With the population of Liverpool on the cusp of the first “chosen by voters” mayoral election, campaigners against rogue landlords have come out in force to try and persuade the soon-to-be elected mayor to deal with what is becoming an ever increasing problem in the city.

The national housing charity, Shelter, set up a spoof lettings agency called “Rotten Homes” and invited local people to come and sign their petition against rogue landlords in Liverpool. Unsurprisingly, along with a large number of signatures, there were plenty of colourful stories, too.

I thought I’d heard it all over the years, but even I was shocked to read the tale of a young tenant who went on holiday, only to return to discover her kitchen had been ripped out and the landlord wanted fifty pounds to put another one in. She had to endure living with no appliances, worktops or a floor for three months before she chose to vacate the property. And if that sounds farfetched, how about the story of the landlord who regularly sent his relatives around to deliver threats to the tenants who were living in his properties!

Personally I find it a pretty sad indictment of today’s society that so many landlords are ready to take advantage of the those who have no alternative but to live in rented accommodation. Operating rental properties is a business and landlords have a duty of care to make their properties safe and habitable for tenants. But with 43% of rental properties classed as below par in Liverpool, it would seem that a lot of landlords are not fulfilling their obligations.

Millions of people are self employed these days: according to HM Revenue, the current figures show more than 14% of the working population run a small business from home. With the job market so volatile and employment opportunities scarce, running a business from home is the answer to many people’s financial woes; it is also an excellent way to generate additional income on top of a full-time wage earned elsewhere.

But although running a home business is definitely not illegal, landlords do need to be aware of the legal implications to themselves should any of their tenants be operating a small business from one of their rental properties.

In order to run a business from home, the owner of the property needs to give their permission, and in the case of larger businesses, for example an extensive online retail store, the property owner may have a responsibility to apply for planning permission.

If the property is mortgaged, it is possible that running a small business from the property breaches the terms of the loan; buildings insurance policies may also be voided as a consequence.

And if the tenant uses the property address to register a small business, which subsequently runs into financial difficulties, you the landlord could end up suffering all kinds of woes with credit reference agencies.

What should I do if my tenant is running a business from home?

Ask them to cease trading immediately, and if this fails, give them notice to quit the property and inspect it to check for damage or alterations.

As any landlord knows, the rental market has increased phenomenally over the last few years as more and more people choose to rent rather than buy their home. But is this trend a temporary one, or will the number of people renting as opposed to buying continue to rise over the next few years?

Research from UK estate agents and property websites seems to suggest that the trend is not a temporary one and current estimates indicate that by 2016, around one in five homes will be rented in the private sector instead of owner-occupied. Unfortunately, there are not enough rental homes available to meet the demand, so unless a further 1.1 million homes are added to the pool of available buy to let properties, there is likely to be a massive shortage, and as I learnt in my Economics class in school many moons ago, when demand outstrips supply, prices go up.

Current figures show that around 27% of homes in London are now let in the private sector (which has overtaken the social housing sector for the first time). The average rent rose by 5.2% across the UK last year and landlords in the buy to let sector earned approximately £48 billion in rent in 2011, a figure which is expected to nearly double over the next five years.

This is obviously good news for landlords looking to invest further in the buy to let market, so if you are still on the fence, now would be a good time to consider whether buy to let is the right move for you.

According to recent figures, the average rent in some areas, particularly in London, is rising much faster than tenants’ incomes, which could spell bad news for landlords in the worst hit areas. Rents across the UK rose by 2.6% last month whereas incomes fell by 1.2%.

How are these changes affecting UK landlords?

These changes are affecting the buy to let market in a number of ways: more tenants are choosing to share accommodation as a way of saving money whereas others are moving away from the more expensive areas in an attempt to find cheaper accommodation elsewhere.

