Burnley Council has announced plans to extend two extend two selective licensing schemes for private landlords.
The existing schemes in Burnley Wood and Healey Wood and the Leyland Road area of Burnley are due to come to an end in November.
The borough council will now consult on whether to continue selective licensing schemes in the two areas for further five years.
A report to Burnley Council’s Executive last week recommends public consultation as part of evidence gathering before a final decision later this year.
The council has been operating selective licensing since October 2008, with a view to supporting landlords and tenants, improving housing management in the PRS, and of course, earning extra funds – the licenses are not free.
The report says the PRS in Burnley Wood and Healey Wood have seen improvements in the five years the local authority has been operating the licenses, including a drop in the number of housing disrepair complaints received by the council.
If the report is approved, an 11-week public consultation would start on 9 August.
Cllr John Harbour, executive member for housing, commented: “Selective licensing has been effective in improving certain areas of our borough and tenants, landlords and the wider communities have all benefited from the initiative.
“It’s now time to consider whether selective licensing should continue in these areas and we want to hear from all those affected so we can make an informed decision.”
Money money money must be funny in a council’s world.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Another go at the PRS. In my area the landlord with some of the worst properties where repairs are neglected is the local authority. Got damp? They send a tin of damp proof paint and a brush around for tenants to sort it themselves. How do licensing schemes benefit anybody? Decent landlords will pay up and have to pass the cost on to tenants. The off the radar rogue landlords who don’t give tenancy agreements will not join the scheme and councils will not find them. If their tenants complain they come home to find all their stuff on the street and the locks changed. The tenants don’t dare complain as they rather like their kneecaps!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This country is being led into becoming a communist state and we are allowing it, why?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Communism starts with attacks on property rights. Something that started with the ridiculous Labour Party who believe that all property is theft. We now have the even more ridiculous situation of the Tories adopting Communist policies preventing private LL from gaining repossession of their properties from feckless rent defaulting tenants. This because the Tories didn’t have any alternative housing other than forcing private LL to house rent defaulting tenants for free by preventing LL from evicting. Eviction being the only way to gain possession as few if any tenants vacated at the expiration of a S21 notice. We now have Communism as Tory Party policy by stripping LL of their property rights. Seriously why would private individuals accept their capital being used effectively for free by the State in the absence of State facilities!? The Tories are doing so because they know electorally they couldn’t have millions of feckless rent defaulting tenants homeless. They also couldn’t allow landlords the possibility of not being put out of business. S24 started the process. The Tories were hardly going to fund circumstances which meant they could keep LL in business. LL need to realise that Govt intends to utilise their assets for free to house the feckless. Whether LL can afford to do this is another matter! Whether they want to afford to do this is again another matter! But make no mistake Govt intends to strip LL of their property rights whenever they choose to. Fortunately this doesn’t apply in cases of lodgers. Perhaps LL should have multiple homes with single unrelated lodgers. Then no possibility of Govt being able to interfere with the rights of a homeowner no matter how many homes they have of removing rent defaulting lodgers. Most LL would be able to convert to residential homes if they sell their BTL properties. Yes it would reduce the number of properties but with lodgers they wouldn’t face their property rights being stripped from them as it is tenants that the Govt seeks to protect. All a live-in LL has to do is ensure they are at the property when a lodger agreement is signed. Plus ensure they attend the property once per month.
There is always something for a live-in LL to do at one of their homes.
Even if it is just collecting mail.
There is NO requirement for a bedroom to be vacant. This is about the only way to prevent Govt from robbing LL of rental income.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register