Fees to rise for some landlords in Newport

South Wales Argus: Fees to rise for some landlords in Newport Fees to rise for some landlords in Newport

NEWPORT Council is to put up the cost of licences for landlords with houses occupied by more than six people.

Currently, owners of so-called houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) with three or more people living in them pay £850 for their initial licence and £650 for a renewal – both discounted.

This will stay the same for landlords of homes with three to five occupants, but those with six or more will pay an extra £50 per occupant to a maximum of £1,500 for a new licence and £1,300 for a renewal.

A council report says the aim is to charge landlords a higher fee for larger properties to cover additional resources used by the council to license them.

In 2008 Newport introduced an additional licensing scheme which covered smaller HMOs including properties with three or more households as well as poorly converted self-contained flats. Since that scheme’s introduction, 252 properties have been improved, and by the end of March 2013 the council had 539 HMOs licensed.

Senior Tory Cllr David Fouweather called for the authority to take a proactive stance in dealing with landlords who fail to meet expected standards, and if necessary remove their license.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:31pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Bobevans says...

No wonder rents are high.. It sounds like a money making scam. The costs have little bearing on the number of people in the house and once the initial check is done renewals are pretty much a formality
No wonder rents are high.. It sounds like a money making scam. The costs have little bearing on the number of people in the house and once the initial check is done renewals are pretty much a formality Bobevans

7:57am Wed 1 Jan 14

Robodad says...

Bob, yet again you are talking through the top of your head. Of course the costs are linked to the number of occupants, the more occupants, the longer it takes to inspect, administer and monitor these properties. Fire is the biggest risk in shared properties and you are 10 times more likely to die in a fire in a HMO than in a single family dwelling, and that is with a good landlord and well maintained property. The council need to continuously monitor and inspect these properties for the safety of the occupants who are often vulnerable or young people living away from home for the first time. Please Bob, make your new years resolution to post only when you know what you are talking about.
Bob, yet again you are talking through the top of your head. Of course the costs are linked to the number of occupants, the more occupants, the longer it takes to inspect, administer and monitor these properties. Fire is the biggest risk in shared properties and you are 10 times more likely to die in a fire in a HMO than in a single family dwelling, and that is with a good landlord and well maintained property. The council need to continuously monitor and inspect these properties for the safety of the occupants who are often vulnerable or young people living away from home for the first time. Please Bob, make your new years resolution to post only when you know what you are talking about. Robodad

9:12am Wed 1 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

"A council report says the aim is to charge landlords a higher fee for larger properties to cover additional resources used by the council to license them"
Completely circular; it's just another tax which will be defrayed through higher rents. If the existing prospect of getting 12 years for manslaughter doesn't deter rogue landlords (this has always been the law regarding defective premises before the licensing rubbish introduced by the slow motion train crash 1997-2010) then will this extra layer of clerkery?
You better believe it won't. But it does enable, for example, Oxford City Council (the Kremlin) to pursue petty feuds against people its clerks don't like.
As for the post above-Robodad is clearly a council clerk. So how is he at his desk at 0757 on a Bank Holiday? Quadruple time and a day off in lieu? But isn't he supposed to be a polite clerk, not posting insults? what a strange world the creatures of the public sector inhabit.
"A council report says the aim is to charge landlords a higher fee for larger properties to cover additional resources used by the council to license them" Completely circular; it's just another tax which will be defrayed through higher rents. If the existing prospect of getting 12 years for manslaughter doesn't deter rogue landlords (this has always been the law regarding defective premises before the licensing rubbish introduced by the slow motion train crash 1997-2010) then will this extra layer of clerkery? You better believe it won't. But it does enable, for example, Oxford City Council (the Kremlin) to pursue petty feuds against people its clerks don't like. As for the post above-Robodad is clearly a council clerk. So how is he at his desk at 0757 on a Bank Holiday? Quadruple time and a day off in lieu? But isn't he supposed to be a polite clerk, not posting insults? what a strange world the creatures of the public sector inhabit. Dai Rear

11:42am Wed 1 Jan 14

Robodad says...

Dai, the problem with taking action for manslaughter (or any other retrospective action) is that it means that there has been a fatality, the licensing system is designed to take action and prevent these accidents.
Dai, the problem with taking action for manslaughter (or any other retrospective action) is that it means that there has been a fatality, the licensing system is designed to take action and prevent these accidents. Robodad

12:47pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Limestonecowboy says...

