A landlords’ body has demanded to know why there was no consultation over plans to allow private tenants to sub-let.
The proposal, meant to encourage the sharing society, has attracted major controversy in the industry, leading to speculation that it could lead to tenants running bed and breakfasts, and that landlords would lose the right to know who was in their property.
The Residential Landlords Association has now made clear its anger over the surprise provision in last month’s Budget, which revealed the intention to bring in law which would make it illegal to include no sub-letting clauses in tenancy agreements.
The Budget said the government would “make it easier for individuals to sub-let a room through its intention to legislate to prevent the use of clauses in private fixed-term residential tenancy agreements that expressly rule out sub-letting or otherwise sharing space on a short-term basis, and consider extending this prohibition to statutory periodic tenancies”.
The RLA has called for more clarity and has asked for its concerns to be addressed urgently.
With Parliament now dissolved, RLA chairman Alan Ward has written to senior civil servant Peter Schofield, Director General of Neighbours at the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Here is Ward’s letter in full.
Dear Mr Schofield
You will be aware that the Budget Red Book contained a number of proposals to make it easier for tenants in private rented accommodation to sub-let the homes they rent.
As the voice for private sector landlords, we were concerned that this policy seems to have been formed without any consultation with key partner organisations.
In light of this, and given the difficulties that the policy is likely to pose for landlords, I should be grateful for responses on the following points:
– Can you confirm that the provisions on sub-letting will only be taken forward if the next Government decides to do so and that these proposals are not set in stone?
– Why was there no consultation with the industry prior to these proposals being announced?
– Would the proposal apply to Wales?
– Will tenancy agreements have to allow sub-letting or would it be a case of sub-letting being allowed only with the landlord’s permission? I refer to para 2.235 and would like to know what would be deemed ‘reasonable’?
– Would tenants who sub-let be considered to be the landlord for the purposes of tenancy deposits, serving relevant paperwork (gas safety certificate, EPC, S21) and immigration checks?
– Would sub-letting tenants be responsible for Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and maintenance of the property in the portion of the property they sub-let?
– How would such legislation interact with local licensing? Would a tenant who sub-lets also require a licence? Who will be responsible for breaches? Would a reasonable cause to refuse a sub-let come under selective licensing?
– Who will be held responsible for general landlord breaches by the sub-letting tenant?
– What happens when the tenant who sub-lets absconds, leaving behind the sub-tenant? Could the landlord regain possession of the house, even if they don’t have a contract with the sub-tenant themselves? What rights to occupy would the sub-tenant have?
– Will this also apply where a tenant moves in a partner, rather than renting out a room? Can leases still forbid this or require landlord permission/change of tenancy? What happens if the original tenant leaves and the partner stays?
– Would a landlord renting out a property that is subsequently sub-let then find that the property is classified as a House in Multiple Occupation?
– What happens about so-called rent-to-renters? How would a landlord regain possession of their property if they don’t have a tenancy agreement or even know the names of the sub-tenant?
– What is meant by “short-term” let?
– Who takes responsibility for any anti-social behaviour carried out by a sub-tenant?
– Would tenants who sub-let be subject to provisions within the Deregulation Bill on retaliatory evictions?
– Will the Government be consulting on the proposals? If so, what is the likely timeframe?
– What is the difference between the sub-tenant and a lodger?
In light of our concerns, I should be grateful for an opportunity to meet with you or your colleagues to discuss these proposals as a matter of urgency and would be grateful if your office could email policy@rla.org.uk to arrange a discussion.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Ward
Chairman
Comments (7)
Alan a brilliant letter. Have you had the requested meeting confirmed yet? I bet not. I suspect that about two thirds of your questions never appeared in their thinking when they cooked up this hair brained scheme. Seems to me too it would be an excellent environment to hide away terrorists too. Keep up the pressure
I travelled fron the West County to meet with Clive Bett’s MP to make representation to his inquiry into PRS. As always I caught an ealirer train than I could have; 5 am from a station an hours drive from home. Was on site and security vetted a full 24 minutes ahead of time. Clive Betts kept me waiting a further 25 minutes then angrilly gave me 3 minutes of his valuable time. If these poeople can’t afford people who are trying to help them minimal basic courtesy there really is very little hope.
Subject un- qualified elected Mp’s briefed by subject unqualified civil servants with an axe to grind, what could possibly be wrong with that?
I commend the RLA voice on this.
ARLA need to raise their game when it comes to publically fighting for the industry. All radio and tv seems to feature is generation rent or shelter and occassionally RLA.
Reading Alan’s excellent letter really highlights how ill-conceived this idea is with no thought to the consequences which drive a coach and team of horses through existing regulations which will become near impossible to enforce. The Courts will take years to sort out who is a ‘Landlord’ for the purposes of existing regulations. This is a step away from regulating the industry.
The real problem isn’t just the stupidity of the laws that are being distributed but the background motivation and agenda that is creating them.
The closest to practical experience or qualification at CLG in the lettings and management is what? Who there has a single day’s experience or NVQ certificate to say they the should even pass comment let alone shape legislation? Truth is no one knows. Junior lettings negotiators are more vetted for qualification than those briefing ministers and government.
It is not hard to see the influences on junior / mid level civil service staff working in Westminster; comparatively low wages, sky high prices, demands and pressures on accommodation close to work or an insufferable long daily commutes, that is the bedrock foundation of generation rent! With that in mind it is not hard to see how campaigns by Shelter, Which and any other tenant rights lobby group are miraculously fast tracked into legislation.
One only has to read the inconstancies of reports from CLG to know that something is not as it should be, but there is not a single thing any of us can do about it. (other than lobby and moan)
With apparent likelihood of another round of 1980’s style social disquiet in Brixton shaping itself for a ‘demonstration’ later this month it is fairly obvious government is failing to tackle housing. Creating sub tenancies won’t stop the ‘peaceful protests’ and it won’t cure the cause of the protests. Only when someone gets a proper grip of CLG will progress be made. The present regime is making things worse not better. It is not colour politics that is at fault but the engine powering the politics.
What a great letter and Robert May you are absolute spot on with your comments – what a shame it is like this though
Well done Alan (again) I fear (know very well) you are wasting your time breath and effort. Communities and local government is a medieval Motte and Bailey fortress that simply hands out Feudal laws and decrees to the peasants. It took a full 7 years to resolve tenancy deposit issues I highlighted on March 2007. Stick me in the tower but they are simply bereft of the experience required to do the job they are charged with. CLG represents the very worse traits of old school protectionism civil service.