thoughts on non notifiable work

[JohnW2]

Because these new rules only apply to the private rented sector.

Ah. Anther consequence of the lack of definition, perhaps?

I had assumed that, although I can find no definition within the legislation, the "Private Rented Sector" in the title of the new legislation meant "what it says", in everyday language - i.e. that it relates to all rented accommodation which is not 'publicly' owned (i.e. LA/'government'-owned) - and hence that it would include corporate 'private landlords' just as much as Joe Public who had just one house which he rented out?

You presumably have interpreted it differently?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

PRS definitely does not apply to housing associations (nor LAs), so it would be silly of corporate organisations to not call themselves HAs.

 

[denso13]

so it would be silly of corporate organisations to not call themselves HAs

You can't just call yourself a HA for the sake of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok. No way round that for the wealthy.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why, then is the new legislation headed "private" rented sector.

Why would/should it not apply to all rented property?

Or - tell us who it does not apply to, and we might figure it out?

 

[JohnW2]

PRS definitely does not apply to housing associations (nor LAs), so it would be silly of corporate organisations to not call themselves HAs.

One of the main requirements of a Housing Association is that is must be non-profit-making - a situation which I would not think many "corporate organisations" would regard as very attractive

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Why, then is the new legislation headed "private" rented sector. ... Why would/should it not apply to all rented property? ... Or - tell us who it does not apply to, and we might figure it out?

As I said, I thought it simply related to the everyday meaning of the words - i.e. that the Private Renting Sector related to all rented property which was not 'Social Housing' (i.e. rented out by LAs or {non-profit} Housing Associations).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

https://www.theguardian.com/housing...e government's global accounts,£0.2bn on 2016.

 

[denso13]

Non-profit means the profits aren't taken out of the business and given to shareholders or for directors' dividends. Any profit should be reinvested in the HA's core business but this doesn't mean they can't have an operating surplus.

 

[JohnW2]

Non-profit means the profits aren't taken out of the business and given to shareholders or for directors' dividends. Any profit should be reinvested in the HA's core business but this doesn't mean they can't have an operating surplus.

Indeed (just like a charity), but I still don't think that many of the "corporate organisations" EFLI was thinking/talking about would regard that as an acceptable business model for them, would they?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Maybe not, but if they can pay themselves 500k before profits...

So, is the Duke of Westminster and his company - a private landlord?

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe not, but if they can pay themselves 500k before profits...

I have no idea, but I suspect that there might be some controls/limitations in regards to such things.

So, is the Duke of Westminster and his company - a private landlord?

What else could he/it be? ... neither he nor his company is an LA, and I doubt very much that his company is a 'non-profit-making' HA.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh, you're so trusting.

Some charities are big business.

 

[JohnW2]

Oh, you're so trusting. Some charities are big business.

They are, albeit I doubt whether there are many in which the number of people getting 'excessive' personal income from them is more than a handful or three - there are no shareholders, and I presume that the 'workers' do not receive unrealistic pay.

In any event, do you really believe that the Duke of Westminster's property empire is constituted as either a charity or a Housing Association?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

They are, albeit I doubt whether there are many in which the number of people getting 'excessive' personal income from them is more than a handful or three - there are no shareholders, and I presume that the 'workers' do not receive unrealistic pay.

Aren't a lot volunteers - leaving more for the paid executives?

In any event, do you really believe that the Duke of Westminster's property empire is constituted as either a charity or a Housing Association?

No, it is a public company which does not equate to being a private landlord.

What about the Crown Estate? Private landlord?


Quite willing to be proved wrong by an indisputable definition of 'Private Rented Sector'.