Agenda item

This report advised that, following a review of technical and legislative amendments, a revised Housing Enforcement and Licensing policy was approved by Cabinet on 12 May 2020.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which advised that, following a review of technical and legislative amendments a revised Housing Enforcement and Licensing policy, enacting the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 had been approved by Cabinet on 12 May 2020.

The following issues were discussed:

·         Consultation – noting that the consultation exercise had resulted in 17 completed responses, the point was made this was a disappointingly low number and the analysis which broke this number down into percentages was therefore of limited value. The response probably accounted for only 3-4 tenants out of 200,000 properties. In addition, many landlords had 1-2 properties so most would not be aware of the new policy. The Head of Housing responded that the response rate was not as high as he would have liked and as many avenues as possible had been used to engage with landlords and tenants. The consultation had been carried out by the Communications team but he would look at how the number of responses in future could be increased. A wider point was made that the Council’s record on consultation generally was poor in terms of generating a meaningful number of responses.

·         Enforcement action – the Head of Housing was asked to clarify what a “reasonable amount of time” meant in the context of attempting to secure required improvements informally. Members were advised that this would involve assessing a number of issues such as the condition of the property, how severe the problem was, property type, time of year and the effect on the tenants etc.

·         Ability to raise concerns – it was suggested that how individuals were able to raise concerns (e.g. modern slavery) should be included in the policy. The Head of Housing explained there were several routes for this including directly into the team, the Medway Task Force and via safeguarding policies in children’s and adults services. He would look to see how this could be publicised more though.

·         Issuing HMO licence/renewal – in terms of whether complaints could be considered as part of this process, the Head of Housing advised they were taken into account but this was balanced against how well the HMO was being managed. The number of new type of HMOs licensed so far would be clarified.

·         Accreditation Schemes – the possibility of the Committee looking at how robustly accreditation schemes across the Council were monitored was suggested. The Head of Housing commented that the landlord and tenant accreditation schemes had been passported from other areas. The tenants accreditation scheme explained landlords’ responsibilities. The team were proactive in informing tenants how to report problems. There was a Landlords forum hosted by the Council but not all engaged with this. Ultimately it was a landlord’s responsibility to be aware of their obligations.

·         Database of rogue landlords – the extent to which tenants could access this was queried. Members were advised this was a national database and whether it included there any Medway landlords would be clarified.

·         Impact of new policy – whether the impacts of the new policy, including the number of enforcement actions taken, would be reported to the Committee was queried. The Head of Housing advised this was measured through the Council Plan process but he could report back to the Committee in 12-18 months. The point was made that the maximum penalty under the policy for specific offences was £30,000. But as this only applied to a portfolio of 20 or more properties then it was arguably quite a low figure. The Head of Housing commented he thought the penalty charges were based on comparable councils but would update Members if that was not the case.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)     support the new Housing Enforcement and Licensing Policy;

b)     request a report to a future meeting on how the policy is being monitored;

c)     ask Cabinet to review the consultation process across the Council, including response levels.

(Councillors Johnson, Maple and Stamp asked that their votes in favour be recorded.)