This argument to charge higher rent is nonsence private landlords can only charge rent appropriate to the area to remain marketable otherwise no tenants then no rent. Licensing schemes like this are all over the UK it about safety of the occupier bear in mid these type of premise provide accomodation at the affororable end for those on low wages, students, HB etc., so any promotion of standards must be a good thing.
This argument to charge higher rent is nonsence private landlords can only charge rent appropriate to the area to remain marketable otherwise no tenants then no rent. Licensing schemes like this are all over the UK it about safety of the occupier bear in mid these type of premise provide accomodation at the affororable end for those on low wages, students, HB etc., so any promotion of standards must be a good thing. Limestonecowboy

3:23pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

Robodad wrote:
Dai, the problem with taking action for manslaughter (or any other retrospective action) is that it means that there has been a fatality, the licensing system is designed to take action and prevent these accidents.
Indeed. like CRB checks-another bureaucratic nightmare of total pointlessness, not least because fingerprints are not taken and , would you believe, bad people have multiple identities.
I could set out a full argument about the pointlessness of licensing in general but it's New Year and there are better things to do.
Suffice to say, licensing is a lower middle class concept and bad people like landlords who are reckless (not accidentally, dad, for that wouldn't be manslaughter) are unimpressed by lower middle class thought processes.
And cowboy, dream on :HMO Tax will be passed on.
[quote][p][bold]Robodad[/bold] wrote: Dai, the problem with taking action for manslaughter (or any other retrospective action) is that it means that there has been a fatality, the licensing system is designed to take action and prevent these accidents.[/p][/quote]Indeed. like CRB checks-another bureaucratic nightmare of total pointlessness, not least because fingerprints are not taken and , would you believe, bad people have multiple identities. I could set out a full argument about the pointlessness of licensing in general but it's New Year and there are better things to do. Suffice to say, licensing is a lower middle class concept and bad people like landlords who are reckless (not accidentally, dad, for that wouldn't be manslaughter) are unimpressed by lower middle class thought processes. And cowboy, dream on :HMO Tax will be passed on. Dai Rear

4:36pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Robodad wrote:
Dai, the problem with taking action for manslaughter (or any other retrospective action) is that it means that there has been a fatality, the licensing system is designed to take action and prevent these accidents.
Indeed. like CRB checks-another bureaucratic nightmare of total pointlessness, not least because fingerprints are not taken and , would you believe, bad people have multiple identities.
I could set out a full argument about the pointlessness of licensing in general but it's New Year and there are better things to do.
Suffice to say, licensing is a lower middle class concept and bad people like landlords who are reckless (not accidentally, dad, for that wouldn't be manslaughter) are unimpressed by lower middle class thought processes.
And cowboy, dream on :HMO Tax will be passed on.
http://www.southwale
sargus.co.uk/news/10
905742.More_than_100
_kids_are_caught_wit
h_cannabis_in_Gwent

Join in Dai
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robodad[/bold] wrote: Dai, the problem with taking action for manslaughter (or any other retrospective action) is that it means that there has been a fatality, the licensing system is designed to take action and prevent these accidents.[/p][/quote]Indeed. like CRB checks-another bureaucratic nightmare of total pointlessness, not least because fingerprints are not taken and , would you believe, bad people have multiple identities. I could set out a full argument about the pointlessness of licensing in general but it's New Year and there are better things to do. Suffice to say, licensing is a lower middle class concept and bad people like landlords who are reckless (not accidentally, dad, for that wouldn't be manslaughter) are unimpressed by lower middle class thought processes. And cowboy, dream on :HMO Tax will be passed on.[/p][/quote]http://www.southwale sargus.co.uk/news/10 905742.More_than_100 _kids_are_caught_wit h_cannabis_in_Gwent Join in Dai Dr Martin

5:43pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Limestonecowboy says...

Its good business to re-coup additional costs & overheads but this can't be done by simply charging extra in monthly rent alone. Also take time out & Google 'Peter Rachman landlord' worth reading gives history why such legislation is required.

Many case are avaliable concerning manslaugter: 'Three-year sentence for landlord over fire death in HMO: a corporate manslaughter conviction was secured for the landlord of an HMO following the death in a fire of a tenant. The landlord has also been required to pay £55,000 .(Landmark Prosecution) Article from: 'Fire' October 1, 2004
Its good business to re-coup additional costs & overheads but this can't be done by simply charging extra in monthly rent alone. Also take time out & Google 'Peter Rachman landlord' worth reading gives history why such legislation is required. Many case are avaliable concerning manslaugter: 'Three-year sentence for landlord over fire death in HMO: a corporate manslaughter conviction was secured for the landlord of an HMO following the death in a fire of a tenant. The landlord has also been required to pay £55,000 .(Landmark Prosecution) Article from: 'Fire' October 1, 2004 Limestonecowboy

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree