Advanced search

Tories reject move to ensure rented homes are fit for human habitation

(38 Posts)
evilcherub Wed 13-Jan-16 17:42:23

I have just seen this in the Guardian;

I am sure IANBU in thinking this is disgraceful and Dickensian when it comes to housing? We are in 2016 yet Feudalism is returning.

Well, at least they are living up to their "nasty party" moniker.

RookieMonster Wed 13-Jan-16 17:48:18

Awesome. I'm dealing with mould issues currently and am ever so happy to read this. Hoping my l/l doesnt read it though.

VikingVolva Wed 13-Jan-16 17:50:05

Local authorities already have fairly extensive powers (though of course there's variation in his effectively they implement them).

Did the proposed amendment actually add anything to what is already regulated?

Because all this seems to me a bit like point scoring in Westminster. Rather than finding ways to make all councils do their job as well as the best ones do.

Snozberry Wed 13-Jan-16 17:50:06

I'm not surprised because they don't have a clue what it's like and they don't give a shit.

evilcherub Wed 13-Jan-16 17:58:51

Viking - local authorities don't have the money or the people to go after most rogue landlords so they get away with it. Aided and abetted by the Tories who seem to want to punish anyone who is not a homeowner or landlord.

ChatShitGetBanged Wed 13-Jan-16 18:00:02

posted about this on my fb earlier! disgusting! So now rental homes don't actually have to be safe or fit for human habitation. Heard it all now.

unlucky enough to be in private rented? well tough shit thats your fault! you obvs arent working hard enough to be mortgage slaves! you peasants have just got to put up and shut up.

i jest but Think we've already gone back to the Victorian era in just a few short months of the tories

rachmanism springs to mind

fucking absolute shower of cunts

VikingVolva Wed 13-Jan-16 18:02:26

Some councils certainly manage it better than others (and all councils are facing those resource squeezes). Not all are Tory-run.

But this amendment doesn't appear to make any actual difference on what landlords should be doing, nor when they could be prosecuted for not doing it.

carltonscroop Wed 13-Jan-16 18:04:24

"So now rental homes don't actually have to be safe or fit for human habitation. Heard it all now."

That's a garble. Existing law still applies.

The 'fit for human habitation' is a great headline, but isn't changing the existing requirements.

Osolea Wed 13-Jan-16 18:19:41

Hang on a minute, I might be missing something here and trying to do too many things at once, but I've just read that article, then clicked on the first link in it, and it appears to me that what they have rejected includes extending the right to buy to housing association tenants and a 'pay to stay' charge for people who earn over 30k.

It looks like in one article the guardian is complaining about the bill even existing, and in the next complaining about it being rejected.

Am I being seriously thick or is the guardian?

SkiptonLass2 Wed 13-Jan-16 18:40:19

The guardian is. I consider myself pretty left wing but I can barely bring myself to read it these days.

evilcherub Wed 13-Jan-16 18:48:05

How is the Guardian wrong? Should people really have to live like animals in this day and age? I think it's disgraceful. Sure, local authorities have some powers but how is making tenants lives a little bit less stressful something to be rejected because it might cost the landlord a little bit more money!? Not surprising that many Tory MPs (and Labour ones) are landlords.

HelenaDove Thu 14-Jan-16 02:04:07

Well this place is run by an HA NOT a private landlord.

Katenka Thu 14-Jan-16 07:18:40

I got the same impression as Osolea it's seems they were moaning about it not helping people, then moaning the Tories didn't vote it in.

RubbishRobotFromTheDawnOfTime Thu 14-Jan-16 07:36:04


To say the Tories rejected the amendment because they want poor people to live like animals is ridiculous. This is the Tory quote from the article you linked:

"The local government minister, Marcus Jones, said Pearce’s proposal would result in “unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords” that would deter further investment and push up rents for tenants."

He said: “Of course we believe that all homes should be of a decent standard and all tenants should have a safe place to live regardless of tenure, but local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor quality and safe accommodation and we expect them to use them.”

The Tories actually brought in measures that work against BTL landlords in the last budget, btw.

knobblyknee Thu 14-Jan-16 07:48:25

The Tories weakened legislation that enabled local councils to deal with empty properties,. so why are we surprised?

The Tories were responsible for this mess in the first place by selling off Council homes and preventing councils from using the money in the remaining homes.

Since then, billions in CHB has gone out to private landlords.
It used to go from one department to another. Now it goes to someones pocket.

