UK: Why Take Action Against Rogue Landlords If There Is No Money To Remove Immigration Offenders?

Plans to co-opt landlords into the immigration enforcement system, by making them liable to a fine if they do not undertake sufficient immigration checks on their tenants have certainly grabbed the headlines in recent weeks. Whilst it is true that law-abiding landlords should have 'nothing to fear' from the introduction of the new penalty system, it will no doubt add to the administrative burden they will labour under and will at least bring them the prospect of a significant fine if they get anything wrong. However, will the new regime actually make enforcement more effective against those who are in the UK illegally?

This week it has become apparent that a special database set up by the Home Office last September has logged some 48,000 pieces of information from the public in relation to immigration offenders in the UK. The public, therefore, appears to be diligently assisting our immigration enforcement teams to identify those who are here illegally. However, the situation is not as rosy as that figure might suggest. Logging information on a computer system is one thing. Taking enforcement action is another and this, unfortunately, is where the process is somewhat lacking. Those circa 48,000 pieces of information led to just 2,695 enforcement visits, and of those, 1,840 arrests were made leading to only 660 removals from the UK. That equates to a removal rate of around 1 in every 100 allegations!

There is no doubt that the paucity of enforcement intervention is largely if not wholly down to chronic underfunding of the Home Office's work. However, it does beg the question of why there should be a crackdown on landlords who break the rules when little or nothing is then done about removals from the UK. If the new landlord civil penalty system is not to be seen simply as a cynical revenue building venture for the Government, then some if not all of the proceeds from civil penalties imposed on offending landlords should be plumbed straight into the enforcement system.

It also raises doubts about the effectiveness of splitting the Home Office in two to create a specialist enforcement arm, when it is doubtful that enforcement will receive the necessary funding to be effective in any event.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.