The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Rigged Housing Market. (642)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Minister of State for Immigration / Chair of Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 642.

642. The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Rigged Housing Market.

Dear Mr Clark, Brandon Lewis and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

On the 13th August 2017 the Guardian's Patrick Collinson wrote. 

"HMRC's Let Property campaign was launched in 2014 amid concerns that up to 1m buy-to-let landlords are not declaring their rental income."

(www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/13/half-of-landlords-in-one-london-borough-fail-to-declare-rental-income.)

That 1m buy-to-let landlords, in this most extraordinary of times, aren't declaring their rental incomes, is extraordinary and the loss of revenue to the Treasury must be eye-watering. 

Even more amazing, is his revelation that, 

"Newham's battling with the Department of Communities and Local Government to have its licensing scheme renewed following a clampdown by the government, which said licensing, 'imposed additional costs' on landlords."

Q. Mr Clark, for 3 years 3 million buy-to-let landlords haven't been declaring their rental income because apart from those in Newham they're unregulated and unlicensed which is highly convenient for them.  Amazingly, the Department of Communities and Local Government's principal concern has been not to impose, "additional costs" on tax-dodging landlords. Isn't this a complete failure of government to set and collect taxes?

Mr Lewis, we see that you wrote to local authorities in March 2015 saying,

"The blanket licensing approach adopted by some local authorities has major drawbacks. This is because it impacts on all landlords and places additional burdens on reputable landlords who are fully compliant with their obligations, thereby creating additional unnecessary costs for reputable landlords which are generally passed on to tenants through higher rents."

Q. Mr Lewis, how do tenants now if their landlord is reputable or not when there is no information made available for them to make that judgement?

Q. Mr Lewis,  Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Association once claimed to be a reputable landlord. In light of their appalling failings do you still maintain that a Klondikeworld of unlicensed and unregulated landlords is still a good idea?

You went on to say,

"The vast majority of landlords provide a good service and the government does not believe it is right to impose unnecessary additional costs or their tenants. Such an approach is disproportionate and unfairly penalises good landlords."

Newham Council discovered there were 50.000 rental properties and 27.000 separate landlords.

Q. Mr Lewis, how can you know if those 27.000 landlords are, "good landlords" when you don't even know they are landlords in the first place?

Q. Mr Lewis, what would those disproportionate, "additional costs" cost?

Q. Mr Lewis, hasn't the scandalous shortage of quality rented accommodation in this country led to exorbitant rents and aren't those rents, "disproportionate?"

Q. Mr Lewis, surely the revenue collected from those thousands and thousands of unknown and unlicensed landlords could pay for the additional costs that are such an apparent burden for your, "good landlords?"

Q. Mr Lewis, you need a licence to drive a car so why don't you need a licence house people in your property?

 

It seems not all of Newham's unknown landlords were providing that excellent service to which you allude.

The Council banned 28 of them, issued 2170 notices to improve and prosecuted 1135 for housing crimes and that's in just one London borough.

Q. Mr Lewis, isn't the figure of 1135 landlords prosecuted for housing crimes, "disproportionate?"

Q. Mr Lewis, isn't there a state of virtual anarchy in the UK housing market and don't many of its problems originate in the RICS apparent inability to prevent its surveyors from developing practices that do not work in the customer's interest. If RICS the regulator doesn't actually regulate what message does that send to those seeking to expand their property portfolios?

We have a poorly regulated housing market in which powerful vested interests bankroll private so-called, "redress schemes."

Two such schemes, Ombudsman Services:Property and TPOS, "resolved" 3163 property disputes between them in 2016. Ombudsman Services:Property handled 1166 and TPOS 1997.

When you consider that Newham Council alone, "resolved" 3333 (28, 2170, 1135) then something is going drastically wrong nationwide.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, at TPOS rewards were up 36% in 2016 and their average lettings award was £531. Why was yours only 50 quid?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is it because the RICS have a Memorandum of Understanding with you and closely monitor your performance in setting disputes to their satisfaction?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is a 50 quid, "award" not disproportionate for a complex and costly property dispute?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, don't the derisory and disproportionate 50 quid awards handed to complainants by your ombudsman go a long way in explaining why so many of them are dissatisfied with your, "best efforts?"

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock number - 501458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:

- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Grant Schapps, Jonathan May, Francis Maude, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Shand Smith, Prof. Dame Janet Finch, The Independent Assessor, Jo Swinson, Steven Gould, Walter Merricks, Dame Julie Mellor, Sajid Javid, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Mr Clark.

- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS in the effective resolution of disputes.

- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and the executives' maladministration.

- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and, "independent" redress scheme free from RICS' influence.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at; www.blogspot.com - ombudsmans61percent and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.