MILTON KEYNES Private Rented Property Licensing

Transcription

1 ANNEX C MILTON KEYNES Private Rented Property Licensing Draft Consultation Findings Housing & Communities Select Committee 10 th December 2013 STEVE JARMAN Opinion Research Services Emerging Findings Evidence base doesn t appear to support borough wide Selective Licensing in relation to ASB or low demand for housing. Possibly scope for targeted Additional Licencing schemes for specific wards. View that there are low levels of ASB from private rented properties. View that ASB is caused by social rental tenants. Higher correlation between social rented properties and ASB. Lower correlation between private rented properties and ASB. Evidence base suggests higher rates of environmental complaints from HiMO properties. Significant opposition from landlords for licensing all private rented properties, but some support for Additional Licencing of HiMO s. Landlords will invest elsewhere and this will impact on PRS market. Lack of evidence and confidence that licensing will addresses problems of ASB and rogue landlords. Support for Council to work more closely with landlords and tenants to deal with problems under existing powers. Support for targeted initiatives to identify and deal with rogue landlords. 1

2 Increase in all households of 18.3% (15,221) between Increase in PRS of 259.6% from 6,579 to 17,066 PRS now makes up 17.3% of housing stock in Milton Keynes, from 7.6% in 2001 Home ownership has dropped from 70.4% to 57.7%, and social housing from 20.4% to 18.0%. Currently 205 registered HiMO s. MKC have identified a further 401 HiMO s properties that may need a licence under Additional Licensing. Work undertaken by ORS in 2010 identified there could be as many as 700 additional HiMO s. Majority are concentrated around the central and south east areas of Milton Keynes. ORS study found significantly higher turnover of HiMO s 66% living in their current property for less than a year compared to 13% for MK as a whole. 2

3 In relation to ASB per 1,000 Population there are 6 wards with a rate higher than that for Milton Keynes as a whole (22.7). These are Woughton (56.2), Campbell Park (50.6), Eaton Manor (39.8), Wolverton (28.1), Bletchley and Fenny Stratford (27.9) and Denbigh (26.0). ASB in Thames Valley Police area fell from 26.4% in to 18.4% in

4 Data from MKC on ASB from Council tenants by estate shows a significantly higher number of complaints were received about Council tenants in the Bletchley area. 4

5 Ratio suggests that complaints are 3 times more likely to be received from HiMO s than other properties (1:11 compared to 1:32) and 4 in 5 complaints received from Campbell Park, Bradwell and Middleton. 5

6 717 responses for Open Questionnaire 527 from Landlords, 84 from Other Interests and 106 from Individuals. 127 from Individuals for the Household Survey Landlords/Letting Agents Private landlords in Milton Keynes Letting/Managing agents in Milton Keynes Other Interest Business owner in Milton Keynes Registered Housing Provider in Milton Keynes Work in Milton Keynes Another connection with Milton Keynes Individual Owner Occupier in Milton Keynes Private housing tenant in Milton Keynes Social housing tenant in Milton Keynes Representative of Residents Association/Community Council/Community Group Have experienced ASB problems in local area with 6

7 Agree that Is a very or fairly big problem 7

8 Agree that 8

9 Key Outputs from Landlord Forum Limited experience of ASB at private rented properties in Milton Keynes. How will Milton Keynes Council and Social Landlords deal with ASB from Council and Social Rental tenants? Landlords and Letting Agents did not see how licensing would deal with ASB and rogue landlords. Legislation and measures already in place for the Council and Police to deal with ASB and rogue landlords. The costs of any scheme would be passed on to tenants through increases in rent. The introduction of additional or selective licensing will lead to increases in property insurance and making it hard for people to obtain mortgages. Key Outputs from Landlord Forum Evidence in other parts of the UK that licensing has been problematic in relation to the costs of establishing and administering the schemes and in terms of decreased property values in those areas where schemes have been introduced. Landlords and Letting Agents will become reluctant to take on problem tenants and that these would become the responsibility of the Council or social rental sector to house. Private landlords will invest in other areas resulting in additional pressures on Council and social housing providers. Could the existing non mandatory Landlord Accreditation Scheme could be a viable alternative if it were promoted more? 9

10 Key Outputs from Stakeholder Interviews Support very limited, and concerns that licensing will add unnecessary complexity and cost, and landlords withdrawing from the market at a time of housing shortage. Licensing would require enforcement to be effective and that this would require additional resources. No support for Selective Licensing to deal with ASB in general PRS. Very limited support for selective licensing to deal with poor management of properties, views that most housing is relatively new and existing powers are available. No connection between ASB and PRS and suggested social housing more likely to cause ASB as private landlords vet tenants. Very limited support for additional licensing to deal with ASB in HiMO s as the Council has sufficient powers already, and landlords with problem tenants move them on. Limited support for additional licensing to deal with poor management of HiMO s. Supported for knowledge sharing and mentoring as a means of improving standards, and support for incentives to raise standards. Key Outputs from Written Submissions Legislation already in place to deal with ASB, poor property conditions and rogue landlords. Council working more closely with landlords and tenants would be more successful than introducing licensing. Support from the National Landlord Association to work with the Council to deal with issues including Tenant Information Packs and Accreditation. Detrimental impact of the availability of private rental accommodation and property prices. Evidence from elsewhere that it has done little to reduce ASB and has incurred significant additional costs. Will reduce the funds available for landlords to maintain and improve their properties. Limited instances of ASB from PRS and problems are caused by social tenants or those living in licensed HiMO s. Will result in increased rents, increase in evictions and put further pressures on Council to house people. Costs MK will incur better used dealing directly with rogue landlords. 10

11 Key Outputs from Written Submissions Costs of enforcing would need to be met from other Council budgets. Reference made to Hemming v Westminster City Council (2013) which ruled that a Council can only charge for the actual and direct administrative costs of investigating the background and suitability of the landlord applicant, and the cost of monitoring the compliance by licensed landlords with the terms of their licences. Landlords cannot be held directly responsible for the behaviour of their tenants citing O Leary v London Borough of Islington (1983) which ruled that it cannot be said that a landlord is vicariously liable for his tenant s crimes and a consistent line of authority holds that landlords are not responsible for the anti social behaviour of their tenants. Rogue landlords will continue to operate under the radar and that licensing will do nothing to deal with this whilst penalising good landlords. Milton Keynes Council have not demonstrated consideration of other courses of action available them to deal with the problems as set out by section 57(4) of the 2004 Housing Act. Steve Jarman Senior Research Executive Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF housing@ors.org.uk 11