and empty properties are never broken into, so they don't need police, and they never catch fire, so don't need firefighters.
Sadly every empty house, or second home, means another homeless family way down the line.
Will this pass an EICR?
- Thread starter goosander
- Start date
Sadly every empty house, or second home, means another homeless family way down the line.
Sponsored Links
I basically agree with you, and certainly agree that it is a generally good idea to discourage people from leaving properties empty.
However, it's not quite as simple as you suggest. I would imagine that, every day, the number of houses (or rooms in houses) available for rent well exceeds the number of homeless people/families. As I see it, the problem is that they cannot afford to rent them (and, where appropriate, are not given enough help to be able to rent them) - in at least some cases because they are unemployed and cannot get a job (although, again, there are probably more vavant jobs every day than there are unemployed people!).
Kind Regards, John
Ah yes, that area is "complicated". And changes in things like welfare (universal credit), along with political attacks making being a landlord less profitable (unprofitable for some), and upcoming rules making it impossible to compensate for higher risk by (for example) taking a larger deposit - are perversely having exactly the opposite of what was intended.
Even the government now admits that George Osborne's claim that he was just levelling the playing field was a lie - as homeowners get signiticant tax breaks (such as complete exemption from capital gains tax). But there's no sign of them reversing his tenant taxes that are putting up rents, reducing the number of properties to rent, and affecting the most needy most.
The government are being taken to a judicial review over "right to rent" because (as predicted) it's resulting in discrimination against people without a british passport. It's not a deliberate policy on the part of landlords, but it's a natural reaction to the severe risk (large fine and criminal record) for making a mistake and not (for example) being able to spot a fake foreign passport. Again, the government department responsible seems to be keen to press on regardless rolling it out (it's England only at the moment) regardless of what any impact/discrimination assessment might show - it seems that their current method of ignoring an adverse result from an assessment is to simply not do one !
Now, if only we had a system where local authorities built basic but sound properties which they rented out to those unable to buy or rent in the private sector. Oh yes, we used to have one of those, Council Houses I think they were called
I'm not critical of the right-to-buy system - I think it's worked wonders for the image of this area now that about 2/3 of the houses are privately owned (and I live in an ex-coucil house) - just of the short sighted way the councils didn't (or weren't allowed to) build replacement stock.
Even the government now admits that George Osborne's claim that he was just levelling the playing field was a lie - as homeowners get signiticant tax breaks (such as complete exemption from capital gains tax). But there's no sign of them reversing his tenant taxes that are putting up rents, reducing the number of properties to rent, and affecting the most needy most.
The government are being taken to a judicial review over "right to rent" because (as predicted) it's resulting in discrimination against people without a british passport. It's not a deliberate policy on the part of landlords, but it's a natural reaction to the severe risk (large fine and criminal record) for making a mistake and not (for example) being able to spot a fake foreign passport. Again, the government department responsible seems to be keen to press on regardless rolling it out (it's England only at the moment) regardless of what any impact/discrimination assessment might show - it seems that their current method of ignoring an adverse result from an assessment is to simply not do one !
Now, if only we had a system where local authorities built basic but sound properties which they rented out to those unable to buy or rent in the private sector. Oh yes, we used to have one of those, Council Houses I think they were called
I'm not critical of the right-to-buy system - I think it's worked wonders for the image of this area now that about 2/3 of the houses are privately owned (and I live in an ex-coucil house) - just of the short sighted way the councils didn't (or weren't allowed to) build replacement stock.Sponsored Links
Frankly, if you think thats "overkill" you should not be a landlord. DS
Where does it say (the law) that all those alarms are required in an existing property?
Is everyone sure that it is not just the ubiquitous "guidance"?
Is everyone sure that it is not just the ubiquitous "guidance"?
It sounds like overkill to me !
In England, the requirements for a rented property are (I think) the same as those for a new build - a smoke detector on each (occupied) floor. That sounds reasonable. If the requirements are as stated, then that sounds like a big step up from what seems to be accepted as sufficient in England.
Turning it around, do you have all those in your own home ? I rather suspect you won't - in which case, if the requirements are not overkill, why don't you already have all of them ?
And it sounds like he is planning to not be a landlord, which as he points out, does nothing to help with the housing shortage.
This does raise an interesting point - at what level should you set the bar ? I know there is the argument that a homeowner gets to make choices for himself, while a tenant gets to accept the choices make by the landlord. But how much safer should rented properties be than owner occupied ?
How many more fire/smoke detectors should a rented property have than an owner occupied one ?
Why aren't owner occupiers required to have regular gas safety checks ? Electrical checks ? In effect, the law says that if you rent then you HAVE to pay (yes the landlord pays the bill, but that's factored into the rent) for gas safety checks every year. If they weren't mandatory and the landlord didn't include them then a tenant could pay at any time. So here we have a case of "one class of user can choose, another class of user has no choice".
I do know the answer - a small subsection of landlords wouldn't do them, and would probably evict a tenant who had one done, especially if the installation was found to be dangerous. There are already laws to cover that - just like many of the newer things piled onto landlords.
https://beta.gov.scot/publications/fire-safety-guidance-private-rented-properties/ appears to back it up as "the requirements".
7. The revised Domestic Technical Handbook guidance states there should be at least:
- one functioning smoke alarm in the 1 room which is frequently used by the occupants for general daytime living purposes
- one functioning smoke alarm in every circulation space, such as hallways and landings
- one heat alarm in every kitchen, and
That does appear to back up the list that Goosander gave. It does also appear to be overkill to me - and also raises the question, if it's not overkill, does that mean that in England we have woefully inadequate requirements ? There's a big difference in the requirements - either one os OTT or the other is inadequate.
If you follow the links from the guidance page I've linked to, you'll find the actual requirements in section 2.11 of the technical handbooks. It goes a bit further as well, if you have rooms accessed via other rooms :
Inner rooms - where occupants’ only escape route is through another room (the access room) they are at risk if a fire starts in the access room. Therefore, every access room should be provided with a smoke alarm to give occupants of the inner room early warning.
Put all this together, and the one bedroomed flat I rent out would (if it were in Scotland) require three alarms, potentially four, and allowing for CO, potentially as many as six (it doesn't mention anything that would give guidance to about the garage which is underneath the flat, but to all intents, a separate space in terms of fire containment)
As it's in England, it requires ... ONE smoke detector.
Yes, thanks, but that link is strewn with the word "guidance".
AFAICT these "guidance" documents are the actual regulations - did you follow the link in section 6 to the Technical Handbooks ? The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 doesn't actually have any specifics in it (unlike our English Act where the regs are in an appendix) - part 4 refers to ministers issuing guidance documents.
That's a bit cock-eyed, isn't it? Can legislation make 'guidance' mandatory by referring to it? If so, I'm not sure in what sense it is really 'guidance'?? Ministers could surely issue SI's (or their Scottish equivalent), which are law (not 'guidance'), just as they do in England, couldn't they?
Kind Regards, John
Simon's Part4 link:
A misnomer to say the least.
A misnomer to say the least.
Maybe not:
I suppose it's a bit like BS7671 and Part P. Although the law (Part P) does not mandate compliance with BS7671, the fact that one has complied with BS7671 constitutes a pretty strong defence if one is accused of non-compliance with Part P. Although, again, not law/mandatory, Approved Doc P more=or-less says that.
Kind Regards, John
Why ? you are being guided to ensure compliance with the law. Put down the regs book and pick up a dictionary
DS
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
