Agenda item

Cabinet previously requested that evidence be gathered to ascertain whether the legislative conditions for introducing additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation could be met, and if so, undertake a 10-week public consultation exercise.  This report informs Cabinet of the results of these activities and seeks a decision on whether to designate part of Bath as an area subject to additional licensing for specified types of HMOs.

Martin Thomas in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council’s website] said that the consultation on the proposals had failed to demonstrate that the council had considered other approaches, for example the use of its extensive existing powers to tackle problems.  He felt that so far as housing standards were concerned, there was no case for introducing additional licensing.

Rob Crawford (Chair, National Landlords Association Wessex Branch) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council’s website] said that the council was in danger of being in breach of the Housing Act 2004 because it had not satisfied the criteria laid out in the Act.  He felt that the published evidence documents showed a bias.  The papers did not demonstrate that a significant proportion of HMOs were being managed ineffectively.  He regretted that if the Council pressed on with the measures, it would be subject to legal remedy.

Jacqui Darbyshire (National Landlords Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 11 and on the Council’s website] said she believed that the proposals would make the situation worse.  The loss of the existing voluntary, city-wide accreditation scheme will have a detrimental effect.  She also cited the experience of Thanet District Council, where the license scheme had cost more than £500K.

Gavin Dick (National Landlords Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 22 and on the Council’s website] gave a number of reasons why the proposals would not tackle the problem.  He called for the Council to use its existing powers to resolve the problems of bad landlords and tenants.

Rosemary Simcox in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 12 and on the Council’s website] said that as a landlord she had found good will on all sides to maintain safety and high standards.  She felt that the proposals would alienate all landlords.  She appealed to Cabinet to encourage the existing successful Accreditation scheme.

Alexander von Tutschek in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 13 and on the Council’s website] said that landlords had a vested interest in working with the community and with the Council.  He suggested some ways in which landlords could be encouraged to make sure that tenants left houses and gardens tidy at the end of their leases.  He felt that these co-operative approaches would be more effective than the proposals now before Cabinet.

Councillor Will Sandry in an ad hoc statement reminded the Cabinet that the local community must be considered.  He had seen the conditions in which some rogue landlords allowed students to live.  The Accreditation scheme was voluntary so the bad landlords had ignored it.  He believed that the proposals were the right approach and would improve standards for all.

The Chair observed that Appendix 5 had been replaced in the public documents with a Public Interest Test explaining why it was exempt from publication.  He asked the Cabinet to agree that the document was in fact exempt.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Tim Ball, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that Appendix 5 (Legal Advice) constitutes exempt information according to the categories set out in the Local government Act 1972 (amended Schedule 12A) because it contains information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, and therefore that the public interest is best served by exemption of the information.

Councillor Tim Ball introduced the item.  He was working towards sustainable communities and good housing conditions for students.  In response to a number of speakers, he emphasised that the Council has prosecuted a number of landlords recently under its existing powers.  He imagined the National Landlords Association would want all housing to be of an acceptable standard and agreed with Alexander von Tutschek that the Council would work with landlords to encourage a multi-agency approach to raise standards.  He referred to the comments made by some, that rubbish was the responsibility of student tenants.  He emphasised the responsibility of landlords to facilitate and encourage good practice amongst their tenants by providing the space and facilities they needed to dispose of rubbish considerately.  He reminded Cabinet that it was often possible to tell the good and bad landlords apart by the state of their properties.  He thought that landlords would be challenged by the results of a recent survey conducted by students, seen by the NLA, in which the majority said they would not recommend their existing landlord.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.  He acknowledged that there were a great deal of good landlords but he had heard of reports from students of unrepaired furniture, damp and mould in their homes.  He had seen the standards in which some students had to live – in some cases there had been no bin provision, and no space into which a bin could fit.  Environmental Health Officers were already active in some wards, issuing fines.  It was the responsibility of the landlord to look after their property.  He looked forward to the implementation of a proper database which would mean that the Council knew who owned a property.

Councillor Paul Crossley emphasised that the proposals were not about victimising landlords but were about driving out bad landlords.  Not only students lived in multiple occupancy; many young professionals did, too.  In the areas in question there were lots of disputes and lack of action by landlords.  He felt strongly that good landlords would in fact benefit from the proposals.

Councillor Ben Stevens observed that the proposals covered his ward.  It was true that rubbish disposal was the responsibility of the tenant – but often there were too many people crammed into a house to be able to use the bins provided.  He was pleased that some good landlords had come to Cabinet tonight – but the bad landlords had not come to answer for themselves.  He noted that in the consultation, half of landlords had said they felt the proposals would improve safety.  For him, that was a deciding factor in the debate.

Councillor Tim Ball summed up by saying that it was not fair to expect the Council Tax payer to pay for policing the properties owned by bad landlords.  He observed that if all landlords maintained high standards, the Cabinet would not be discussing these proposals tonight.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor David Dixon, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(2) To INTRODUCE an additional licensing scheme, as detailed within the designation report, for a period of 5 years commencing on the 1st January 2014 with licence applications being accepted from 1st October 2013;

(3) To ADOPT the fee structure, as set out in the report, for both the additional licensing and the mandatory licensing schemes; and

(4) To ASK the Head of Housing to undertake the appropriate and statutory steps to enable the introduction of the proposed additional licensing scheme.