Building regs and fire safety reform

[spuorgelgoog]

Seen elsewhere:

MHCLG and the Home Office have released these...

Owain

[Andy Burns]

How come there several categories of building which have more fires per

1,000 buildings between 11 and 18m tall than there are for all buildings in the category regardless of height?

[Robin]

It would help to know just which figures you have in mind. But footnote

29 to para 33 seemed to me a reasonable explanation:

"29 The analysis was designed to explore the relative rate of fires across different types of building and did not take into account the number of individual dwellings or occupants within each building. Therefore, although some building types have higher rates of fires than others this is likely to be because of the higher occupancy rates in larger buildings."

[Andy Burns]

table A2

[Brian Gaff]

As usual, not really well publicised so the main people who will respond are those with a vested interest of some kind. Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Statistical problems I'd suggest. I was looking the other day about fatalities in different sized buildings and it seems caravans and temporary buildings are far more dangerous than massive high rise flats. Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Hmm, well the other report I read obviously based its data on people against size or something. Brian

[tim...]

presumably because the vast majority of buildings in the category are below

11m and have no fires at all

So what that says is that tall buildings are more likely to have fires (as in occupants in those building who create fires)

That in itself is not a good statistic

tim

[tabbypurr]

" We are ending ?no fault? evictions under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 so landlords cannot evict tenants for no reason;"

The repeal of the section 21 right is fairly appalling. Getting bad news tenants out is too difficult at present, with all sorts of housing areas being blighted by antisocial behaviour. There is a very good reason section 21 was introduced.

As for Grenfell related risks, there are way easier ways to deal with that. And submitting a fire report before even getting PP is silly. As is giving tenants a say in the fire safety process, whatever that actually means.

Has the govt really learnt none of the lessons of the past regarding tenant/landlord rights? It seems not. The result is going to be that a) all sorts of people can no longer rent a house or flat b) rents will rise yet again c) antisocial behaviour will increase d) the rentable housing stock will dwindle even further e) homelessness will rise even further

Sadly events like Grenfell, which are fairly easy to prevent reoccurrence of, seem to inevitably be taken as an excuse for governments to meddle ever more in areas they plainly do not understand. And the result is as ever more problems for everyone. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that government is firmly focussed on scamming everyone out of more money any which way they can, without much in the way of genuine justification.

NT

[spuorgelgoog]

But it doesn't seem to work, as getting bad tenants out is still too slow and difficult.

If a tenant is not at fault, why should they have the risk of eviction? Having been a private tenant, on 6-month tenancies you spend 2 months out of every 6 on notice to quit, hoping the landlord will issue another 6-month tenancy at the end, but it's not guaranteed they will (or at what rent).

On the other hand, if they are (genuinely, seriously) at fault, I say get them out bag and baggage in 14 days.

At least most tenant fees are now illegal in England (but thanks to a loophole in the drafting of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 if you are a tenant with exclusive use of a room in a shared flat with a resident landlord you are still at risk of fees, if you are a lodger with a licence in a shared flat you are protected from fees).

Owain

Owain

[tabbypurr]

taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.

Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to get paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.

OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why should people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable notice to move?

Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated into the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.

The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.

NT

[Theo]

We also have a housing crisis. Reducing the predatory aspects of private renting is supposed to improve that. Typically the LL is in a much stronger position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for instance).

Because they want to increase the rent?

That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take possession to sell or live in the property).

The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't have a choice in which agency to use. This is what has resulted in agency fees to tenants skyrocketing.

By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL), competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control. An agency which tries it on is likely to have an unmarketable property on their hands.

Theo

[tabbypurr]

we do

Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time. That's long gone.

And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.

Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces, or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to compete with competent LLs.

to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't find it.

No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a whole market to choose from.

it isn't

whether they are incorporated or separate makes zero difference to the cost. Obviously incorporating them does not control them. That is the sort of nonsense one hears from politicians keen to smooth through their agenda.

Equally true whether incorporated or not.

NT

[tim...]

But it doesn't work like that out in the real world

LL - pay me an extra 50 pound per month in rent or you'll have to pay a thousand pounds to move house

T - perhaps I'll pay you the 50 pounds

you obviously don't live in the real world of renting

you have had it explained to you

Yes it does

It Economics 101 that it does. So it's not even a tiny bit obvious that it doesn't

And you obviously know absolutely nothing about something you have seen fit to come here and discuss

tim

[Theo]

Other people's experiences differ.

There's a secondary effect on supply, but the point of the reforms is to control the existing market.

Tenants' income doesn't increase due to market forces. Them becoming homeless because of such market forces is something society seems to view as a bad thing.

No idea, but I suspect this would create a loophole unless carefully controlled (a slumlord might have a tame family member they urgently need to house every time they want to evict).

But supply is limited, and no property is identical to another property.

Tell me: can I search Rightmove for a rental including fees? Can I sort properties by price including fees, picking the one with the lowest total cost?

The answer is no, because fees are numerous and opaque. Holding fee, credit check fee for each tenant, a fee for drawing up the contract, fee for a guarantor, fee for checking the inventory at the beginning, checkout fee. Often the fees are unjustifiable: why does it cost hundreds of pounds for a credit check and photocopying a contract?

Hyperinflation in fees is an obvious sign of market failure.

Theo

[tabbypurr]

I could comment but I'm just amused.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

like a three storey house is more dangerous than a two storey house .......

[tabbypurr]

What predatory practices are currently a problem in your opinion?

so it does not put more properties on the market. Controls always move properties off the market, making the housing problem deeper.

though that isn't the point

I also don't expect they provided for this. So the landlord's brother/sister/etc goes homeless instead of the tenant just renting another house. Not really a plus.

As for slumlords, I've not seen slums in a long time here.

so they have a slice of the market to choose from, not just one place

Right move's sorting algorithm is purely a matter between Rightmove & its customers. Ebay have tackled this problem, it can will sort by price + p&p.

I absolutely agree. However the only thing that counts is the total cost, both to tenant and landlord.

It's an obvious sign that some people think they can ask more from tenants. This sort of thing happens all the time in retail. And sooner or later customers revolt and say no, we're not paying that, we'll rent somewhere else, then landlords realise their agent is not a good choice and market forces sort it. It's business as normal.

NT

[spuorgelgoog]

They are, which is why Building Regs for 3-storey houses are more onerous.

For HMOs:

Statistics show that residents are six times more likely to die in a house fire if they live in an HMO. And if the HMO is three or more storeys high, the probability increases to 16 times more likely.

Owain

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

and houses fire doors protected enclosure.....

because non family members living together don't give a shit .....