Nearly 60% of landlords are either against or not convinced by the Government’s plans to bring in mandatory membership of an ombudsman for all landlords in England, it has been revealed.
The proposals, which are within the Renters (Reform) Bill passing through parliament, aim to ensure disputes between private renters and landlords are settled impartially, quickly, at a low cost and without going to court.
Mortgage broker Landbay canvassed 1,100 landlords and found that while almost half of them were unsure whether the ombudsman was a good idea and would like more information about it, 10% were against it and 42% agreed the proposal was a good idea.
Impartial
Those landlords who were supportive of an ombudsman were keen to point out that it must be impartial and offer timely resolution of disputes rather than lengthy court cases.
But those against the service said they thought it would ‘always side with the tenant and it was just a money-making scheme’ and that if it were run by Government would just be ‘another layer of bureaucracy’.
Indications are that, like the ombudsman schemes that help letting agents and their customers resolve disputes, it would be run by a third party outside Whitehall.
Paul Brett (pictured), MD of intermediaries at Landbay commented: “Our survey found uncertainty around the idea of a Private Rented Sector ombudsman.
“On the positive side, it would be good if disputes could be quickly resolved without having to go to court, but there is some scepticism as to how quick this would be. It appears that more information is needed before such as scheme is created.”
Clarification needed
Sean Hooker (pictured), who heads up existing industry redress scheme the PRS, tells LandlordZONE that the Landbay report is another indication that the details of the proposal in the bill need to be clarified and the benefits of redress promoted to landlords.
He says the sector needs to know how the “ombudsman will be delivered, by whom and when”. “The delays in moving the bill forward will only lead to more uncertainty so urgency after the summer is needed to progress things. What is encouraging however is four out of ten landlords welcome the proposal and only one in ten is totally against,” he adds.
More Gravey trains paid for by the poor landlords, no wonder we’re all selling up, just what they want seeing as they’ve just obliterated capital gains tax relief (no one seems to be mentioning this, suspiciously intuitive of government tax planning, or in other words, stealing my pension).
The PRS is going to be a thing of the past soon with people living in these purpose built blocks ran by the establishment, just read 1984, it’s so comparable it’s scary!!!!!!!
The Public Sector Housing Ombudsman has had a child die in a public sector property under his watch, a political opportunist who uncoincidentally believes that adult residents can avoid responsibility for making sure their property remains safe, with regard to excessive humidity and condensation mould.
My exit strategy from the private rental sector will hopefully make sure that I’m walking out the door before this clown pushes his way in.
You only have to consider how deposit adjudication invariably goes in favour of the tenant and where awards are nade against the tenant they are derisory.
How much will the costs be!?
A tenant can make any spurious complaint.
For every complaint win or lose I’m sure the LL will be required to pay fees.
Just more ridiculous legislation that will continue to drive LL out of business.
Eventually there will be all encompassing legislation that gives fantastic protections to tenants.
The only problem with that is there won’t be any long-term letting properties remaining!!!
Of course landlords are worries about having an ombudsman. Makes it easier for your unhinged readers to be held accountable for their slum landlord behavour.
A ridiculous comment.
All those on this site aren’t the slum LL.
Those of that type that do exist certainly DONT bother engaging with this site.
Unfortunately Councils REFUSE to enforce existing regulations which leaves rogue LL operating at will.
It us you who us unhinged with your bizarre comments.
Local councils can’t refuse to enforce existing regulation as it’s a mandatory duty. The biggest issue is unknowledgeable housing officers who don’t have enough experience to deal with issues properly and expediently and also at the moment there is a nationwide lack of officers
My local council refused to even investigate when I complained to them about being illegally evicted by slumdog rogue landlords… Didn’t even return my calls or messages. And the LGSCO wasn’t any help either, so I don’t believe bringing in another overseer will improve matters… The best outcome I can see is for tenants to buy the property they’re currently renting from all these exiting landlords… That way there will be no landlords left to regulate, saving the taxpayer millions.
I suggest you watch this video… It might give you a better insight into why tenants will be increasingly homeless in the not too distant future.
