Agenda item - Proposed Additional Licensing Scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO)

10.1    The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment, Development and Housing which sought to comply with the Housing Act evidence and consultation requirements in support of the recommendation to designate the wards of Brunswick & Adelaide; Central Hove; East Brighton; Goldsmid; Preston Park; Regency; and Westbourne as subject to additional licensing under S56(1) of the Housing Act 2004 in relation to smaller Houses in Multiple Occupation of two or more storeys and three or more occupiers.  If approved, it was proposed that the designation will come in force, following statutory notification requirements, on 2 November 2015 for a period of 5 years. The report was presented by the Head of Housing Strategy Development & Private Sector Housing.

10.2     Councillor Phillips stated that she had helped to informally canvas for these proposals in her ward of Regency, where there was the highest percentage of people living in the private sector in the city.  There were very high noise complaints, HMO fires and some of the highest ASB incidents in the city.

10.3     Councillor Phillips considered that the proposals would benefit many of the residents living in Regency Ward and also the other six wards that were included in the proposals.  This was a great step forward and Councillor Phillips hoped that the Committee could build on this work in future.    

10.4     Councillor Mears referred to a letter received from the Southern Landlords’ Association in which they had expressed concerns about the scheme.  Councillor Mears was concerned that if licensing was to become too draconian and landlords took their properties off the market, it would adversely affect the housing supply in the city.  Councillor Mears asked for reassurance that fees for the scheme were going back into the service and not being offered up as savings as that would defeat the object and be very damaging to the private housing sector in the city. Councillor Mears also wanted to be reassured that all risks and costs were investigated so there was no fear of judicial review.  

10.5     The Head of Housing Strategy reported that the reason for such a lengthy report was to present all the risks and costs and mitigate as far as possible the risk of judicial review.  Landlords might still want to challenge the proposals; however their particular concern was about more selective licensing which was not being proposed (licensing of single family dwellings).  The structure had to be transparent and show a resourced scheme.  The fee structure would be subject to Freedom of Information requests.  Officers had tried to minimise the risks as much as possible.  

10.6     Councillor Gibson paid tribute to officers for a thorough and detailed report.  He supported the recommendations which were of major benefit to people.  It was a good scheme and he would welcome it being extended in the future.  Councillor Gibson referred to page 46, paragraph 3.7 which stated that landlords must be deemed to be “fit and proper” persons.  He asked what powers the council had if the landlord was not a fit and proper person.  The Private Sector Housing Manager explained that it was possible to revoke the licence subject to rights of appeal.  A process was in place to revoke licences. 

10.7     Councillor Gibson referred to the table on page 49, (special conditions applied).  He asked if they were actually implemented or were some conditions incomplete.   The Private Sector Housing Manager stated that the conditions were in progress.   Councillor Gibson suggested it would be helpful to have a progress report on the conditions achieved. 

10.8     Councillor Gibson referred to page 63, paragraph 8.2 which stated “In fixing fees for Additional HMO licences, the council is entitled by virtue of section 63 (7) of the Housing Act 2004 to take into account all its costs in carrying out its functions under Part II of the Act……” He asked what would be a legitimate way to spend money under the legislation.    The Senior Lawyer informed Councillor Gibson that she would supply him with a list of all functions. 

10.9     Councillor Atkinson considered the report to be excellent and based on research and evidence.  He agreed with Councillor Mears that the money raised through the scheme needed to be used for running the scheme.                                                

10.10  Councillor Moonan concurred with comments already made.  It was a valuable report.  She was aware that licensing was only as good as it was enforced and was pleased to see there was a process of inspection.  She asked what happened if landlords did not comply.  The Head of Housing Strategy explained that officers would work with landlords.  Most were fairly diligent in meeting requirements.  There had not been much need to resort to enforcement.  Officers were relying on the community to report where they considered enforcement was necessary. 

10.11  Councillor Miller referred to page 43, paragraph 1.4 relating to HMO fees.  The last review was in 2010/11.  He asked why there was not an annual review of fees. Councillor Miller referred to page 55 relating to area based additional licensing.  He asked if this was shifting problems or should there be a city wide approach.

10.12  The Head of Housing Strategy replied that the fee structure was the same for mandatory or discretionary licences.  Fees were not reviewed annually.  It was a five year scheme.  With regard to area based schemes, landlords had informed him that it would be fairer to have the scheme across the city.  The council needed evidence to support this to avoid judicial review.  There was a need to justify the scheme.  Officers did not feel that they could bring evidence for the other areas at the present time.

10.13  RESOLVED:-

  (1)     That the results of the consultation and evidence gathering exercise undertaken in relation to the proposed additional HMO Licensing Scheme as summarised in the report and detailed in the Appendix, be noted.

(2)              That the wards of Brunswick & Adelaide, Central Hove, East Brighton, Goldsmid, Preston Park, Regency and Westbourne be designated as subject to additional licensing under S56(1) of the Housing Act 2004 in relation to smaller Houses in Multiple Occupation of two or more storeys and three or more occupiers, (other than those that are HMOs by virtue of Section 257 of the Housing Act 2004).  Such designation to take effect on 2 November 2015 and last for 5 years. 

(3)       That the revised fees for HMO licensing as set out in Section 4 be agreed.  These revised fees will apply to additional and mandatory HMO licensing schemes from 1 August 2015 to take account of cost increases since fees were last reviewed in 2010/11.