Agenda item
Selective and Additional Licensing in Private Rented Sector
This report updates the scrutiny committee about the performance of Additional and Selective Licensing for the Private Rented Sector and the effect of renewing or extending these schemes during 2020.
Minutes:
Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, Brent Council) introduced the report, updating the Committee regarding the performance of Additional and Selective Licensing for the Private Rented Sector and the effect of renewing or extending these schemes during 2020. She expressed that the profile around licensing had been high, and in October 2019 Cabinet took the decision to renew the scheme and apply to the Government to add other wards to the scheme. The application was awaiting response. Highlighted in the report was where the Council enforced these licenses. She expressed that the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) was important as they were a key housing option particularly for younger people on lower incomes.
The Chair thanked Councillor Southwood for the update and invited comments from the Committee, with the following raised:
Regarding the proposal to begin ward level analysis of Anti-Social Behaviour in the hope of reducing Anti-Social Behaviour incidences, the Committee asked for further details. Spencer Randolph (Head of Private Housing Services, Brent Council) responded that one of the reasons to grant selective licensing was whether it could be proven that it related to a reduction in Anti-Social Behaviour, which analysis showed a high correlation for. For example, the property team worked closely with the police dealing with responses to Anti-Social Behaviour in properties in the Private Rented Sector, but when selective licensing was introduced in 2015, Anti-Social Behaviour was not able to be linked to the Private Rented Sector. Gathering that evidence enabled the Officers to boost the evidence needed for the government to grant further licensing. Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director for Housing, Brent Council) highlighted that licensing was not the tool to address Anti-Social Behaviour and there were other tools to do so.
Referring to section 4.63 in the report suggesting that the introduction of licensing would improve housing stock, the Committee asked what evidence Officers had. Hakeem Osinaike explained that when a license was issued to a private landlord they were given a list of requirements for the home such as HMO fire risk assessments and gas checks. If the list was not adhered to then they could be prosecuted for defying the license agreement. Spender Randolph continued, highlighting research carried out the previous year with the London Fire Brigade in which random HMOs were selected and inspected to ascertain the condition of properties. There was information available as to what those properties were like before they were licensed, and upon inspection following a licence there was evidence of improvement in condition. This was attributed to the direct impact of issuing a license.
The Committee questioned whether the introduction of fines for those who broke the license agreement was achieving the desired results. Hakeem Osinaike expressed that the team tried to support landlords and encourage them to do the right things, which the majority of landlords did, and there was a landlord forum who ensured tenants were in good homes and listened to tenants issues, but there were some that broke the agreement. When they were given large fines it had the desired impact of discouragement.
The Committee also noted the local Brent newspaper item regarding a landlord who was given a £90,000 fine for defying the licensing agreement, and queried how much had been fined over the last year. Spencer Randolph advised that around 170 landlords had been prosecuted through the courts. He estimated that there had been around £1m worth of fines imposed on landlords. Prosecutions were now done through the court due to civil penalty notice powers, which had generated revenue of around £400,000. When they looked at imposing a fine, the final amount would be dependent on the number of properties the landlord had and the fine adjusted according to the matrix.
Responding to what alternatives the team had considered, Spencer Randolph explained that they had consulted with and looked at different models across the country for how licensing was carried out. They had learned from Newham, Thanet and Oxford, who had different schemes to Brent but who they were able to build the model around. There was no central guidance from the government on how licensing should be carried out, but the way Brent were approaching licensing was described as a good model with some authorities developing similar models.
The model was constantly under review by the team. The inspection regime had been reviewed the previous year and they had looked at alternatives. Now when they conducted reviews they had the advantage of lots of data and knowing where the landlords were. This meant they were better able to design the service. An example of an improvement that was being looked into was the length of license issued, which currently only lasted for the remainder of the 5 year period regardless of when purchased. They were questioning whether instead the license should be valid for 5 years from when the landlord applied.
The Committee asked how many landlords were on the database in comparison to landlords in Brent, and whether landlords were treated differently depending on the number of properties they let. Spencer Randolph estimated that there may be around 12,000 landlords renting out properties, but there was no register of landlords to get the information. He confirmed landlords went through a different process of application and engagement depending on how many properties they let. For example, they were currently in discussions with Tipi who let a large amount of properties in the Borough over whether they dealt with applications in bulk or individually for each of the properties they let. Regarding whether there was any further support for new landlords or landlords with only one property, Spencer Randolph advised that landlords were invited to the landlord forum, and there were accreditation schemes with training for landlords. The licensing agreement set out the conditions and made clear what was expected of landlords, and landlords were dealt with courteously by Officers. Issues of non-compliance would not go to enforcement straight away but through an informal stage with the landlord first. He highlighted that all landlords were approached in the same way with enforcement.
The Committee acknowledged the need for good landlords to stay in the business to contribute to alleviating housing needs, and wanted to ensure Officers were encouraging good landlords to stay in the business. Councillor Southwood acknowledged the role landlords played with regard to housing need, and highlighted that an important balance was needed as if properties were removed from the Private Rented Sector it changed the market.
The Committee asked for the figures on how many properties in selective licensing wards had a license. Spencer Randolph advised that there was good coverage in those wards, and they had done predictive modelling 3 times. In the first 3 wards selective licensing was brought in, there was 136% coverage, and in newer wards there was 96-97% coverage.
Regarding whether the introduction of selective licensing to additional wards would have any impact on resources and whether there was a sufficient Officer core to manage the additional wards, Spencer Randolph reassured the Committee that there would be sufficient resource. He explained the scheme had not cost the Council from the general fund, and was run from the licensing fee, with no profit was made from it. He acknowledged that depending on what the government approve they would know how they need to build the team and recruit more staff to deal with predicted demand.
As no further issues were raised, the Chair thanked the Officers for their time and invited the committee to make recommendations. The following was resolved:
i. Action Point: For the Housing Team to provide the Committee with information at a later date about the total number of enforcement fines in 2019/20. This information has been sent to James Diamond
ii. The Committee RESOLVED to note the report.
Supporting documents:
- 7. Selective and Additional Licensing in Private Rented Sector, item 7. PDF 338 KB
- 7a. Appendix 1 - Conditions for the Selective Property Licensing Scheme, item 7. PDF 421 KB
- 7b. Appendix 2 - Conditions for the Additional Mandatory HMO Property Licensing Scheme, item 7. PDF 585 KB