However, affordability in the buy to let sector does vary across different areas of the UK. In Wales, the North West and North East, the average rent has fallen slightly over the last month, but everywhere else rents continue to rise. In the long term this will cause problems with increasing numbers of tenants defaulting on their rental payments, which is not good for landlords.

Cuts in housing benefits are also exacerbating the problem and a survey by the NLA has found that many landlords are choosing not to rent their properties to tenants in receipt of Housing Benefits because the payments no longer comes close to covering the rent. These changes will inevitably force many tenants on benefits into shared accommodation, as they won’t be able to afford a flat or house. Because of the cuts, around 53% of landlords surveyed said they would no longer be letting properties to tenants on benefits by 2015.

Are you one of them?

Regular readers will know I like to highlight stories about disreputable landlords caught in the act of abusing their responsibilities to tenants, mainly because I feel it is wrong and that as a landlord we have certain responsibilities to ensure our properties are not putting tenants lives in danger.

So I was interested to read a story in the news today about a landlord operating as a limited company who had converted a seafront hotel, located in a prime area of Great Yarmouth, into illegal bedsits. The former hotel had ceased operating as a bed & breakfast some years previously, and in order to turn over a nice profit, the new owners had done a quick renovation (failing to heed fire safety regulations of course) and let the rooms out to a motley collection of tenants.

When council inspectors first visited the property, they gave the company director, Mr Siaulys, lots of helpful advice on how to fulfil his responsibilities as a good landlord and obtain the correct licenses. Unfortunately he decided not to bother and when a further inspection was carried out, Mr Siaulys was found guilty of a number of offences and the twenty permanent residents at the property were moved out for their own safety.

But crime never pays and although Mr Siaulys and his company have probably made an absolute fortune from letting the property illegally over the last few years, under the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002), a confiscation order for £40k was made in favour of Great Yarmouth Borough Council.

There are always stories in the press about criminals and other undesirables citing their human rights as a great reason for being allowed to stay in this country, claiming benefits and living the good life. Sadly this dubious line of defence may soon become yet another obstacle in the way of landlords trying to have problem tenants evicted.

A ruling by the Supreme Court in the case between a social housing tenant and a Local Authority has found that the move to evict the tenant following non-payment of rent was in breach of her right under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights to have respect for a person’s home. The Lords ruled in favour of the tenant and said the Local Authority had not given due consideration as to whether it was “proportionate” to evict the tenant. The original eviction ruling was then overturned.

Why should landlords be concerned?

Unfortunately, because of the lack of clarification as to what constitutes “proportionate” action, buy to let landlords may well find that when they try to evict problem tenants because of antisocial behaviour or rent arrears, the tenant decides to claim the eviction is an abuse of their human rights under Article 8, which means it could become virtually impossible to get rid of them.

There is at least one case currently awaiting ruling whereby a tenant has used the Article 8 defence to avoid eviction, so it will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Hopefully the courts make the decision that Article 8 does not apply in the private rental sector, but if it does, the issue of what “proportionate” action is needs to be clarified.

Repairs and maintenance work is all part of property ownership, and if you are a landlord like me, keeping on top of such things at your properties is something else to add on to your list of “things to do”. However, whilst most of us are more than happy to pay for essential repairs, we might not necessarily choose the “green” option and we are unlikely to feel terribly happy at the thought of being told to replace loft insulation and install double glazing at the same time!

Like most responsible people, I recognise the sense in energy saving measures and so-called green initiatives, but I believe that they should be voluntary rather than compulsory. Unfortunately for home owners and landlords, the government is considering a new scheme whereby all property owners, including buy to let landlords, will be compelled to improve energy efficiency.

When essential repairs and property maintenance work is carried out, the property owner will have to choose the green option, so if a boiler needs replacing, instead of opting for a cheaper model, you will be forced to pay extra for an energy efficient condenser boiler instead.

The Communities and Local Government Department (CLG) insists repairs will have to be viable and is proposing to make available loans to fund the work, but at the end of the day, smaller landlords might not be able to afford expensive repairs, which will inevitably lead to a rise in “cowboy” traders cashing in on the demand.

