Council and trading standards officials have told MPs that penalties for letting agents and landlords flouting the planned tenants’ fees ban should be higher.
Officials said they wanted rogue landlords and agents to see the fines as a deterrent, and also warned that they would need to be more substantial in order to fund the resources needed to enforce the rules.
The Draft Tenants’ Fees Bill proposes penalties of £5,000 for an initial breach of the ban and up to £30,000 for repeat offenders.
But the Communities and Local Government Committee heard evidence from council and Trading Standards officials yesterday, warning that some landlords just see the fines as an “occupational hazard”.
Alison Farrar, lead officer at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, who also sits on the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team (NTSEAT) at Powys County Council, said more resources were needed if the ban was to be properly enforced.
She said: “Fees need to be on a sliding scale and a reflection of how much consumer detriment there is.
“It would make sense to not start at too low a level.
“They need to be prohibitive enough to stop them from happening again.
“The penalties are not sufficient to cover the cost of the work but we also wouldn’t want Trading Standards to be accused of doing the work just to obtain money from the fines – that is not the reason we do it.
“There is also all the preventative work that is never accounted for. It is very expensive and the local authority cuts make it more and more difficult.”
She said it would be easier if the Bill introduced a lead authority combining estate and letting agents as there is overlap in their work.
Farrar added that this can’t currently happen as NTSEAT sits in Wales where a ban is being worked on separately.
MPs also heard from council officials including Andy Fisher, head of housing, health and communities at Boston Borough Council. He said a sliding framework would be more appropriate so local authorities could set their own level.
He also questioned whether local housing authorities were better placed to take charge of enforcement rather than Trading Standards as they work with agents more regularly.
MPs also asked whether councils had enough enforcement powers, but participants said it was having enough money and properly trained staff that was the bigger issue.
Cllr Clare Salier, cabinet member for housing at the London Borough of Wandsworth, said there were issues around tenants knowing what they were able to report but said officials have to look at how much they are getting back for the cost of carrying out prosecutions.
The Draft Tenants’ Fees Bill proposes penalties of £5,000 for an initial breach of the ban and up to £30,000 for repeat offenders.
But the Communities and Local Government Committee heard evidence from council and Trading Standards officials yesterday, warning that some landlords just see the fines as an “occupational hazard”.
I must be missing something because a £5000 fine for something that may have earned you £500 sounds a gamble not worth taking. Hardly qualifies as an occupational hazard.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Finally CONFIRMED councils use fines as an income stream. The level of fines proposed is high for the offense being targeted.
Like parking fines, licensing fees etc its all about generating a funding source for Local Authorities.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Council says ”
“There is also all the preventative work that is never accounted for. It is very expensive and the local authority cuts make it more and more difficult.”
Agent says ” welcome to our world”
Council says ” want more money ”
Agent says ” not more taxes and cuts to income please”
Council says ” we have our own pensions to pay, we spend so much of your money dont ya know?”
Agent says ” let me cover your never ending costs from my dwindling suply whilst I do the free right to rent checks for you”
another straw.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh look a group of people at the top who tax our salaries, tax every purchase we make and then collect council tax, but will ban agents from collecting funds for performing a service. They now have a group of people saying they need more funds in order to police and check agents arent flouting the ban on collecting funds; which agents are required to do in order to police and check tenants have a right to rent.
Checks agents must do and risk fines and imprisonment if they get it wrong because it would be too cumbersome and too expensive for the people at the top to have tighter processes in place in the first place.
What’s the word…..?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Here we go again!
The word Rogue is key in nearly every discussion on this subject!
A ROGUE agent/landlord is more likely to ask for a non-receipted cash incentive from applicants who are fighting to get in to one of the few remaining rental properties. In the same way a CRIMINAL will be the only one left holding a gun after an amnesty!
Less bureaucracy and more common sense please!
People’s livelihoods depend on you getting this right, although I don’t hold much hope!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
But I thought that any money raised from fines and prosecution go back into central government. Local authorities just do not have the appetite for investigating trading standard issues because even if they win, the money generated disappears, never to be seen again.
Nobody sensible agrees with the ban but when it comes in then I don’t see a problem with them setting the fine amount as high as they like. If it means trading standards get extra funding then that can only be a good thing. While they are at it they could even afford to have the ASA run by someone who knows their a**e from their elbow?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I think things have changed. Parking fines (or pcn’s to be precise) go to councils although they ALWAYS say there is no surplus and goes back into parking. Not that I personally believe the spin they put out. So it looks as if Trading Standard might benefit from the fine otherwise why would they be pushing for higher fines? Just a thought!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Attended a course on this the other day. The act is drafted for LA’s to keep penalties levied as a clear incentive for them to enforce the act.
Totally agree with earlier comment re: unscrupulous individuals taking unreceipted sums from the disadvantaged.
Only silver cloud is I suspect at least some agencies may decide Lettings is more trouble than it’s worth and drop out of the market.
Do I want some of their landlords that only want to pay 3 or 4% for full management though?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Penalty should fit the crime … not be used to implement the lack of resources to police. The basis of our judicial system is that the penalty should always fit the crime and to make changes as outlined above is abhorrent and criminal. You would have cases where criminals committing serious crimes, receive less punishment.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register