OTheHugeManatee Thu 14-Jan-16 07:52:10

I'm not going to get outraged about this without seeing what the amendments actually were. They could have been excessive red tape whose only consequence would have been to snarl up the rental market and push prices up for renters. You don' know and you can be sure the Graun won't tell you as their only concern is to make the Tories look mean and howwid.

This sort of stuff is bread and butter Opposition politics. The government tables a Bill. Opposition proposes amendments that sound great in an ideal world and can be spun to make the Opposition look ever so virtuous, but are practically unworkable or would obviously have unintended consequences. Then when the Government rejects them, you make loads of noise in partisan newspapers about how they are against the nice things the amendments supposedly aimed to achieve and how mean and uncaring that obviously means they are. Hey presto! Your opponents look like dicks, at least to the people who swallow this sort of spin uncritically without ever wanting to judge the actual amendments being debated.

Shame on the Guardian for regurgitating this fact-free drivel. And shame on you, OP, for your inability to read critically and for just swallowing wholesale 'news' that confirms your existing prejudices hmm

redhat Thu 14-Jan-16 07:56:10

Yes at least take the time to read the information before ranting about it.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude Thu 14-Jan-16 09:41:18

Councils already have substantial powers to deal with substandard rented property
"An environmental health inspection should identify the cause of health and safety problems in your home.

Contact the environmental health team at your local council. The team may be part of another section like housing standards or housing advice.

Use's search to find details of your local council.

There may be a reporting form on your council's website. Or you may find contact details of the department you can write to, phone or email.

It is usually best to tell your landlord about problems with the condition of your home before contacting the council. Your landlord might fix the problem.

What environmental health can do

If you are a private renter or are a housing association tenant and there's a risk to your health or safety in the home, the council can decide to:
order your landlord to carry out repairs or improvements – they'll serve your landlord with an improvement notice
do the repairs itself and charge your landlord for the work

When conditions are very bad, the council can:
make a prohibition order – this restricts access to all or part of your home or restricts the number of people who can live there
order the demolition of the property

In less serious cases, the council can serve a hazard notice to make your landlord aware of the problem.

If you are a council tenant, an enviromental health report can be useful to let your housing department know what work is needed to make your home safe."

So what did this amendment add?

I really really hate these threads where the poster gets wound up about a situation without doing the most basic research.

LittleBearPad Thu 14-Jan-16 09:49:02

It's good not to just read one side of the argument or the headlines in a biased newspaper before making your mind up.

Catphrase Thu 14-Jan-16 10:01:03

The government can't do too much to landlords as a lot of them are housing people that should be in council /social houses. But they sold them off and there aren't enough

WillBeatJanuaryBlues Thu 14-Jan-16 10:39:52

Well, at least they are living up to their "nasty party" moniker

hmm and a decade of Labour party rule did what exactly, when no landlords were ever punished for a range of disgraceful Dickensian behaviour and garden shed dwellings thrived all over slough and other inner city suburbs???

I agree with your point op and bringing ALL lodgings up to a livable humane damp/mold free standard is a big thing for me. I think its disgraceful people make money out of letting hell holes to poor people.

There should be basic standards, time lines to do work where necessary then swift punitive measures taken in courts, without fuss. It should be slick then landlords WONT DO IT.

But its not a labour versus conservative thing. Labour did nothing.

WillBeatJanuaryBlues Thu 14-Jan-16 10:42:18


I have personal experience of how bad councils can be with all the evidence laid out before them, on moving on poor dwellings.

Its not a priority they drag their feet and find every reason not to do something and there is no punishment for the landlords even in cases where its screamingly obv they are taking the piss.
There needs to be bottom line clear rules and standards, one week. two week etc time lines to sort things out, and then - court - or fines.

eloquent Thu 14-Jan-16 10:48:15

Environmental health is bullshit. They don'y have any real powers to do anything. At the very least, my local one doesn't.
They just extended the deadline over and over that the ll had to complete the work needed.

Janeymoo50 Thu 14-Jan-16 10:52:49

Yep, any excuse for another Tory bashing thread without getting the facts right I see.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude Thu 14-Jan-16 10:56:52

I don't doubt that the Councils are rubbish at dealing with landlords but the issue is with the Councils not using the powers they already have rather than a lack of powers to act. Changing the law again won't change anything if the councils aren't taking enforcement action with the powers they already have.

I do agree that part of the issue is that the Councils don't have alternative accomodation to offer people and budget cuts are also a major issue.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: