private landlord may be required to check tenants' immigration status

No visa, no tenancy?

As widely publicised, the government is proposing to force private landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants before agreeing to let to them.  

The new measures were announced in the Queen’s Speech last week as part of a package of legislation aimed at making Britain a less attractive destination for illegal immigrants.

It is not clear how the checks are intended to work, or indeed how they will be enforced.  In a debate on the Queen’s Speech, Labour branded the measures “unworkable”. The Labour party is pressing for a compulsory register of private landlords (as is the case in Scotland) and argues that, without such a register, it will be impossible to know whether landlords are complying with the new immigration requirements (RentFair have argued that a landlord register would itself be unenforceable as appears to be borne out in Scotland).

The truth is that enforcement is not much of an issue. There are already plenty of regulations that landlords have to comply with with regard to health and safety, gas checks, HMO’s and the like, and for the most part these rules are adhered to. Adding yet another regulation does not make enforcement any more or less of an issue than it is now.

But getting back to the proposed immigration checks, and leaving aside the problem of enforcement, an obvious question immediately springs to mind.  How would a landlord know whether a prospective tenant was here illegally?   

RentFair’s Christian Duggan considers this question from a landlord’s point of view.

“As a landlord myself, my thinking goes something like this. It is possible to envisage a situation where landlords would be required to check an applicant’s passport and perhaps be required to make a copy of the passport for their records. That would not be too onerous and would be easy enough to do as part of the normal reference checks. Within the European Union I know there is freedom of migration so if the applicant was a citizen of an EU country it would be safe to assume that they were here legally. It is fair to say that most people could probably not name all 27 EU member countries but it would be easy enough to look this up. So far so good.

But, hold on, isn’t there some issue with Romanian and Bulgarians until January next year? Does that mean I can rent to them? Or is it just that they can’t work here until 2014?  And then there are countries like Switzerland and Norway. They are not part of the EU but I think I am right in saying they don’t require visas. Does that mean I can let my property to a Norwegian without any further checks? Such a beautiful country. Not sure though.

And what about people from outside the EU.  What if the nice young couple wanting to rent my flat were, say, from Japan? Personally, I would have no idea what the visa requirements are for Japanese citizens, whether they even require a visa, or how to check whether those requirements had been met. Isn’t there some rule for certain countries that they can stay here for up to 3 months without a visa? If so, how would I know whether they had exceeded that period. Or maybe there isn’t such a rule at all.

I have let to Australians before. Very good tenants they were too, even sticking back some of the loose tiles in the bathroom themselves to save me calling out a tiler.  I am vaguely aware (I think) that citizens of Australia can come here for a year or so on a work permit. Or am I getting muddled up with UK citizens travelling to Australia on a work permit. Perhaps it’s not reciprocal. On second thoughts, aren’t Australians and Kiwis allowed to come here indefinitely? And what about the US? Can I let my flat to an American without being fined?

Then there is the whole issue with student visas. If someone proves to me that they have a student visa to study on a course, which ends in 5 months’ time, am I allowed to rent them a property for a year? If they show me their passport and a letter from the University of Bristol to say that they are on a degree course is that sufficient? Do I have to find out when the degree ends and make sure that they are safely evicted by that date, or will my obligations not extend to that? Do I have to call the University to confirm the letter is genuine? My flat is in London, so isn’t there something suspicious about them studying in Bristol? Am I legally obliged to follow that up?

At the moment, I am inclined to agree with the Labour party’s view that the proposals are unworkable. Without taking a lengthy course in immigration law, it would be almost impossible for the average landlord to know whether prospective tenants are entitled to stay in this country or not.

What is required perhaps is a simple way of checking someone’s immigration status:  a clear stamp in the passport of all non-EU citizens, stating clearly when they are expected to leave our shores. No stamp, no tenancy. Seems a bit harsh, but that might work. But even then I can see some of those stamps becoming smudged and illegible. Hmm. Further thought required, Mrs May.”

 

 

 

 
Alex Johnstone MSP brands Scottish Landlord Licensing a costly failure

Alex Johnstone MSP: Farcical

Scottish Landlords have paid a total of £11.2 million in licensing fees since the introduction of the Landlord Registration Scheme in 2006, with taxpayers contributing an additional £5.2 million. Website running costs alone have come in at £300,000.

Yet in that time, the scheme has refused only 40 “rogue landlords” a licence, out of the 200,000 who have registered.   In the last two years, only 11 landlords have been reported to the procurator fiscal for alleged serious breaches.

Licensing has been compulsory for all private landlords in Scotland since April 2006, with fees of £55 payable to each local authority in which properties are situated, with an additional fee payable per property.  Licences must be renewed every 3 years.

The figures came in response to a parliamentary question from Scottish Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone.  Mr Johnstone said “This farcical programme, introduced with the best of intentions, is failing to deliver at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer.”  He argued that responsible people with aspirations to get into the property sector are being hit in the pocket because of the “inadequate” scheme.

Scottish Association of Landlords policy officer, John Blackwood, added:

We represent responsible landlords from across Scotland, and when the scheme was introduced we broadly supported what it was trying to achieve because we want to see rogue landlords out of the sector altogether. But with almost £18m of Government and private funds being spent so far with so little, the scheme is doing little to inspire the confidence either of our members or the tenants who look to us for good accommodation and service.”

It will be interesting to see if a similar scheme introduced by the London Borough of Newham at the beginning of this year, and plans by Liverpool City Council  to bring in their own citywide scheme later in 2013, fare any better.

 

 
liverpool_city_hall

Liverpool Town Hall – Following Newham and Scotland

Liverpool council has made clear it intends to introduce citywide mandatory licensing later this year.   It has launched a “consultation” on plans to license every rental property in its territory, expected to be over 50,000 properties. The consultation starts this month and will last for 12 weeks. The proposals will be presented to the cabinet in May with the aim of introducing the scheme later this year.

Newham Council, in London, has already imposed borough-wide compulsory licensing of landlords.  The scheme came into force last week, affecting over 35,000 landlords, who are compelled to apply for licences costing £500 per property if they wish to continue to let in the borough. If implemented (or should that be when implemented) Liverpool’s scheme would similarly require all private landlords to apply for a licence and agree to comply with a minimum set of standards. Those who failed to comply could face hefty fines.

Liverpool’s cabinet minister for housing, Cllr Ann O’Byrne said “The proposed licensing scheme would recognise the majority of good landlords who manage their properties properly, while enabling us to deal with the minority who choose not to engage with us, and whose letting and management practices are poor.”

RentFair says

A similar licensing regime already exists across Scotland.  It is estimated that over 6,000 landlords in Glasgow alone have defied the requirement to apply for a licence, despite the Scottish Government introducing fines of up to £50,000 for those landlords who let property unlicensed.  We do not understand why a minority of landlords who currently ignore existing laws on fire safety, HMO’s and the like, should suddenly queue up to apply for a licence.  If they have no respect for current legal requirements, then they will presumably have no qualms about letting property without a licence.  The council will then be forced to employ an army of compliance people to enforce their scheme.  What will all this achieve?

 

 

Tenancy agreements can run for many years so it is unsurprising that disputes arise from time to time.

In the event of a dispute it’s good to initially establish where you stand legally. This may be clear from the tenancy agreement. If not, there is a large body of law on landlord and tenant disputes, particularly under the Housing Acts of 1988 and 1996.

Here are examples of the rights of landlords and tenants:

Tenants’ rights

  • To know the identity of the landlord;
  • For the landlord to ensure the property is safe and well maintained;
  • For the deposit to be placed into a government approved protection scheme;
  • Not to be harassed or disturbed in the property; and
  • Protection from unfair charges and rent increases.

Landlords’ rights:

  • Access to the property at 24 hours notice for inspections and repairs;
  • To charge the tenant for repairs to damage caused by them or their guests;
  • To receive the agreed rent and other charges; and
  • For the tenant to seek permission where required (eg. to sublet the property).

In most cases it’s best to try to resolve matters informally at first. If this doesn’t work, the next step is generally to use a form of alternative dispute resolution (mediation or arbitration). Mediation involves a neutral third party who assists the disputing parties to come to an agreement. In the case of Arbitration, the dispute is referred to an expert third party to make a decision.

Alternative dispute resolution is becoming more popular as it is perceived as less expensive, time-consuming and stressful than court action. It also enables the parties to choose who will resolve their dispute and gives them more confidentiality. In some circumstances the law requires the parties to use alternative dispute resolution before taking court action. In addition, tenancy agreements often state that a specific arbitrator is to be used to resolve disputes.

Some private landlords are registered with the Housing Ombudsman. In this case, the parties can refer the dispute to the Ombudsman for a non-binding decision free of charge.

Specialised forums are in place to resolve certain kinds of landlord and tenant disputes. Private tenants who think their rent is too high can appeal to a Rent Assessment Committee. The Committee makes a decision to lower or raise the rent which can only be challenged in the High Court.

If the dispute relates to a deposit that has been placed in a government approved protection scheme, the body running the scheme will resolve the matter in the first instance. They will provide a dispute resolution service free of charge and will hold the deposit until the matter is resolved.

If it is not possible to resolve the dispute using these methods it might be necessary to take legal action. However, before doing so it is strongly advisable to seek advice from a solicitor specialised in landlord and tenant law.

This is a guest post provided by Contact Law.

 

Landlords surveyed by Paragon Mortgages reported an average yield of 6.7% in the third quarter of 2012, up from 6.2% in the previous quarter. This makes buy to let a very attractive investment when compared with the average interest rate on savings accounts, or recent stock market performance.

The research revealed that Landlords with portfolios in the East of England fared even better, with average reported yields of 7.5%, followed by Wales (7.3%), the North East (7.2%) and central London with 7.1%.

Landlords with larger portfolios tended to generate higher yields overall, perhaps because they were more focussed on income rather than capital growth.

Yield, of course, is only one factor to consider. Although outer London (at 5.6%) reported an average lower yield than other regions, historically London has out-performed the rest of the country in terms of capital growth.

© 2011 RentFair Blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
Real Estate