Meeting documents

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact officer: Neil Green (01296) 585160

The Committee received a report and update on the progress made following the introduction of a scheme of additional licensing for houses in multiple occupation across Aylesbury Vale in September 2014.

The Council periodically carried out a condition survey of private sector housing stock, which had last been done in 2007.  At this time the private sector housing stock in the Vale had numbered 61,500 dwellings, and this number had grown to 77,000 dwellings by 31/03/2015.

Of these, 16.8% (10,355 dwellings) did not meet satisfactory of ‘decent’ standards (Category 1 HHSRS hazards, failure to be in reasonable repair, failure to provide reasonable modern amenities, failure to provide effective insulation and/or efficient heating all are considered to be indicators of non-decent housing). Although this figure is well below the national average (37.5%) there remained a need to improve the standards.

Houses in multiple occupation (HMO) made up the cheapest end of accommodation in the private rented sector. As a consequence of this they were often poorly maintained and inhabited by the most vulnerable individuals and families.

The HMO licensing regime provided improved standards in the sector for tenants in areas such are fire safety and remedying damp and mould issues, which all helped to reduce the risk of ill-health amongst occupants.

A scheme of additional licensing of HMO’s had been introduced on 27 September 2014 which extended the principles of the mandatory licensing scheme already in operation within the district.  The scheme covered the whole district and required HMO landlords not covered by mandatory licensing provisions to apply for a licence for their property. This was to ensure that such properties met current national and local standards for management and fire safety.  Following the launch in September 2014, landlords were given an amnesty period until June 2015 during which they could license their HMO properties at a 30% discount on the standard fee.

It was further explained that the designation of a scheme of additional licensing was a discretionary power set out in Section 56 of the Housing Act 2004, which had been devolved from central government to local councils.  The objective of implementing additional licensing was to improve conditions in the HMO sector, to make such housing safe, comfortable and well managed for tenants and to improve management for the benefit of neighbouring occupiers.

It was currently the second year of the five year scheme, after which it would be subject to a further review to determine whether the objectives were been met.  If after 5 years the objectives of the scheme had been met then it could be ended.  If not, then the Council could choose to extend the scheme for a further period of time.

The number of HMO’s in Aylesbury Vale was unknown but it was estimated at the time that the additional licensing scheme was proposed that there could be 600 properties that would be included in an additional licensing scheme.

To date 40 additional HMO licenses had been issues, as well as 32 Mandatory HMO licenses.  Some of the mandatory cases had been discovered as a result of the additional licensing.  There were also 42 applications currently pending which had been risk rated and prioritised so that the highest risk properties would be inspected first.

Members were also informed on officer resources within the Environmental Health team and the steps that were being taken to ensure there was resilience and capacity with the team.

To date, 82 additional HMO’s had been identified, so it was likely that the initial estimate of 600 HMO’s within Aylesbury Vale had been overstated and was likely to be closer to 400.  Various measures had been put in place in order to help identify unlicensed HMO’s such as looking at information captured on food hygiene inspection forms and gaining referrals from Planning and Housing colleagues. Later this year Environmental Health and Licensing would be moving to a new systems provider which links to MyAccount (single customer record) which would also help with the identification of HMOs.

There had been some issues with landlords not applying for HMO licences until it was brought to their attention. Some landlords also required a significant investment of officer time to help them reach the point of making an application.  The scheme was at a stage of  implementation where, in line with our enforcement policy, the Council was beginning to take formal enforcement action against landlords who have failed to respond to an informal approach.  A case of an unlicensed HMO in Aylesbury was currently going through court and, the outcome would be publicised to encourage other landlords to ensure that their properties are licensed.

Experience so far has also shown that most properties inspected require some works to make them safe.  This usually involved enhancing the fire safety measures.  Whilst this was expected and part of the justification for implementing the additional licensing scheme, it was likely in some cases that the time taken and costs incurred would exceed the income from the licence application fee.

As the scheme had been operating for a while a review of the costs incurred in processing applications needed to take place to help ensure that the fees charged for an application accurately reflected the costs incurred in processing the application and issuing the licence.  Efforts would also be made to publicise the scheme and to encourage further landlords and residents to make applications.

In November 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had consulted Local Authorities on a proposal to extend the scope of mandatory licensing of HMO’s and to streamline the process of making an application. The view of the DCLG was that Mandatory HMO’s should include all properties with 5 or more residents from 2 or more households irrespective of how many storeys the property has. The intention was that this would bring most ‘high risk’ HMO’s under a scheme of licensing without Local Authorities needing to adopt an additional licensing scheme.  AVDC believed that it would not be greatly impacted by these new arrangements as some of the properties that would be affected by the change had already have been inspected and licensed. Depending on the details of the scheme it could mean some additional administrative work to re-issue additional licenses as mandatory licenses.  However, the Council was still awaiting the results of consultation.

Members requested further information and were informed:-

(i)         on the types of enforcement action that the Council would take (including prosecution and taking over the management of a property (in exceptional circumstances)) if landlords did not meet the conditions of their licence.

(ii)        that in the event that a HMO had to be closed down, then the Council would work with housing partners to assist people in being re-housed.

(iii)       that the Council did not have a policy/guidelines on where HMOs could be located, or on what might constitute a ‘saturation’ for particular areas.  However, where permission was sought to convert a property in a HMO then the public would be able to comment on this as part of the planning process.

(iv)       that on receipt of a valid application for a HMO, the Council would decide whether to grant or refuse a license in accordance with the requirements set out in the Housing Act 2004 and associated regulations.  The Council sought to inspect all licensable HMOs prior to issuing a licence, with the exception of those HMOs owned by accredited landlords or those HMOs known to be compliant based on a recent inspection.

(v)       that AVDC obtained information on HMOs from a number of sources including other Council Departments, community and voluntary sector groups, landlords and the public, as well as from responses to publicity drives.

RESOLVED –

(1)       That the levels of fees set for HMO licenses should be reviewed to ensure they accurately reflected the time spent on a license application.

(2)       That the application process for a new HMO license be reviewed to simplify the process for applicants.