Minister Robertshaw Delays Landlord Bill

[Chris Robertshaw]

 

hboy

 

If the current legislation worked then there would be no need to bring in any new legislation. You say the new legislation will be overbearing - in what way do you think that will be the case?

 

Chris

Which part of 'Tynwald already has sufficient legislation that is not being policed effectively on at least 4% of uninhabitable properties on the island' do you not understand Chris?

 

Come on...we thought you were better than this. You needed to get out of the office and talk to these landlords before you came up with this plan. You are making few friends in terms of tenants or landlords. The effective result is nothing but a tax take for the government purse at the expense of both - whilst we are still left with a bloated government, even more of which will be required to admin this latest scheme.

Sorry - It is you that does not understand - if what you are suggesting is true then I would not be going to the trouble of introducing a system of registration through new legislation (I went through this matter carefully before embarking on the chosen route). Your real anger comes from the fact that you believe government should be smaller and on that we agree. With our small tax base I do not believe we have any alternative but to work towards a smaller more efficient government.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think hboy just got a 'Dear John' letter. As did I.

 

Nothing there that wasn't in the press release. I think Chris Roberstshaw will be standing in Stepford next time.

[Chris Robertshaw]

I take it no one gives a toss about folk living in property unfit for human habitation

 

 

That is the main reason for introducing the legislation - to help deal with this issue - I am sorry I have not made myself clear

[Donald Trumps]

Have they been rehoused?

[Albert Tatlock]

 

 

hboy

 

If the current legislation worked then there would be no need to bring in any new legislation. You say the new legislation will be overbearing - in what way do you think that will be the case?

 

Chris

Which part of 'Tynwald already has sufficient legislation that is not being policed effectively on at least 4% of uninhabitable properties on the island' do you not understand Chris?

 

Come on...we thought you were better than this. You needed to get out of the office and talk to these landlords before you came up with this plan. You are making few friends in terms of tenants or landlords. The effective result is nothing but a tax take for the government purse at the expense of both - whilst we are still left with a bloated government, even more of which will be required to admin this latest scheme.

Sorry - It is you that does not understand - if what you are suggesting is true then I would not be going to the trouble of introducing a system of registration through new legislation (I went through this matter carefully before embarking on the chosen route). Your real anger comes from the fact that you believe government should be smaller and on that we agree. With our small tax base I do not believe we have any alternative but to work towards a smaller more efficient government.

What about the basic Housing Act? Has that been enforced in any of these places?

[Blade Runner]

Firstly, why do you assume all landlords are wealthy? Buy to let has almost no margins and carries huge risk. Imagine your mortgage is £800 pcm and you achieve £850 p/m in rent but also incur a 2 month void every couple of years. You also need to repaint and re-carpet periodically and cover the cost of m&e servicing and repairs. Unless there is capital growth, you can easily end up loosing stacks of money.

 

Secondly, it is hugely important to get this policy right as it will affect a lot of people. Minimum standards are a must, no question, but if worded incorrectly, tenants would start brandishing the Act as a form of negotiation when they decide they don't like the carpets or think the kitchen looks dated.

 

Tenants are already protected under various acts (fire regulations etc) and this is another form of control over a market that should be largely left to manage itself.

 

I'll just reiterate, I do absolutely agree with minimum standards for vulnerable people in poor properties but imo these should not stray too far from basic health and safety, cleanliness, standard of decoration, water tightness etc.

 

 

+1,000,000

[hboy]

I still maintain that if its only a problem with a small minority of properties why bother with new rules for all? The sort of people who currently flaunt the rules and who rent out shoddy properties won't be quaking in their boots by the fact that they have a few forms to fill in. They won't fill them in because they are blissfully aware that the problem with the old system will be the same as the problem with the new system - it won't be policed properly, it will be toothless, and government will be too weak to act on the bad cases and will pick on the soft touches in order to prove they are doing their job. This is what always happens - some pathetic wimp of a civil servant will pick on a skint landlord on some minor points to flex his muscles under the new rules and the real bastards abusing the system won't be touched because it is too difficult. Its what has always happened, and this new paperchase won't change anything.

[Chris Robertshaw]

 

 

 

hboy

 

If the current legislation worked then there would be no need to bring in any new legislation. You say the new legislation will be overbearing - in what way do you think that will be the case?

 

Chris

Which part of 'Tynwald already has sufficient legislation that is not being policed effectively on at least 4% of uninhabitable properties on the island' do you not understand Chris?

 

Come on...we thought you were better than this. You needed to get out of the office and talk to these landlords before you came up with this plan. You are making few friends in terms of tenants or landlords. The effective result is nothing but a tax take for the government purse at the expense of both - whilst we are still left with a bloated government, even more of which will be required to admin this latest scheme.

Sorry - It is you that does not understand - if what you are suggesting is true then I would not be going to the trouble of introducing a system of registration through new legislation (I went through this matter carefully before embarking on the chosen route). Your real anger comes from the fact that you believe government should be smaller and on that we agree. With our small tax base I do not believe we have any alternative but to work towards a smaller more efficient government.

What about the basic Housing Act? Has that been enforced in any of these places?

I can assure you that if there was an effective way of dealing with the issues through the use of existing legislation - then I would have used it.

