Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

Consultation paper on proposed banning order offences under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 - survey please complete

Recommended Posts

More legislation.  Aren't all of them crimes already? Or aiding and abetting in this case perhaps.

  • failing to carry out work required by the council to prevent a health and safety risk to tenants;
  • using violence or threatening violence against a tenant
  • making fraudulent applications for housing benefit or committing identity theft
  • using the property to cultivate cannabis
  • renting out a property to an illegal migrant
  • theft or criminal damage
  • colluding with the tenant to commit a criminal offence, such as tax evasion or the supply of illegal drugs.
  • threatening tenants with violence or illegally evicting them.
Edited by chronyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chronyx said:

More legislation.  Aren't all of them crimes already? Or aiding and abetting in this case perhaps.

  • failing to carry out work required by the council to prevent a health and safety risk to tenants;
  • using violence or threatening violence against a tenant
  • making fraudulent applications for housing benefit or committing identity theft
  • using the property to cultivate cannabis
  • renting out a property to an illegal migrant
  • theft or criminal damage
  • colluding with the tenant to commit a criminal offence, such as tax evasion or the supply of illegal drugs.
  • threatening tenants with violence or illegally evicting them.

 

However, there is currently nothing beyond local landlord licencing procedures (where they exist) to stop a landlord convicted of such a crime continuing to let the property and collect the rent.

The proposed legislation is that in the event of conviction of such an offence, the offender would be added to the list of rogue landlords and banned from letting any residential property. The property would effectively be ceded to the council who would collect rent and manage the property for the duration of the ban; the landlord would remain liable for any mortgage payments, but not receive any rent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BuyToLeech said:

Does it apply to landlords convicted of violent crimes that were not against tenants?

So a multiple rapist can become a university landlord, as long as he hasn't raped a tenant yet?

There's a section on the questionnaire where you can raise exactly that point, i.e. whether the offence must be linked to a property to serve as the basis for a banning order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

There's a section on the questionnaire where you can raise exactly that point, i.e. whether the offence must be linked to a property to serve as the basis for a banning order.

I wanted to do exactly that, but it's hard to read the report on a phone, so I was hoping someone knew whether this had already been covered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BuyToLeech said:

I wanted to do exactly that, but it's hard to read the report on a phone, so I was hoping someone knew whether this had already been covered. 

This is the relevant bit:

Banning orders.jpg

Source

Hence I think the answer is yes and no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the proposal reads, it's only a conviction for violence against a tenant that counts, and the banning order would only apply to the individual property that the conviction related to.  So other violence convictions would not count.  And there would be nothing to stop someone with a string of previous violence convictions becoming a landlord for the first time.

I can't believe that is what is intended by the proposal.  In my view, someone with a conviction for a serious violence offence should be banned from being a landlord at all (subject to usual statute of limitations etc).  Similar to how someone with a conviction for serious fraud is banned from being a company director, and not only for the company that the original fraud related to.

I think I got these points across in my response, though it wasn't clear which of the two questions at the end of the survey was the more appropriate place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

This is the relevant bit:

"Proposed banning order offences [. . .] fraud under the Fraud Act 2006":

Quote

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other offences has anyone suggested as grounds for a banning order?  

I said failure to declare rental income, which I suspect is very common in rogue LLs, who will very likely demand cash in hand.  

Dont know whether anyone else has ever seen the Rogue LLs Nightmare tenants prog. on C5.  

I saw for the first time recently and was shocked at how apparently soft and cautious councils can be, giving appalling LLs  'another chance' and so on.  Didn't see any mention of bungs to housing officers, but you can bet it happens. 

It was ages ago now, but a daughter was once in a seriously sub standard student house in Nottingham.  Whenever they asked for anything to be fixed, the landlady would simply scream at them down the phone. 

However was impressed with the council housing officer at the time, very robust, gave her a whole list of stuff to fix within 6 weeks - more than what they'd asked her for - or else the council would do it and charge her.  She screamed at them for involving the housing officer, of course, but she did get the things fixed. 

We found out during the course of all this that she lived only a mile or two from us, in Kingston.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So violence handled by a magistrate doesn't disqualify you but if you ever bought some pills for a group of mates and got done as if you were dealing, you are banned.

Is there any reason drugs offences belong on this list at all [apart from someone has an failed anti-drug agenda which has nowt to do with protecting tenants].

Does the mentioned act cover ALL violent-sex offences?

I would suggest it should be a ban for any violent offence, any sex offence, any fraud offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   29 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.