Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update on Haringey’s Private Sector Landlord Licensing Scheme. The report was introduced by Lynn Sellar, Housing Improvement Team Leader as set out in the agenda pack at pages 13 to 21 of the agenda pack. The Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Chair sought clarification on the definition of a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO). In response, officers confirmed that the Chair’s understanding of a property containing three or more people who were not related to each other, was correct. Officers clarified that the mandatory HMO scheme related to five or more persons who shared an amenity but that the additional scheme had reduced the threshold to three or more persons. The additional scheme provided Haringey with additional powers to use at its discretion.

b.    The Chair sought clarification as to why the selective licensing scheme was not being rolled out across the entire borough. In response, officers advised that the legislation required the authority to establish a substantial evidence base for the need to introduce such a scheme and that the evidential base did not support a rollout across the entire borough. It was noted that the Council had spent two years collecting and scrutinising the data and that they had also utilised learning from other boroughs who had successfully introduced similar schemes.

c.    The Panel sought clarification about whether the map in appendix A of the report was showing that all of the wards to the east of the dark red line were included in the selective licensing scheme. Officers confirmed that this was the case. 

d.    The Panel sought assurances about what types of enforcement action was available to the Council for landlords who did not demonstrate adherence to the licensing scheme. In response, officers advised that the enforcement action undertaken would be in line with the Council’s enforcement policy and that regular inspections of properties would take place to monitor compliance. A typical process of enforcement action would see the landlord given an opportunity to remedy the problem, followed by an enforcement notice being issued if this was not done, and then finally the Council would look to prosecute. The Council had powers to issue fines up to £30k, depending on the offence. There were no powers within the legislation for the Council to revoke the licence but prosecution would usually prevent that landlord from being deemed a fit and proper person in relation to the initial checks done before issuing a HMO licence. 

e.    In relation to a follow-up question, officers advised that the legislation did not permit the Council to take remedial action against landlords, just as a prosecution would also not require the landlord to take remedial action. Officers commented however that they had not come across a case where a landlord had failed to undertake the required works when a notice was issued, as they did not want to incur the financial penalties involved and also did not want the hassle and negative publicity.

f.     The Panel queried the figure of 3454 applications received under the additional licensing scheme and suggested that this seemed quite low, given the high percentage of private rented sector accommodation in Haringey. In response, officers advised that they had to go off the evidence that the Council held on the private rented sector but acknowledged that it was difficult for the Council to ascertain the location of all of the HMOs in the borough. Officers had conducted an overlay intelligence exercise in relation to HMOs and it was estimated that the figure was around 5k, however it was acknowledged this could well be an under estimation. Officers assured the Panel that this was the same for all boroughs and that the figures were based on the available evidence.

g.    The Panel sought assurances around whether there would be additional resources put into supporting tenants reclaim money from landlords who operated HMOS without a license. In response, officers advised that they were working with Cambridge House and Justice for Tenants to advance rent repayment orders and to use the claims submitted through these organisations as part of their intelligence gathering picture.

h.    The Panel sought assurances that the Council was undertaking proactive  checks on unlicensed premises that it was believed were being used as HMOs. In response, officers advised that a large project was undertaken during lockdown to identify possible unlicensed HMOs and that this was followed up with a door-knocking. Officers were currently at the stage of following up on this and undertaking compliance checks. Officers also advised that they also worked with any intelligence that they received in relation to HMOs.

i.      In response to a request to hear from community partners on this issue, the Panel agreed to undertake a scrutiny review on this topic and to hear from other boroughs who were further along with the process of implementing similar schemes as well as expert opinion etc.

j.      The Panel sought clarification about whether the Council, as part of its selective licensing scheme, agreed to the promotion of joint working with other agencies such as immigration enforcement. In response, officers advised that this was not included in the submission to the Secretary of State and that the EQIA developed as part of this scheme reflected strongly that this would jeopardise existing relationships with the private rented sector.

k.    The Panel questioned whether the Council collected benchmarking information about how much people were paying in rent across different areas of the borough and the difference in the east versus the west of the borough, for example. In response, officers advised that this information was not collected as part of the additional licensing scheme. However, the GLA did collect some information on this as part of its evidence base for determining local housing allowances.

l.      The Panel questioned whether the selective licensing scheme was time limited. In response, officers advised that the scheme could only last for up to five years by law. After the five years, the Council would have to apply for the scheme to be renewed and the agreement of the Secretary of State would be required. Officers also set out that Secretary of State approval was required for all schemes that covered either 20% of the geographic area, or 20% of the private rented housing stock.

RESOLVED

That the update was noted.