Bristol City Council’s recently approved licensing schemes for rented homes have ignited a storm of criticism from landlords who argue that the measures are unjust and financially burdensome, as reported by Bristol Live.
The council contends that the newly endorsed schemes, aimed at enhancing living standards for renters, will enforce specific criteria and ensure efficient property management. Targeting houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) throughout the city and privately rented homes in four wards with high rental proportions, the fees for licensing range from £912 to £1,800. The collected funds are intended to support the council’s inspection and enforcement activities.
Despite the council’s intentions, numerous landlords oppose the schemes, claiming they will impose additional costs that may lead to increased rents, a diminished housing supply, and reduced affordability for tenants. Critics argue that the initiatives are redundant and ineffective, penalizing compliant landlords while failing to address rogue ones.
Comments made by landlords during a public consultation on the schemes were disclosed, revealing objections such as ‘a waste of time,’ ‘completely anti-landlord,’ and ‘bureaucratic overkill.’
A council report also included feedback from Safeagent, which argued that the proposed fee was disproportionate to the scheme’s implementation cost. Safeagent stated that the fee could generate revenue beyond the cost of implementation, raising concerns that Bristol City Council might be perceived as penalizing compliant landlords to subsidize its enforcement obligations.
Councillors also received a submission from corporate landlord Grainger, expressing dissatisfaction with the licensing schemes. Grainger highlighted the lack of formal checks and inspections by local authorities, emphasizing the significant impact of escalating licensing costs on project viability and housing delivery.
During a cabinet meeting, Labour Councillor Kye Dudd, cabinet member for housing services and energy, defended the schemes, stating, “We’re delivering on our manifesto commitment to expand landlord licensing schemes in the city.” However, there was a correction from deputy mayor Craig Cheney, who clarified that the objective was to “drive up standards” rather than revenue, a correction that Councillor Dudd acknowledged.
NetRent Comment
All over the country landlords are being hit by expensive and largely useless licencing schemes. Local authorities claim that they will weed out the so-called rogue landlords and provide more and better housing for tenants.
There are currently around 200 pieces of legislation that local authorities can use to tackle bad landlords. Why aren’t they using that legislation?
Landlords are in business so they will pass on increased costs to tenants – including the cost of licensing.
These schemes do not bring landlords and agents together, they rarely, if ever stop ‘rogue’ landlords. They are unwieldly and hugely time consuming for everyone involved and crucially they are designed to target landlords. The net effect is to drive landlords out of the sector, which is substantially to blame for the lack of private rented accommodation.
In short it is the politics of stupidity, because let’s face it that’s all these schemes are – politics. It’s local authorities saying ‘look at us, we’re doing something to tackle bad housing’ when in reality they do nothing and bad housing continues.
In Bristol, as elsewhere, it will be tenants that pay through less choice and higher rents, the very tenants that elected these councillors believing their manifesto that more licensing equals better rental housing. It does not and will not ever because the concept is fundamentally flawed to the point of just being plain wrong.