Agenda item

Dan Kennedy – Corporate Director for Residents Services, Julia Johnson – Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, Richard Webb – Director of Community Safety & Enforcement, Stephanie Waterford – Head of Public Protection & Enforcement and Michelle Greenidge – Private Sector Housing Manager were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the report on the Council’s Legal and Policy Framework for Houses in Multiple Occupation.

Members asked how successful enforcement action had been in addressing poorly managed Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). Officers advised that staffing challenges within the private sector housing team had limited the number of major prosecutions or enforcement cases. However, it was reported that a number of civil penalties had been issued to problem landlords. It was stated that increased use of civil penalties was anticipated as the team expanded, particularly due to the recruitment of specialist officers with expertise in HMO enforcement. Members heard that, from 1 May, the introduction of the Renters’ Rights Act placed a statutory duty on the Council to enforce, rather than rely on informal approaches, and that a significant increase in civil penalties was therefore expected.

The Committee enquired whether there was a defined timescale within which complaints had to be responded to. It was explained that response times depended on the nature of the complaint. Timeframes of between 7 and 21 days were generally applied, although urgent matters such as the absence of heating or hot water were expected to be resolved within 48 hours. Issues such as damp and mould were stated to require inspections and could therefore take longer to resolve.

A further question was raised regarding apparent inconsistencies within the report, which stated both that HMOs were dispersed across all wards and that there were notable concentrations in central, western and southern areas. Clarification was sought as to the policy premise being applied, and whether figures such as the estimate that 30% of HMOs contained serious hazards were based on modelling or inspection data. In response, it was confirmed that the comments were drawn from a tenure assessment and Borough-wide modelling, which identified higher concentrations in certain areas, but also confirmed the presence of HMOs across the whole Borough. It was stated that this evidence supported the application of additional licensing across the entire Borough. Officers further confirmed that the data on housing conditions was modelled using factors such as property age and size and was supported by robust external research, rather than direct inspection data.

Councillors enquired whether the figure of 3,850 anti-social behaviour (ASB) incidents linked to HMOs related only to registered HMOs and whether any of these properties had been used for Council placements. Officers responded that the figure had been taken directly from the Council’s ASB service data and complaints records, rather than modelling. It was stated that the data did not drill down to the level of identifying tenant status or Council placements.

Members asked how cases would be prioritised in practice, given the anticipated increase in regulatory scope and finite capacity. It was explained that responsibilities within the service had been separated, with distinct HMO and disrepair teams established. It was stated that disrepair officers would focus on complaint investigations, inspections and formal enforcement, while HMO officers would primarily manage regulatory functions, with some overlap into enforcement where necessary.

The Committee sought further clarification as to when measurable improvements in housing conditions and neighbourhood impacts were expected to be seen. Officers advised that some impacts would be immediate, particularly where enforcement action was required, but that broader change would occur over a longer period. On the planning side, it was reported that since the introduction of Article 4 directions, 35 applications for small HMOs had been received, of which approximately 73% of determined applications had been refused. It was explained that these properties would previously have benefited from permitted development rights, demonstrating the policy’s impact. Officers also highlighted the deterrent effect of the new regime and advised that longer-term improvements would be evidenced through future housing tenure surveys, which were undertaken every four to five years.

A question was then asked regarding licensing timescales, noting that affected landlords were expected to apply between May and August, and querying how quickly applications would be determined. It was confirmed that no enforcement action would be taken while an application was in progress. It was explained that applications received within the designated period were expected to be determined within approximately three to six months. Officers further advised that a taskforce had been established to identify and investigate properties where no application had been submitted by the August deadline, supported by mechanisms for public reporting.

A question was raised on whether intelligence gathered from neighbours would lead to random or scheduled visits, or to surveillance activity. Officers confirmed that intelligence-led visits could be undertaken and that such approaches were used by other authorities, although staffing levels had previously limited this work. It was clarified that the use of surveillance powers by local authorities was highly restricted and not routinely undertaken, with intelligence instead being gathered through community engagement and complaint data.

Councillors enquired whether refused planning applications related to retrospective or new HMOs, and whether enforcement action would follow refusals of retrospective applications. It was confirmed that some retrospective applications had been identified and that internal processes ensured these cases were automatically referred to the enforcement team.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was explained that forthcoming changes under the Renters’ Rights Act, including the ban on no-fault evictions, could make it more difficult for landlords to address problematic tenant behaviour, potentially impacting neighbours. It was acknowledged that despite strengthened tools through Article 4, additional licensing and workforce expansion, challenging cases would remain, particularly where tenant behaviour was linked to wider issues. It was stated that such cases would require joint working between housing enforcement, landlords and anti-social behaviour services.

The Chair thanked Members for their questions and officers for their work, noting that enforcement activity appeared to be moving in the right direction and offered reassurance to residents. Officers were commended for the progress made, particularly in comparison with other authorities that had scaled back similar schemes.

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee:

1.    Noted the information provided on housing tenure and HMOs in the Borough and the legal and policy framework applying to HMOs;

2.    Noted the implementation of additional controls on HMOs in the Borough by the Council; and

3.    Asked questions to clarify any matters of interest.