Consultation on proposals for reviewing the current landlord registration fee structure and expanding the range of prescribed information applicants must provide to local authorities

This should be added to the application process, so that when a landlord completes the application progress their completed application acts as legal confirmation that they have complied with legislation.

N/A

but only if a LA asks for this.

N/A

but only if tenant or LA asks for a copy.

It will get too messy and confusing it they have to provide more than this. LAs are having enough trouble with Gazetteer and addresses as it is without causing more.

We use landlords email address more than any other, but if they don't have one then we rely on a telephone number and if this fails their current home address.

The system currently only allows for a mobile number, but a home phone number and any other contact numbers would be very useful.

However, the price needs to be reflective of each landlord ability to pay. A landlord with a single property should pay less than a landlord with several.

If the pricing structure goes up too high for a single property landlord it will not be worth that individuals money, time and effort in renting the property out and in turn the Government will need to find housing for these individuals at a substantial cost to the already struggling economy.

LAs simply need to given more powers to be able to deal with landlords who fail to comply with legislation rather than having to rely on PRHP, etc. and in these cases a separate fine should be imposed, which is not tied to the registration fee or late fee.

Landlords who are compliant and take ownership of their registration in a responsible manner to ensure they renew timeously should perhaps receive a larger incentive/discount.

I thought that some of the registration fee was for the on-line registration service; otherwise what of the landlords who renew on-line and never need LA assistance in doing this?

Perhaps the application should ask (prior to payment) "have you had to contact your LA for assistance in completing this application Yes/No?" if they tick the yes option the system charges them a larger fee and if they tick no a lesser fee.
Or perhaps we should look at fining those landlords who knowingly fail to comply with legislation who have properties already registered, but then fail to add further rented properties to their portfolios when they buy them and rent them out. It's these landlords that cost the LA time and money as we have to carry out investigations, write to them, phone, email, etc.

We also need to be aware that times are getting harder for everyone and with Brexit round the corner times will only get harder. To keep expecting landlords (especially the good landlords) to keep paying higher and higher prices is not the answer. If you do this you will not only alienate landlords, but find that as time goes on landlords will become fewer and fewer as they will simply sell off their properties rather than rent them out and if this happens who is going to house these homeless tenants, especially when LAs do not have the required resources.

In 2016 we emailed all HMO landlords asking them for their opinion on fees and the structure. We asked whether they thought it farer that those landlords with larger HMOs and therefore more occupants should need to pay more than those with less occupants. The response was not only outstanding, but by a clear margin voted that landlords with more occupants should pay more for their license. The new fees were implemented with no issues and to this day we still have the respect and confidence of our HMO landlords. Based on this why not let the landlords have their say on fees and fines.

The only time we carry out a fit and proper test is if a landlord/joint owner has convictions or their has been issues with PRHP, etc. The tests are far and few between and I do not think this warrants a fee.

If you're looking to start charging for every possible contingency, then the pricing structure is going to have to be different for every landlord/joint owner and will cause no end of confusion for everyone. It will also mean that going forward landlords/joint owners will not be able to register themselves on-line as they will not be in a position to know whether a fit and proper test has been carried out nor any other expenses incurred by the LA, which means they will need to contact us and we will need to register for them, which in turn is defeating the object of expecting landlords to register themselves on-line thus obtaining the 10% discount.

A full registration fee for each LA is acceptable, but again how will the system or the landlord know whether a fit test has been carried out and therefore amend the fee appropriately on-line. This would again need to be carried out by the LA hence then also incurring admin fees, etc.. This does not work!

If you're looking to increase fees and finding new ways of obtaining even more money's from landlords then you really don't want to be giving 100% discounts to anyone.

It's a good idea in theory, but as mentioned above the system is never going to be clever enough to work this out for itself, nor could the landlord ever be expected to know what charges they'd incurred e.g. fit and proper test and therefore the only way of ensuring that all fees had been accounted for is for the LA to complete the landlords/joint owners application for them, which then fails the objective of a landlord/join owner being able to and expected to register themselves on-line .

Also, even if the LA did complete the landlords registration it is not an absolute that this individual would be aware of all the charges incurred, especially if prior to registration the landlord had dealt with another colleague(s).

This is definitely the way forward, especially if the fees go up quite considerably, then we have the "Ace card" to play. The landlord would need to be made aware of the fees and how they could themselves reduced these.

N/A