Private Sector Chief Blasts Social Landlords Over Penalties

The rising popularity of serviced apartments attracts guests seeking hotel-like comforts while maintaining their privacy. To stand out among the competition and increase profitability, it’s crucial to enhance your marketing strategies for your multiple properties in town.

A landlord law expert has voiced criticism against four social housing providers for avoiding serious financial penalties while imposing hefty fines on private landlords. The criticism highlights a perceived inconsistency in how financial penalties are applied across different sectors of housing.

Phil Turtle, director of compliance services at Landlord Licensing & Defence, has reacted to recent judgments issued by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH). These judgments pertain to four specific social housing providers: Brighton and Hove City Council, London Borough of Hackney, South Derbyshire District Council, and Ashford Borough Council.

Turtle’s concerns revolve around the fact that these social housing providers have managed to avoid substantial financial repercussions despite their actions. In contrast, private landlords are facing significant fines, which raises questions about fairness and accountability within the sector.

The criticism underscores a growing debate over the enforcement of housing regulations and the need for a more balanced approach to penalty application. Turtle’s response reflects ongoing issues in the regulatory framework and the impact of these disparities on the broader housing landscape.

All four councils were given a C3 rating, indicating serious issues and a need for major improvements. The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) investigation uncovered what Phil Turtle describes as ‘alarming safety breaches,’ including:

Brighton and Hove City Council had significant issues with electrical safety in approximately 3,600 homes, lacked fire safety measures in 1,700 properties, and faced a repair backlog of 8,000 cases.
London Borough of Hackney was found to have over 15,000 homes without valid electrical safety certificates, nearly 9,000 homes without smoke detectors, and more than 400 homes lacking carbon monoxide detectors. The council also reported over 1,400 cases of damp and mould.
South Derbyshire District Council showed deficiencies in fire risk assessments and electrical safety, with over 100 homes needing repairs due to inadequate certificates.
Ashford Borough Council had severe lapses in health and safety, including overdue electrical checks, incomplete fire safety measures, and missing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in some of its 4,800 homes.

The regulator stated: “We are not planning to use our enforcement powers at this time but will monitor the situation as Brighton and Hove City Council works to address these issues.”

Phil Turtle, director of compliance services at Landlord Licensing & Defence, expressed his confusion over the regulator’s approach. He believes that the lenient treatment of councils is inconsistent compared to the strict actions taken against private landlords.

Turtle argues that if the issues identified were related to private landlords, enforcement would have been immediate and severe. He highlights a disparity in how councils and private landlords are treated under similar circumstances.

He comments, “Councils are once again receiving minimal consequences for housing failures, whereas a private landlord would face substantial fines for similar issues.” Turtle’s remarks reflect a broader concern about fairness and accountability in housing regulation.

The criticism points to a perceived inconsistency in regulatory practices, where councils might avoid the same level of scrutiny and penalties that private landlords face.

Fines for not having an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) can reach up to £30,000. The same maximum fine applies for inadequate fire alarms or precautions, and another £30,000 for issues with damp and mould.

If these issues were found in a private landlord’s property, the fines could total nearly £100,000 per property, given that private landlords are expected to adhere to high standards.

However, councils that impose these fines often face much less severe consequences. They receive a warning and are given time to address the problems, leaving tenants in potentially dangerous conditions.

This situation is viewed as unfair, with some critics arguing that it borders on corrupt. Councils that levy fines against private landlords for these issues are not held to the same standard and face minimal penalties themselves.