and comfort in our accommodation. But that is just one factor in a range of many considerations which have to be weighed up when making a choice. When you establish a minimum standard in one area, you invariably impose restrictions on other areas. In this case, by instituting safety and quality regulations, you impose higher costs on landlords, which get passed on to tenants. Tenants are denied access to cheaper accommodation, even if they would prefer to sacrifice some level of safety to achieve that.

By choosing to live in accommodation which is in breach of private letting regulations any tenant foregoes the protection provided by the relevant legislation. The tenant is equally culpable if they pay a cheaper rent whilst being aware of deficiencies within their living environment.

They cannot subsequently claim protection from a law whilst being a willing participant in flouting it.

If anything untoward were to happen, the landlord would indeed face prosecution – but I doubt the tenant would have a substantial case for compensation for any loss or injury. So long as people are prepared to do that, then the sub-standard rental market will continue to exist.

It’s rather unfair to paint landlords as the sole villain here.

You can't buy a fake Gucci handbag from the market and then complain to the 'Trading Standards' department of your local council if it falls apart the first time you hit someone over the head with it!

Stuart* wrote:By choosing to live in accommodation which is in breach of private letting regulations any tenant foregoes the protection provided by the relevant legislation. The tenant is equally culpable if they pay a cheaper rent whilst being aware of deficiencies within their living environment.

Absolute codswallop.

Sorry Stu - but you really ought to research things before you state them as fact.

A tenant holds no authority to "waive their rights" in return for cheaper rent.

Now - it may be that a tenant is *aware* that they pay a less expensive rent on a flat which doesn't meet the required code (in the case of me, for example) - but that in no way means that they can't then seek damages or other protections because of that knowledge.

Like it or not - it IS the landlord's responsibility - 100%.

Gavin Scott wrote:Absolute codswallop.

Sorry Stu - but you really ought to research things before you state them as fact.

A tenant holds no authority to "waive their rights" in return for cheaper rent.

Now - it may be that a tenant is *aware* that they pay a less expensive rent on a flat which doesn't meet the required code (in the case of me, for example) - but that in no way means that they can't then seek damages or other protections because of that knowledge.

Like it or not - it IS the landlord's responsibility - 100%.

With all respect, Gav, I wasn't claiming to be making a legal point, I was stating my point of view.

I was careful to point out that the landlord remains responsible, but surely by willingly accepting a situation that breaches legislation - and receiving a reward in the payment of a lower rent - then the tenant accepts some degree of responsibility however passive that acceptance may be.

Surely the ethos of 'caveat emptor' would be a suitable defence for any landlord faced with a claim by a tenant under those circumstances? No doubt the onus would be on the landlord to prove that the tenant was aware of the deficiencies which led to any loss or injury, but I suspect that if they were successful then any compensation would reflect a proportion of culpability on the part of the tenant.

It's rather unfair to claim the benefits of legislation while willfully avoiding the financial implications.

Stuart* wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:Absolute codswallop.

Sorry Stu - but you really ought to research things before you state them as fact.

A tenant holds no authority to "waive their rights" in return for cheaper rent.

Now - it may be that a tenant is *aware* that they pay a less expensive rent on a flat which doesn't meet the required code (in the case of me, for example) - but that in no way means that they can't then seek damages or other protections because of that knowledge.

Like it or not - it IS the landlord's responsibility - 100%.

With all respect, Gav, I wasn't claiming to be making a legal point, I was stating my point of view.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how

Stuart* wrote:The tenant is equally culpable

is stating a point of view - it sounds quite matter of fact, albeit wrong, to me.

Stuart* wrote:... but surely by willingly accepting a situation that breaches legislation - and receiving a reward in the payment of a lower rent - then the tenant accepts some degree of responsibility however passive that acceptance may be.

Nope. It is fundamentally the responsibility of the landlord. As I said before - the cost saving on omitting basic safety measures is negligible, so one could hardly argue that it was a massive benefit to the tenant. If the landlord owns many properties then he'll be better off - so its not really a balanced thing.

In 99% of buy-to-let or HMO properties, the landlord turns a profit on the arrangement - over and above the investment in the property itself; otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.

As much as you would like to think its an "equal" relationship it simply isn't.

Stuart* wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:Absolute codswallop.

Sorry Stu - but you really ought to research things before you state them as fact.

A tenant holds no authority to "waive their rights" in return for cheaper rent.

Now - it may be that a tenant is *aware* that they pay a less expensive rent on a flat which doesn't meet the required code (in the case of me, for example) - but that in no way means that they can't then seek damages or other protections because of that knowledge.

Like it or not - it IS the landlord's responsibility - 100%.

With all respect, Gav, I wasn't claiming to be making a legal point, I was stating my point of view.

I was careful to point out that the landlord remains responsible, but surely by willingly accepting a situation that breaches legislation - and receiving a reward in the payment of a lower rent - then the tenant accepts some degree of responsibility however passive that acceptance may be.

Surely the ethos of 'caveat emptor' would be a suitable defence for any landlord faced with a claim by a tenant under those circumstances? No doubt the onus would be on the landlord to prove that the tenant was aware of the deficiencies which led to any loss or injury, but I suspect that if they were successful then any compensation would reflect a proportion of culpability on the part of the tenant.

It's rather unfair to claim the benefits of legislation while willfully avoiding the financial implications.

I sense a little bit of back tracking here. If you "with all respect" stating a point of view then why didn't you make this clear in the first place? As lukey points out, you were setting out your stall as if it were a fact and now someone has called it into question it instantly becomes a view of yours. Well OK, no-one can take that away from you but what you're spouting out is still rubbish.

And with all respect, in my humble opinion and this is just my view here but ANYONE who uses carp like "caveat emptor" just comes across as a pretentious dick. What not just use the much easier and clearer "buyer beware" rather than trying to bolster the argument with fancy terms. It's what it means anyway!