[Chris Robertshaw]

I still maintain that if its only a problem with a small minority of properties why bother with new rules for all? The sort of people who currently flaunt the rules and who rent out shoddy properties won't be quaking in their boots by the fact that they have a few forms to fill in. They won't fill them in because they are blissfully aware that the problem with the old system will be the same as the problem with the new system - it won't be policed properly, it will be toothless, and government will be too weak to act on the bad cases and will pick on the soft touches in order to prove they are doing their job. This is what always happens - some pathetic wimp of a civil servant will pick on a skint landlord on some minor points to flex his muscles under the new rules and the real bastards abusing the system won't be touched because it is too difficult. Its what has always happened, and this new paperchase won't change anything.

I absolutely do not share the many assumptions you have made here.

[hboy]

 

I still maintain that if its only a problem with a small minority of properties why bother with new rules for all? The sort of people who currently flaunt the rules and who rent out shoddy properties won't be quaking in their boots by the fact that they have a few forms to fill in. They won't fill them in because they are blissfully aware that the problem with the old system will be the same as the problem with the new system - it won't be policed properly, it will be toothless, and government will be too weak to act on the bad cases and will pick on the soft touches in order to prove they are doing their job. This is what always happens - some pathetic wimp of a civil servant will pick on a skint landlord on some minor points to flex his muscles under the new rules and the real bastards abusing the system won't be touched because it is too difficult. Its what has always happened, and this new paperchase won't change anything.

I absolutely do not share the many assumptions you have made here.

I would be surprised if you did, it doesn't mean that anything I said was incorrect though. Policing petty rules and regulations to the exclusion of the broader objectives of why legislation was brought in is a Manx government speciality.

[Donald Trumps]

Iḿ going to storm the steps of the Kremlin if I don´t get some assurance that these people are being properly housed

[Albert Tatlock]

 

 

 

 

hboy

 

If the current legislation worked then there would be no need to bring in any new legislation. You say the new legislation will be overbearing - in what way do you think that will be the case?

 

Chris

Which part of 'Tynwald already has sufficient legislation that is not being policed effectively on at least 4% of uninhabitable properties on the island' do you not understand Chris?

 

Come on...we thought you were better than this. You needed to get out of the office and talk to these landlords before you came up with this plan. You are making few friends in terms of tenants or landlords. The effective result is nothing but a tax take for the government purse at the expense of both - whilst we are still left with a bloated government, even more of which will be required to admin this latest scheme.

Sorry - It is you that does not understand - if what you are suggesting is true then I would not be going to the trouble of introducing a system of registration through new legislation (I went through this matter carefully before embarking on the chosen route). Your real anger comes from the fact that you believe government should be smaller and on that we agree. With our small tax base I do not believe we have any alternative but to work towards a smaller more efficient government.

What about the basic Housing Act? Has that been enforced in any of these places?

I can assure you that if there was an effective way of dealing with the issues through the use of existing legislation - then I would have used it.

So why not simply amend the act if it is not fit for purpose - and then enforce it? Or, are you saying as I think you might be more simply saying, you do not know where to start looking, and the picture may actually be far worse than the estimated 4% - indeed that there may be numerous landlords you are not remotely aware of renting accomodation unfit for human habitation?

 

If so, as hboy says these guys will likely hide under the radar and not make themselves known. So why not first an amended housing act and go on the offensive - introducing heavy fines under that act? That way those breaking the law pay, whereas those within the law do not pay by having to register simply to say they are within the law?

 

I can see many a defence on poorer accomodation - no rental agreement in place when caught out - a defence of 'he was just staying with me for a few days, lower rents in a high rent economy to keep the tenants mouth shut, 'it was an on-off arrangement' etc etc.

 

Under an amended Housing Act, how hard would it be for the likes of environmental health to really find these places if they chose to look?

 

Do you really think that the bad guys are going to sign up to this new scheme?

[Merkin]

 

Firstly, why do you assume all landlords are wealthy? Buy to let has almost no margins and carries huge risk. Imagine your mortgage is £800 pcm and you achieve £850 p/m in rent but also incur a 2 month void every couple of years. You also need to repaint and re-carpet periodically and cover the cost of m&e servicing and repairs. Unless there is capital growth, you can easily end up loosing stacks of money.

 

Secondly, it is hugely important to get this policy right as it will affect a lot of people. Minimum standards are a must, no question, but if worded incorrectly, tenants would start brandishing the Act as a form of negotiation when they decide they don't like the carpets or think the kitchen looks dated.

 

Tenants are already protected under various acts (fire regulations etc) and this is another form of control over a market that should be largely left to manage itself.

 

I'll just reiterate, I do absolutely agree with minimum standards for vulnerable people in poor properties but imo these should not stray too far from basic health and safety, cleanliness, standard of decoration, water tightness etc.

 

 

+1,000,000

Don't get me started on condensation mould vs damp

[Merkin]

Iḿ going to storm the steps of the Kremlin if I don´t get some assurance that these people are being properly housed

 

 

Where do you propose to house them? A smarter thing to do would surely be to condemn the houses and force the occupants to immediately look for alternative accommodation. The landlords responsible could then be dealt with via legislation / fined / ducking stool etc.

[Amadeus]

Amadeus,

 

I extended the landlord and tenant (private housing) bill consultation because there appeared to be a lot of misunderstandings about it and I thought extra time would help people to both understand it better and provide more time for the submission of views to the consultation. I also encouraged landlords to set up their own association so that they could better represent their interests in matters such as legislation.

 

This legislation is all about achieving basic minimum standards of decency above which most landlords already operate. Sadly there are some who do not. The last survey conducted indicated that between three and four percent of properties are not fit for human habitation.

 

There are about 7000 properties on the Isle of Man in the private rental market.

 

Thank you for stopping by again, Chris, appreciated.