Qty of showers, cookers and hobs in a 6 bed HMO.

[SimonH2]

probably not a tumble dryer because its not required to have one in the property.

Well if you want a big damp and mould problem then carry on mate
If you don't have a tumble dryer, then washing will get dried in the property - mostly on radiators. To see what this means, try weighing you next load of washing - before you put it in the washer, and again when it comes out after the spin cycle. The difference is the water left in the washing - and near enough 1kg = 1litre of water. When (not if, when) that washing is put on radiators or drier racks then all that water ends up in the property.

So fine, don't provide a drier - but expect complaints about damp and mould within a few weeks. I can tell you from first hand experience, some people really have no clue, and when the mould appears it will not be anything to do with them, it'll be your building that's faulty.

 

[DaveHerns]

When the tenants complain , kick them out ! Like the sort of place you see on the "rogue landlords" show on TV. Maybe they'll have day and night shifts using the beds, seems a waste not to use the facilities 24/7.

 

[SimonH2]

Am I the only one reading this thread and thinking the OP is looking to provide the minimum he can get away with, rather than the best accommodation practical ?

 

[flameport]

Very likely. OP probably believes that buying a wreck of a property, doing the absolute minimum to it and renting it out as a part time on the side thing is a sure way to make loads of money really quickly for no effort.

Meanwhile in the real world...

 

[endecotp]

i think he's giving every room an en-suite bathroom. So it seems, in some respects, that he's aiming for a "quality" property.

But tennants who are prepared to pay for a "quality" property will be unimpressed if other aspects of the conversion have been done on the cheap, and go somewhere else. Getting this balance right must be a key to property development.

Regarding recent postings, I suspect it will be the second batch of tennants who will be difficult to entice when they see lovely en-suite bathrooms, but patches of mould on the bedroom ceilings!

 

[Iggifer]

Regarding recent postings, I suspect it will be the second batch of tennants who will be difficult to entice when they see lovely en-suite bathrooms, but patches of mould on the bedroom ceilings!

There won't be any mould in the en-suites because nobody will be able to have a hot shower!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Am I the only one reading this thread and thinking the OP is looking to provide the minimum he can get away with, rather than the best accommodation practical ?

No.

Although actually I think he is looking to provide what he thinks is the minimum, but what will turn out to be not enough to get away with.

 

[SimonH2]

And another thought comes to mind ...
I wonder if he has planning permission for the change of use ? There was a change in planning law recently to make HMO a separate class of use, I suspect not a lot of people know that.

And there can be significant penalties for getting it wrong (though I have to say, some of these really deserved all they got IMO) :
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/60000-fine-couple-breaching-hmo-rules
http://www.frmjournal.com/news/news...nd-illegal-hmo-fines-for-luton-landlords.html

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/agent-landlord-hit-huge-bill-illegal-hmo/
In this one, note "not have planning permission to turn into an HMO"

 

[DaveHerns]

I feel sorry for the people who have to live in these sorts of premises. Like the human equivalent of battery chickens , only there to make money for the owner

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Again, all of these stories show that the penalties are nowhere near severe enough. We cannot afford 100% effective detection, but what we can do is to make the penalties if caught so horrific that nobody would dare take the risk.

£1,500 for being found guilty a third time? If the first offence was £15,000, the second £150,000, and the third £1.5M then do we think that chancer would have carried on chancing it?

£60,000 for breaking a prohibition order (i.e. for doing something which they had already been ordered by a court not to do)? Why not £6M? Why not destroy their financial wellbeing for the rest of their lives? They knew they shouldn't do it, theirs was not a crime born out of desperation etc, it was cynically and knowingly done for reasons of greed.

£16,000 owed in council tax? That's not because they have fallen on hard times and can't afford it, it's a deliberate move to make more money. Just confiscate the property, use their other assets to pay for it to be made into a fit state, and add it to the public housing stock.

I feel sorry for the people who have to live in these sorts of premises. Like the human equivalent of battery chickens , only there to make money for the owner

If they knew that if they were caught and found guilty their lives would be destroyed for ever, they would be a lot less interested in making money with so may risks attached to it.

 

[SimonH2]

FWIW, the majority of landlords are all for better enforcement. Higher penalties are great - provided there is allowance for those who inadvertently break the rules - as you say, these were not first offences. A lot of the crap we've been getting loaded with lately is along the lines of "this is already illegal, but it's not being enforced, lets load on another layer that will only penalise the law abiding landlords and be ignored by the criminals who ignored the existing regulations".

And lets not forget that some of these are subjective issues. There are guidelines, but at the end of the day some cases will come down to judgement. A landlord in Oxford has recently won a case against the local council in such a case. The case revolved around a house let to students, and the council argued that one room was too small to be a bedroom. The landlord argued that given the other facilities in the house (particularly the size of the common rooms), the bedroom being a little under the guideline size didn't stop it being habitable. In the tribunal, the landlord won and the council were well and truly told that the guidelines were just that - guidelines - and were not to be rigidly enforced without taking account of other factors.
So, should the landlord have been hit with punitive and life destroying penalties and left to fight on appeal ?

BTW - at Uni, in my 3rd year I was in a college room that was about the size of the room in this case. It wasn't a problem as, like this case, there were other spaces I could go to if I wanted space. It was a good excuse for not having big parties

 

[ban-all-sheds]

FWIW, the majority of landlords are all for better enforcement. Higher penalties are great - provided there is allowance for those who inadvertently break the rules - as you say, these were not first offences. A lot of the crap we've been getting loaded with lately is along the lines of "this is already illegal, but it's not being enforced, lets load on another layer that will only penalise the law abiding landlords and be ignored by the criminals who ignored the existing regulations".

I'm not suggesting any extra laws/regulations etc.

And lets not forget that some of these are subjective issues. There are guidelines, but at the end of the day some cases will come down to judgement. A landlord in Oxford has recently won a case against the local council in such a case. The case revolved around a house let to students, and the council argued that one room was too small to be a bedroom. The landlord argued that given the other facilities in the house (particularly the size of the common rooms), the bedroom being a little under the guideline size didn't stop it being habitable. In the tribunal, the landlord won and the council were well and truly told that the guidelines were just that - guidelines - and were not to be rigidly enforced without taking account of other factors.
So, should the landlord have been hit with punitive and life destroying penalties and left to fight on appeal ?

No reason why application of any penalty should not be suspended if an appeal is to be made.

And also no reason why, if something is clearly a guideline, and a court rules that an enforcer did not behave reasonably in not taking account of other factors, that the enforcer should not receive a life-changing kick in the crotch.

Egregiously wrong behaviour, known by the perpetrator to be wrong, yet still deliberately done, should result in such awful destruction of the perpetrators way of life that people stop risking it. And that includes personal penalties to lawyers and officials in councils.