In this video that has just been posted (06/08/2023) James Shack a financial advisor goes through the numbers of a client’s situation as it was in 2017 and how it is today. (They have a couple of BTL’s only so will be very interesting to lots of people who post on here)
It’s a definitive breakdown of the finances relating to BTL. It is equally useful to TENANTS that post on here as it is to INVESTORS in understanding the state of the BTL market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtVk3ERt66w
You really are an idiot. How many slum landlords do you know. With current laws it’s impossible unless the LL is working below the radar. LL are conducting a business
. If you work, I guess you think all bosses are grasping slave drivers. If you don’t work, get a job.
Still plenty of landlords “below the radar”… Or at least sufficiently so to appear to be legit but still guilty of repeated offences.
So true!
Interesting comment about Councils not enforcing existing legislation…is true..they sort of seem to keep out of it..but renting is a public service to a member of the public. even if classified as private
What way do they keep out of it? Perhaps they don’t have regulatory powers for what you believe they are keeping out of or, their particular council has a specific policy for certain actions
My local council failed to take action over an illegal eviction, eventually citing lack of resources… Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found several failings but still recommended no action be taken simply due to the length of time that had passed (around 12 months between eviction and escalating unsatisfactory council response to Ombudsman, entirely due to the councils lacklustre attention to this matter), and trips was despite these rogue landlords having committed previous offences and the law (Protection from Eviction Act) and the council’s own policies stating action should and would be taken, however apparently there is no “duty” for the council, only the “power”, which with more and more taxpayer and public funds being pushed into private pockets, they’re less likely to exercise those powers…🤷♂️
The only thing an Ombudsman will adjudicate on will be the Deposit. Even if a Landlord ‘wins’ in a rent arrears case they will never see the money owed! It’s ALL weighted heavily in favour of the Tenants- btw do Tenants have to pay to register with the Ombudsman too?
The only thing an Ombudsman will adjudicate on will be the Deposit. Even if a Landlord ‘wins’ in a rent arrears case they will never see the money owed! It’s ALL weighted heavily in favour of the Tenants- btw do Tenants have to pay to register with the Ombudsman too or is that going to be just for a Landlord to pay?
John if this comes in it will be added to the rent so tenants WILL pay. It’s crazy silly. Like woke everyone wants to control you life your business your world and your mind! Then surprise surprise they don’t like paying more rent to fund all the parasitic hangers on. These people are surprised ( but never mention the real reason when the woke BBC report) when rents rise and supply falls and then they seem surprised. Perhaps an “o” level in basic economics might help them, if they are capable of achieving it, so as to report sensibly and accurately. It should be part their minimum education requirement.
Will this bloody nonsense ever end! Ombudsmen Departments are just a way of paying loads of drones who sit about, drink coffee and have meetings about meetings.
I predicted several years ago that eventually there will be Mandatory Five yearly Landlord Psychological Assessments – it was a joke…
Or – Never a truer word said in jest.
You need to cease predicting….LOL BTW.
FOS (Financial Ombudsman Scheme) works like this for insurance companies.
Policyholder has a dispute which cannot be resolved so goes to FOS.
Insurance company pays £750 (First 5 disputes per company per calendar year are free however.)
The £750 is WIN, LOSE or DRAW
Mischievous policyholders can therefore blackmail insurance company for a quick £600
So who’s going to pay for the LOS? It won’t be the tenant!
Nah, The ‘pool of trust ‘ is bone dry. It’s just not worth staying on to be abused and saddled with still more ‘red tape’ . This has gone on too long. Let them do the housing.
I suspect the scheme will work like this: There is a dispute. There will be a lot of evidence to produce with the onus of proof being on the landlord. If the tenant wins, the landlord will comply with the ruling or be heavily fined. If the tenant wins, he/she will not comply with the ruling and the landlord will have to grin and bear it or spend a lot of money taking it to court, eventually getting a hearing, eventually winning a court order, which the tenant will ignore. The landlord will then have to grin and bear it or use S8 to evict (as S21 will no longer be allowed). This will involve a lot of admin and cost for the landlord, probably with the tenant deciding not to bother paying the rent), and months of waiting for a hearing by a judge, who is bound to throw out the case unless every legal nicety has been covered perfectly – any admin error will result in a ‘computer says no’ response. Am I being unfairly sceptical?