The government has finally come out in favour of mandatory landlord regulation today, in its response to the Julie Rugg Review.
Rugg's report was widely welcomed by the industry last October - many of whom are keen to show that they don't belong to that demonised group of Rupert Rigsby-style Rising Damp landlords - but the government measures seem to have been received more cautiously.
Due, perhaps, to the lack of detail. Fair enough, the proposal is going for a 12-week consultation now - and at a press briefing this morning the enthusiastic housing minister Iain Wright stressed that he is very keen to hear from the industry about how they think it would work best. They don't want to go in with their ideas already formed.
Nonetheless, they must have some clue of what they are planning - but they weren't sharing.
Would it work on a points-based "driving license" system? Would landlords be named and shamed if they were struck off? The minister would not be drawn.
Would local authorities be given extra money and resources if they are left with the responsibility of implementing the licensing and redressing of landlords in their area? Or would the regulator come from the industry? Or government?
How much would a license fee cost? Would there be any conditions on which a landlord could be struck off for life? How quickly would disputes be resolved? How could they track down rogue landlords who choose not to be licensed?
These were all questions we were left without answers to. I think landlords will be left hoping that the National Landlords Association has been overly pessimistic in its review that the government measures announced today are "well-meaning, but flawed".
The NLA has not said the whole consultation is flawed.
In fact, we can easily welcome the mandatory regulation of letting/managing agents, further support and training for local authorities, written tenancy agreements, proper accreditation...the list goes on.
We could even lend support to a truly 'light-touch' landlord license which - and we would need to have assurances - would root out bad landlords.
As we have it at the moment, however, the proposal is for landlords to submit the addresses of their rental properties to a central database and this is unworkable. It is this particular aspect of the consultation which is "well meaning but flawed."
We should not follow the Scottish route (which has failed) and focus on the properties. Instead, any license and associated redress should be attached to the landlord.
If you'd like to see the full NLA statement, go to: http://tinyurl.com/oes3lm
Thanks for that Steve - the full NLA response is also included in the blog post if you click on the 'National Landlord's Association' link.
It's also worth drawing attention to responses from RICS, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and ARLA, brought together on this web page: http://www.findaproperty.com/displaystory.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&storyid=23113