At the moment, the proposals are still in draft form, so watch this space.

Amendments made to the Localism Act 2011 came into effect on April 6th 2012, so landlords need to ensure they are familiar with the new rules affecting tenants’ deposits, or they risk being hit by stringent fines.

What are the changes?

Under the old rules, landlords had 14 days to place their tenant’s deposit in a government approved deposit protection scheme and provide information about the scheme used. However, despite the strict rules and regulations, many landlords were able to exploit loopholes when appealing against fines for non-protection of deposits.

But things have been tightened up and new rules introduced. Landlords now have 30 days instead of 14 days to pay a deposit into one of the approved protection schemes and the longer notice period negates any potential arguments that there was not enough time to protect the deposit. Although fines handed out by judges will now be discretionary, they are likely to be more heavily enforced, and depending on the perceived seriousness of the transgression, could be as much as three times the original deposit. Landlords will also be unable to apply for a Section 21 possession order until the judge has made a ruling on the case.

Another big change landlords need to be aware of is that if a landlord does not adhere to the 30 day deadline, the tenant can make a claim against them for up to 6 years after the end of the tenancy.

Who will be affected by the new changes to the deposit protection rules?

The changes affect new tenancies that started on or after April 6th 2012, and in the case of existing tenancies, landlords have 30 days to place deposits in an approved deposit protection scheme.

We’ve all heard of Ikea—there is probably a store in virtually every city across the globe—and no doubt you have spent many happy hours wandering around your local Ikea, marvelling at the cheap prices and chuckling over some of the odd names they come up with for their pieces of furniture. But were you aware that Ikea is planning on redeveloping run-down urban neighbourhoods to create buy to let utopias?

Not content with encouraging us to ‘chuck out our chintz’ in favour of minimalist Swedish designs, the big bosses at Ikea have come up with an interesting new concept that they believe will revolutionise the rental market in the UK. Apparently Ikea is planning on using some of the vast profits accumulated from the great British public’s obsession with shopping at Ikea on a weekend, and using it to turn derelict inner city wastelands into idyllic urban communities populated by attractive furniture and happy, smiling families.

It might be sounding a bit creepy at this point, but the idea is actually an interesting one. In the style of “new towns” such as Milton Keynes (although we hope Ikea designers stay well away from the hideous grid system), Ikea is looking to create an all-rental neighbourhood of family-friendly homes and office units. The properties will be owned by Ikea, but managed by a private company. Residents will be able to enjoy living in a neat, landscaped environment, plus take part in on-site activities.

To be honest, it all sounds a bit “Butlins” to me, but it is certainly a unique take on the buy to let business model. What do you think?

New rules were introduced in 2010 to protect tenants living in houses of multiple occupancy (HMOs). These rules required landlords of such properties to apply for a special license from their local authority, to be issued after an inspection established the property was of a decent standard.

However, with the scheme rolled out further in January of this year now to include landlords of properties with three or more tenants sharing, it would appear that many landlords are still failing to bring their properties up to the required standards. Figures released by Oxford City Council indicate that just 3% of HMOs met the required standards which means a staggering 97% were not of a satisfactory standard.

When I was a student many moons ago, it was almost considered the norm to be living in absolute squalor, sinks piled sky high with week old dirty pots and hundreds of empty beer bottles strewn everywhere, but times have changed and modern students are far more likely to complain about damp, decrepit mattresses and unsafe appliances — as well they should!

Frankly I believe that it is completely unacceptable to expect tenants (often students) living in HMOs to put up with squalid conditions and any reputable landlord worth their salt should spend time and money sorting things out and ensuring their properties meet health and safety requirements. In Oxford alone, there have already been eight prosecutions made against landlords of dangerously unsafe HMOs, so before you find yourself in their shoes, take heed of any warning letters and recommendations you have received and put things right.