Landlords and tax evasion.
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
This would appear to be Newham trying to bribe the government to allow its landlord licencing cash cow a further lease of life. "Let us continue to receive licensing fees and we'll let you cross-check your tax records against our licensing records".glasgow mega snake said:
Seems to me to be a good argument for extending such licencing schemes across the whole U.K.
To be honest, it probably is a good idea. But it's not something that local authorities should be paid for. Basically, they take the money and then don't do their job. The additional cost is paid by tenants.So said:
This would appear to be Newham trying to bribe the government to allow its landlord licencing cash cow a further lease of life. "Let us continue to receive licensing fees and we'll let you cross-check your tax records against our licensing records".
"cash cow", perhaps, but perhaps needed. As the article mentions, Newham has 27,000 registered landlords and aside from the 13,000 who had not registered for self-assessment, "it has instigated 1,135 prosecutions for housing crimes – 70% of all such prosecutions in London. It has banned 28 landlords, served 2,170 notices to improve properties, and recovered £2.6m in additional council tax".
That level of non-compliance by landlords would seem to be a pretty good indication that landlords need regulating.
Personally I would prefer the regulation cost to be paid by those who require regulation, rather than out of general taxation. However I can see that as being a burden on the honest landlords, so perhaps the answer is substantial penalties on the rule breakers with a portion of those funds given back to the council to fund the regulation.
PF62 said:
So said:
This would appear to be Newham trying to bribe the government to allow its landlord licencing cash cow a further lease of life. "Let us continue to receive licensing fees and we'll let you cross-check your tax records against our licensing records".
"cash cow", perhaps, but perhaps needed. As the article mentions, Newham has 27,000 registered landlords and aside from the 13,000 who had not registered for self-assessment, "it has instigated 1,135 prosecutions for housing crimes – 70% of all such prosecutions in London. It has banned 28 landlords, served 2,170 notices to improve properties, and recovered £2.6m in additional council tax".
That level of non-compliance by landlords would seem to be a pretty good indication that landlords need regulating.
Personally I would prefer the regulation cost to be paid by those who require regulation, rather than out of general taxation. However I can see that as being a burden on the honest landlords, so perhaps the answer is substantial penalties on the rule breakers with a portion of those funds given back to the council to fund the regulation.
So said:
If I were you, I wouldn't rely to heavily upon that data. It is almost certainly manipulated to paint a picture of a PRS that desperately needs licensing.
I don't disagree the information has been chosen to support the argument, but it doesn't mean the reasoning doesn't exist.It was the figure of "1,135 prosecutions for housing crimes – 70% of all such prosecutions in London" that stood out to me.
It would seem unlikely that 70% of London's housing crime (whatever that is) is located in Newham.
So unless other councils have a different threshold for submitting "housing crime" for prosecution (and if so why?), it would seem logical that the only reason Newham is able to identify these crimes is the registration scheme.
However I agree there needs to be a better breakdown of what the 1,135 are made up of. I might just submit an FOI for fun.
Edited by PF62 on Monday 14th August 08:54
Darranu said:
It takes the piss.
I know a few who don't declare and as one who does its really annoying.
All local government would have to do is ask each tenant to register their LL's details and voila, a huge chuck will start to pay whats due.
I would have thought HMRC could find this out from letting agents. Letting agents submit list HMRC cross checks lists or is that too much like hard work? Not enough time left for them to send out fines if your a day late. I know a few who don't declare and as one who does its really annoying.
All local government would have to do is ask each tenant to register their LL's details and voila, a huge chuck will start to pay whats due.
I know a couple who don't declare or at least didn't as they didn't make any profit after paying the mortgage! Which indicates if they did complete a self assessment it would be wrong.
PF62 said:
It was the figure of "1,135 prosecutions for housing crimes – 70% of all such prosecutions in London" that stood out to me.
If it isn't simply entirely made up, it may well be the method of reporting. They may be counting prosecution for multiple offences as separate prosecutions.Until you've seen local authorities in action you really cannot appreciate just how disingenuous they can be about this sort of thing.
It would be interesting too, to have a better understanding of how well Newham performs with regard to its own housing stock.
So said:
glasgow mega snake said:
Seems to me to be a good argument for extending such licencing schemes across the whole U.K.
To be honest, it probably is a good idea. But it's not something that local authorities should be paid for. Basically, they take the money and then don't do their job. The additional cost is paid by tenants.So said:
BlackLabel said:
This would appear to be Newham trying to bribe the government to allow its landlord licencing cash cow a further lease of life. "Let us continue to receive licensing fees and we'll let you cross-check your tax records against our licensing records".ATG said:
So said:
glasgow mega snake said:
Seems to me to be a good argument for extending such licencing schemes across the whole U.K.
To be honest, it probably is a good idea. But it's not something that local authorities should be paid for. Basically, they take the money and then don't do their job. The additional cost is paid by tenants.This is all about improving housing standards (or at least the justification for licensing is) and within reason I am sure we are all agreed that that is a good idea. But in practice it doesn't happen.
A couple of years ago, we bought a property licensed by the local authority - it had been for 3.5 years. There were no closers on fire doors and no 30 minute fire-protected exit as required by law. The council had taken the fee but not done even a basic inspection.
The same local authority has recently announced that they want blanket licensing. But they have also admitted that they don't intend to inspect all properties. They also want to charge to licence new build properties, which comply with current regulations anyway.
Edited by So on Monday 14th August 09:19
So said:
ATG said:
So said:
glasgow mega snake said:
Seems to me to be a good argument for extending such licencing schemes across the whole U.K.
To be honest, it probably is a good idea. But it's not something that local authorities should be paid for. Basically, they take the money and then don't do their job. The additional cost is paid by tenants.This is all about improving housing standards and within reason I am sure we are all agreed that that is a good idea. But in practice it doesn't happen.
A couple of years ago, we bought a property licensed by the local authority. It had been for 3.5 years. There were no closers on fire doors, and no 30 minute fire-protected exit as required by law. The council had taken the fee but not done even a basic inspection.
The same local authority has recently announced that they want blanket licensing. But they have also admitted that they don't intend to inspect all properties. They also want to charge to license new build properties, which comply with current regulations anyway.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff