§ List of people
asked to be followed up from first consultation
§ Information
added to officers’ electronic signature on their emails
§ Support to
complete the online survey was promoted through the libraries
The survey results are shown overall
with a breakdown by respondent type and ward where base sizes are
large enough.
Owing to the rounding of numbers,
percentages displayed on charts in the report may not always add up
to 100% and may differ slightly when compared with the text. The
figures provided in the text should always be used. For some
questions, respondents could give more than one response (multiple
choice). For these questions, the percentage for each response is
calculated as a percentage of the total number of respondents and
therefore percentages do not usually add up to 100%.
Survey
results
In total, 1032
responses were received to the consultations. The first
consultation on additional licensing proposals concluded in June
2021. 822 responses were received, including 228 (28%) who
identified as a private tenant (32% where the respondent type is
known) and 238 as a private landlord, letting agent or manager
(33%). The percentages shown below exclude non-answering
respondents. 374 responses were received in the second
consultation, during autumn/winter 2021, with a greater proportion
of private tenants (41%), though similar for private landlord,
letting agent or manager (32%). The profile of respondents is shown
in Appendix 1. Below is a summary of these responses.
Respondents were asked whether they
think private landlords in York maintain properties to a good
standard. Respondents were more likely to say No (45%) to this than
Yes (35%), with a further 20% answering “Don’t
know”.
Figure 1.: In your
opinion/experience do you think private landlords in York maintain
their properties to a good standard? (n = 469, first
consultation)
When looking at the data by respondent
type, there is vast differentiation in the results. Private
landlords / letting agent or managers were significantly more
likely (78%) than either private tenants (15%) or residents who are
not private tenants (18%) to answer “Yes” in response
to the question of whether private landlords in York maintain their
properties to a good standard. Meanwhile, while almost three
quarters (73%) of private tenants stated that they don’t
believe private landlords in York maintain their properties to a
good standard, significantly fewer (6%) private landlords / letting
agents or managers express this view.
Figure 2.: In your
opinion/experience do you think private landlords in York maintain
their properties to a good standard? – by respondent type
(base sizes in chart, first consultation)
Advice or
community organisations (5), business owners or managers (5) and
other (12) excluded due to low base sizes
Opinions about whether private
landlords maintain their properties to a good standard also varied
by ward, with respondents from Osbaldwick & Derwent (48%) and
Clifton (45%) most likely to believe that this is the case. However
it is notable that in Clifton, approaching half (48%) answered
“no” in response to this, with only 6% providing the
answer “Don’t know”. Meanwhile, respondents from
Micklegate (25%), Guildhall (36%) and Heworth (26%) were least
likely to state that private landlords maintain their properties to
a good standard. It should be noted that the data from Osbaldwick
& Derwent and Micklegate should only be taken as indicative
however, due to the low base size of responses from these wards (27
and 21 respectively).
Figure 3.: In your
opinion/experience do you think private landlords in York maintain
their properties to a good standard? – by ward (base sizes in
chart, first consultation)
Caution advised in
analysis of data from these groups due to low base size
*Wards with a base size of 10 or
lower have been excluded from the chart due to very low base
sizes
Further to this, when asked whether
they agreed or disagreed that private landlords act responsibly in
letting, managing and maintaining their properties, again more
disagreed that this was the case (40%) than agreed (34%).
Figure 4.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that private landlords act responsibly in
letting, managing and maintaining their properties? (n =470, first
consultation)
By respondent type, agreement with this
statement is significantly higher among private landlords / letting
agents or managers (81%) than it is among private tenants (165) or
residents who aren’t private tenants (13%). Meanwhile private
tenants (61%) and residents who aren’t private tenants (51%)
are significantly more likely to disagree that private landlords
act responsibly in letting, managing and maintaining their
properties.
Figure 5.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that private landlords act responsibly in
letting, managing and maintaining their properties? – by
respondent type (base sizes in chart, first consultation)
Advice or community organisations
(2), business owners or managers (5) and other (12) excluded due to
low base sizes
Respondents from Osbaldwick &
Derwent (46%), Clifton (42%) and Fishergate (41%) were most likely
to agree that private landlords act responsibly in letting,
managing and maintaining their properties. Disagreement with this
statement was highest in Guildhall (53%), Micklegate (52%) and Hull
Road (50%). While those in Acomb and Heworth were among the least
likely to agree that private landlords act responsibility (21% and
28% respectively), they had a high proportion of respondents who
indicated that they neither agree nor disagree (37% and 33%
respectively), meaning that although there was a lower than average
level of agreement, the proportion who disagreed was roughly in
line with the sample average (Acomb: 42%, Heworth: 39%, total
sample average: 40%).
It should be noted that responses from
Osbaldwick & Derwent, Micklegate and Acomb should be taken only
as indicative, due to the low base size of these groups.
Figure 6.: 'To what extent do you
agree or disagree that private landlords act responsibly in
letting, managing and maintaining their properties? – by ward
(base sizes in chart, first consultation)
*Caution advised in
analysis of data from these groups due to low base size
Wards with a base size of 10 or lower have
been excluded from the chart due to very low base sizes
While almost all (99%) tenants stated
they were provided with a written tenancy agreement at the start of
their tenancy, under half were provided with a copy of the energy
performance certificate (48%), electrical safety certificate (43%),
the Governments’ official ‘How to Rent Guide’
(38%) and information about the fire safety arrangements in
the house (26%).
Figure 7.: If you’re a
private tenant, did your landlord/agent provide you with the
following at the start of your tenancy (select all that apply)?
(n=201, first consultation)
Across the wards, provision of a
written tenancy agreement was consistently high. Tenants were less
likely to report that they received a copy of the electrical safety
certificate in Fulford & Heslington (36%) and Hull Road (41%)
than in Heworth (60%), Fishergate (57%) and Guildhall (50%). A
similar trend can be seen when looking at provision of the EPC
(Fulford and Heslington: 41%, Hull Road: 40% cf. Heworth: 73%,
Fishergate: 52% and Guildhall: 63%) and a copy of the Governments
official ‘How to Rent Guide’ (Fulford and Heslington:
27%, Hull Road 35% cf. Heworth: 60%, Fishergate: 48%, Guildhall:
44%). However base sizes for Heworth (15), Fishergate (21) and
Guildhall (16) are lower than recommended for analysis, so these
differences should only be taken as indicative.
One in
five (20%) private tenants don’t know the name of their
landlord. This figure is higher in the ward of Heworth (40%),
however as the base size in this group is low (15), this result is
only indicative.
Figure 8.: If you’re a
private tenant, do you know the name of your landlord (not your
letting agent)? (n=207, first consultation)
Most landlords (97%) did take a deposit
from private tenants. This figure was slightly lower in Guildhall
(93%) and Heworth (93%), however with these groups only containing
15 respondents each at this question, these results should be
treated with caution.
Figure 9.: Did the landlord take a
deposit? (n=208, first consultation)
Just over half of landlords (55%) self
report having attended CYC licence holders training in the last 5
years, with a lower proportion reporting attending RLA –
Principles of Letting (22%), NLA – Foundation Course,
YorProperty Core Management/Property Standards (16%), NFOPP Level 3
Technician Award (5%) and NFOPP Level 2 Award 17 (0%) training in
this time.
Figure 10.: Have you attended one
of the recognised training qualifications in the last 5 years?
(n=170, first consultation)
There are
a number of issues tenants report experiencing in Houses in
Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in York, most commonly dampness (70%),
cold homes/poor energy efficiency (56%) and poor letting practices
such as a lack of tenancy paperwork and poor response times
(51%).
Figure 11.: Which of the following
issues, if any, have you experienced in House in Multiple
Occupation (HMOs) in York? (n=188, first consultation)
Dampness was a commonly reported
problem in all wards, although it was less likely to be reported in
Hull Road (64%) and Fulford and Heslington (68%) than Fishergate
(86%). However it should be noted that the base size at this
question in Fishergate was only 21, which is lower than recommended
for analysis, so this figure should be treated with caution.
Tenants in Fulford and Heslington were also notably less likely to
report cold homes/poor energy efficiency (43%) than other wards. In
Hull Road, pests were the third most common issue faced (47%),
making them a larger issue here than in many other wards.
Respondents in the second consultation
were more likely to agree (48%) than disagree (31%) that a
significant portion of HMOs in the eight named wards are being
managed in a way that does or might create problems for people
living in them.
Figure 12.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that a significant proportion of HMOs in the
eight wards are being managed in a way that does or might create
problems for people living in them? (n=252, second
consultation)
Agreement with this statement was
however significantly lower among private landlords / letting
agents or managers (9%) than among residents who are not private
tenants (78%) and private tenants (75%). Approaching two
thirds (65%) or private landlords / letting agents or managers
disagree that a significant proportion of HMOs in the named wards
are being managed in a way that does or might cause problems for
people living in them. It is notable however that when looking at
landlords or agents who own or manage HMOs in the city, those who
own or manage 3 or more HMOs are more likely to disagree with this
statement (81%) than those who only manage one or two (58%).
Figure 13.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that a significant proportion of HMOs in the
eight wards are being managed in a way that does or might create
problems for people living in them?– by respondent type (base
sizes in chart, second consultation)
Advice
or community organisations (2), business owners or managers (3) and
other (11) excluded due to low base sizes
Respondents to the consultation were
then asked to state a reason for their agreement or disagreement
with this scheme. The answers have been coded into themes,
displayed in figure 14. 144 respondents elaborated on their answers
at this question, although 22 provided answers which were invalid.
The most common theme (36 responses) is of general disagreement,
with respondents expressing a good impression of how these
properties are managed: “I’m a student and have had
two great experiences in student HMOs as have my
friends”, “My properties are well kept and so
are those of my managing agent who work to very strict
guidelines”. However, the second most common theme at
this question is that properties are neglected, with 35 expressing
views in line with this: “All student accommodation I know
has extensive damp and mould issues which landlords refuse to
address.”, “The state of the houses outside looks very
neglected. Rubbish accumulation, fly tipping in alleyways,
vermin present. No outside space, because 2 up 2 down
Victorian terrace houses converted to accommodate up to seven
residents. Very cramped. Parking already horrendous
without multiple cars per house.”
Figure 14.: Please state a reason
for your response below: – by respondent type (n = 144,
second consultation)
When
asked whether they agreed or disagreed that a significant of HMOs
in the eight named wards are being managed in a way that does or
might create problems for members of the public, the responses were
fairly balanced, with a slightly higher proportion disagreeing
(38%) than agreeing (35%) with this statement.
Figure 15.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that a significant proportion of HMOs in the
eight wards are being managed in a way that does or might create
problems for members of the public? (n=248, second
consultation)
Agreement with this statement is
significantly higher among residents (who are not private tenants)
than it is among private tenants (41%) or private landlords /
letting agents or managers (8%). Meanwhile almost seven in ten
(69%) private landlords / letting agents or managers disagree that
a significant proportion of HMOs in the named wards are managed in
a way which does or might create problems for members of the
public, compared to 14% of residents who aren’t private
tenants, and 19% of private tenants. However, among letting agents
and landlords who own or manage HMOs, disagreement is higher among
those who manage 3 or more HMOs (83%) than those manage one or two
(55%).
Figure 16.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that a significant proportion of HMOs in the
eight wards are being managed in a way that does or might create
problems for members of the public? – by respondent type (n =
displayed in chart, second consultation)
Advice
or community organisations (2), business owners or managers (3) and
other (11) excluded due to low base sizes
Respondents were asked to provide a
reason for their agreement or disagreement that HMOs are being
managed in a way does or might create problems for members of the
public. 120 respondents provided answers at this question, however
22 gave answers which were invalid.
The responses were grouped into themes,
with the most common theme being general disagreement. Respondents
who stated this tended to report that they have experienced no
major issues with HMOs, that they are well managed, or that they
see no difference between them and other rented properties:
“I am not aware of any issues caused by tenants that have
not immediately been dealt with by the managing agents.”,
“While a limited number of residents dislike the concept of
living next to an HMO, I've seen no difference between living near
HMOs or any other properties”.
The second most common theme related to
litter/rubbish issues/fly tipping: “Noise, anti social
behaviour, littering and fly tipping. Encouraging vermin by
leaving waste food littered about the place. Not putting
refuse out on the correct days, not putting refuse in tied bags,
leaving it for vermin to get to”. Parking issues are
third most common: “Cars are poorly parked often with
inadequate provision causing problems for
neighbours.”
Figure 17.: Please state a reason
for your response below: – by respondent type (n = 120,
second consultation)
Respondents were generally more likely
to be in favour of the proposal to introduce a targeted additional
licensing scheme for HMOs in York. This was particularly the case
in the first wave, when 69% agreed with this statement and 25%
disagreed. However, the responses were slightly more balanced in
the second wave, although still more likely to be in favour of the
scheme. In this wave, 54% agreed and 38% disagreed with the
proposal.
Figure 18.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a targeted
Additional Licensing Scheme for HMOs in York? (base sizes in chart
legend, first and second consultation)
In both the first and second
consultation private tenants (91% first consultation, 79% second
consultation) and residents who are not private tenants (84% in
both consultations) were more likely than private landlords /
letting agents or managers (29% first consultation, 20% second
consultation) to agree with the proposal to introduce a targeted
additional licensing scheme for HMOs in York. The proportion of
private landlords / letting agents or managers who agreed with the
proposal fell from 29% to 20% from the first to second
consultation.
Figure 19.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a targeted
Additional Licensing Scheme for HMOs in York? – Showing the
proportion who “Agree” or “Strongly agree”
(base sizes in chart legend, first and second consultation)
Advice or community organisations
(3/1), business owners or managers (4/2) and other (12/9) excluded
due to low base sizes
In the second consultation, letting
agents or landlords who managed or owned 3 or more HMOs were more
likely to disagree with the proposal (79%) than those who owned one
or two HMOs (70%). In the first consultation, agreement with the
proposals was highest in Heworth (80%) and Acomb (79%), and notably
lower in Fulford and Heslington (62%). However it should be noted
that with only 19 respondents from Acomb answering this question,
the data for this group should only be taken as indicative.
Respondents were asked why they agreed
or disagreed with the proposal – the answers to this have
been coded into themes in figure 20. 125 respondents provided
answers in the first consultation and 96 in the second, although 2
and 4 respondents gave invalid answers in each consultation
respectively. Illustrative comments of this theme include:
“Any Licensing Scheme which will improve the upkeep/
maintenance of any rental properties both internally and externally
is welcomed.”, “Further licensing will help weed out
landlords that are ineffectively managing their properties,
negatively affecting both tenants and local
residents.”
However the second most common theme
related to the costs being passed on to tenants/rents
increasing/some form of rent control: “Landlords will pass
on administration/building/operating cost increases to their
tenants by way of rent increases.”, “I feel this will
create fewer houses for students in a city where our only
accommodation choice is these HMOs or tiny student flats. The costs
of these changes implemented will also be forced onto students
through rental prices.”
Figure 20.: Please state a reason
for your response below: (base sizes in chart, first and second
consultation)
In the
first consultation, there was notable agreement with the proposal
to introduce the Additional Licensing scheme for wards with the
highest number and poorest conditions. 68% agreed with this
proposal, while only 23% disagreed.
Figure 21.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposal to designate those wards with
the highest number and poorest conditions under the Additional
Licensing scheme? (n=475, first consultation)
Agreement with this proposal in the
first consultation was highest among Private tenants (89%) and
residents who aren’t private tenants (79%), and significantly
lower among private landlords / letting agents or managers (31%).
By ward, agreement was highest in Heworth (78%) and Osbaldwick
& Derwent (74%), and lowest in Acomb (58%) and Guildhall (63%).
However it should be noted that the wards of Osbaldwick &
Derwent and Acomb have a low base (27 and 19 respectively), thus
data from these groups should be treated as indicative.
Figure 22.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposal to designate those wards with
the highest number and poorest conditions under the Additional
Licensing scheme? – by respondent type (base sizes in chart,
first consultation)
Advice
or community organisations (3), business owners or managers (5) and
other (12) excluded due to low base sizes
However, in the second consultation,
when the specific eight wards the proposal was being considered for
were listed out, agreement fell to 53%. Nonetheless the proportion
agreeing with the proposal was still higher than the proportion who
disagreed with it (34%).
Figure 23.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposal to include the eight wards
under the proposed Additional Licensing scheme? (n=178, second
consultation)
In the second consultation, agreement
with the proposal was again significantly higher among residents
who aren’t private tenants (84%) and private tenants (81%)
than private landlords / letting agents or managers (19%).
Figure 24.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposal to include the eight wards
under the proposed Additional Licensing scheme? – by
respondent type (base sizes in chart, second consultation)
Advice
or community organisations (1), business owners or managers (2) and
other (9) excluded due to low base sizes
Respondents in the second consultation
were asked to state a reason for their agreement or disagreement
with the proposal to include the named eight wares in the
Additional Licensing Scheme. 81 respondents answered this question,
however 18 provided answers which were invalid. The answers
respondents provided were grouped into themes, the most common of
which, with 22 responses, gave comments about the volume of HMOs in
these areas. Illustrative examples of these responses include:
“According to data you have provided, these are all
considerably or significantly affected areas of York with
HMOs”, “This feels right in terms of the balance of
HMOs across the city, including around pre-dominantly student areas
where a higher proportion of residents will live in shared/ rented
properties.”.
The second most common theme was
disagreement with the areas selected, illustrative examples of
these comments include: “The Wards identified have been
selected to target student landlords”, “Using the
information given in your Consultation Report (anti-social
behaviour, noise and waste complaint data) it clearly shows that
three of the wards proposed to have additional licensing imposed on
them have fewer problems than three wards where no additional
licensing is proposed. Using your data these three wards should be
dropped from the proposed Additional Licensing scheme Fishergate,
Osbaldwick/ Derwent and Fulford/Heslington to be replaced by
Westfield, Holgate and Rawcliffe/Clifton Without.”
Figure 25.: Please state a reason
for your response below: (N = 81, second consultation)
The
standards and conditions contained in the Implementation Policy for
HMOs were generally agreed with. In the first consultation this
agreement was stronger - 76% agreed with these standards and
conditions, while 12% disagreed. Agreement dropped in the second
consultation, but remained just over half (51%), and still higher
than the proportion who disagreed (28%).
Figure 26.: To what extent do you
agree with the HMO standards and conditions contained in our
Implementation Policy for HMOs? (base sizes in chart legend, first
and second consultation)
In both consultations, agreement with
the standards and conditions contained in the Implementation Policy
is significantly higher among private tenants (88% first
consultation, 76% second consultation) and residents who are not
private tenants (88% first consultation, 79% second consultation)
than private landlords / letting agents or managers (51% first
consultation, 27% second consultation). All three groups saw a drop
in the proportion agreeing with the HMO standards and conditions
between the first and second consultation, however this drop was
most notable among private landlords / letting agents or managers
(from 51% to 27%).
Figure 27.: To what extent do you
agree with the HMO standards and conditions contained in our
Implementation Policy for HMOs? Showing the proportion who
“Agree” or “Strongly agree” (base sizes in
chart legend, first and second consultation)
Advice or community
organisations (3/1), business owners or managers (4/2) and other
(12/9) excluded due to low base sizes
In the first consultation, agreement
with the proposals was fairly consistent by ward, tending to fall
between 74% and 85%. However in Fulford and Heslington, agreement
was lower, at 69%.
In both consultations, respondents were
asked if they had any comments on the proposed standards and
conditions for HMOs. The responses have been coded into themes;
these themes differed between the consultations. In the first
consultation, 58 respondents offered further comments, 8 of whom
provided invalid answers. The most common theme in these answers
was a requirement that the HMO standards be clarified/improved (17
responses): “The supporting paper and the standards
applied do not provide sufficient evidence that there are
sufficient numbers of sub-standard housing provision in the
city.”, “Some elements should be a minimum such as
elec/gas certs but room sizes are a matter of tenants choice as
they may be happy to sacrifice a particular room size as the
property has a garage or off road parking, or garden. The tenant
views the property so it’s their choice to accept or
not”.
The second most common theme in the
responses was general agreement (12 responses). Illustrative
examples of this include: “These appear to me to be
reasonable minimum standards. Safety is paramount and the current
rules appear to be targeting those who provide accommodation which
most people would consider unacceptable.”, “Any
legislation that makes sure landlords meet their obligations is to
be welcomed. The new standards appear more specific and
enforceable than the previous ones and as long as they are followed
by the council should do this.”.
Figure 28.: Any comments: (N=68,
first consultation)
In the second consultation, 61
respondents offered comments at this question, although 11 provided
invalid responses. The most common theme in this consultation,
mentioned by 19 respondents, was appropriate/reasonable/will have
positive effect. This was notably more commonly mentioned than the
second most common theme, standards to be changed/improved (8
respondents). Illustrative comments from the
appropriate/reasonable/will have positive effect theme include:
“I think the proposed standards for room size, fire
safety, and heating are especially appropriate. I have rented, as a
tenant, student HMOs which have very small rooms, questionable fire
safety, and inadequate heating conditions (poor heating or just
very cold house due to construction).”, “These are
reasonable and not overly restrictive”.
Figure 29.: Any comments: (N=61,
second consultation)
Respondents reacted positively in the
first consultation to the proposal to amend amenity space standards
for kitchens and communal living spaces. Over four times as many
agreed (72%) with this suggestion than disagreed (17%).
Figure 30.: The Council is also
considering amending its amenity standards having regard to space
standards for kitchens and communal living spaces – please
see document. To what extent do you agree with the council
regarding this proposal? (n=466, first consultation)
Private tenants were most likely to
agree with these proposals in the first consultation, with over
nine in ten doing so (91%). Over eight in ten (81%) residents who
aren’t private tenants also agreed with amending amenity
standards. Private landlords / letting agents or managers were
significantly less likely (39%) to agree with this proposal than
either of the two former groups. However opinion within the
landlord / letting agent or manager group was fairly balanced, with
44% disagreeing, compared to 39% who agreed. Respondents from most
wards reported similar levels of agreement, generally falling
between 73% and 78%, however agreement in Fulford and Heslington
was notably lower, at 64%.
Figure 31.: The Council is also
considering amending its amenity standards having regard to space
standards for kitchens and communal living spaces – please
see document. To what extent do you agree with the council
regarding this proposal? – by respondent type (base sizes in
chart, first consultation)
Advice or
community organisations (3), business owners or managers (4) and
other (12) excluded due to low base sizes
However in the second consultation this
level of agreement fell to 49%, although still with a higher
proportion agreeing than disagreeing (28%).
Figure 32.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the standard and
size of kitchens and communal living spaces in HMOs? (n=152,
second consultation)
In the second consultation, as in the
first, private tenants (80%) and residents who aren’t private
tenants (73%) were most likely to agree with the proposed changes
to the standard and size of kitchens and communal living spaces in
HMOs. Private landlords were significantly less likely to agree
with this proposal (22%), a notable drop from 39% who agreed with
them in the first consultation. Meanwhile, HMO owners or managers
who own or managed 3 or more HMOs were more likely to disagree with
the proposal (57%) than those who own or manage one or two HMOs
(49%).
Figure 33.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the standard and
size of kitchens and communal living spaces in HMOs? – by
respondent type (base sizes in chart, first consultation)
Advice
or community organisations (1), business owners or managers (2) and
other (8) excluded due to low base sizes
Respondents in the first consultation
were asked whether they had any comments on the proposed amendments
to amenity standards. 59 respondents offered answers at this
question, although 5 were invalid. The responses were grouped into
themes, most common among these were too excessive/reduce standards
(15 responses) and general agreement (13). Among those who
indicated the amendments were too excessive/reduce standards,
comments included: “The standards set for room sizes
within the fitness standards used on HMO's are at odds with current
building regulations for habitable room sizes and how room sizes
are calculated”, “There is a housing shortage. Space is
not an issue. Safety is the issue. Air volume is not consider only
floor space.”, “It's not for the council to determine
what an appropriate living space is. Your potentially make good
usable property unavailable if it doesn't make some set space
criteria.”.
Among those who expressed general
agreement with the amendments, illustrative examples include:
“Just because a property is an HMO doesn’t mean it
has to be a hovel or a cramped living/working space.”,
“Think current use of sitting rooms as bedrooms in many
properties is very wrong. Standards of communal living space should
be protected for tenants to higher degree than at
present.”.
Figure 34.: Any comments: (N=59,
second consultation)
Respondents to the consultation were
asked if they had any other suggestions that should be applicable
to HMO licensing. 133 respondents offered a response at this
question, with 16 giving invalid answers. The responses were coded
into themes which can be seen in Figure 35. Most common among the
suggestions at this question was that HMO licensing also include
parking: “A limit on the number of cars per property. A
lot of HMOs are terraced housing with on street parking and if
every tenant has a car it makes parking very difficult for other
residents in the street.”, “Sufficient parking at
property or on street without crowding (and taking into account
local public places that require on street parking such as schools,
community centres, parks etc)”.
Figure 35.: Can you suggest
any other conditions that should be applicable to HMO licensing?
(n=133, first consultation)
64 responses were received to this
question in the second consultation, with 18 providing invalid
answers. The most common theme at this question was that sizing
conditions within properties be reconsidered. These related both to
a requirement for an expansion of sizing requirements from those in
current regulations, and comments indicating that the proposed
sizing requirements were excessive. Illustrative example comments
on this theme include: “Kitchens and common spaces should
be bigger and have more storage space to encourage tenants to use
them and be less isolated in their rooms “, “The
sizes for communal areas wouldn’t be achievable in my 4 bed
house but it’s perfect for us. It’s all about the
overall feel of a student house. It seems mad to apply one rule for
all types of house. They’re all built differently.
There should be discretion allowed if the scheme is forced
through.”
Figure 36.: Can you suggest
any other conditions that should be applicable to HMO licensing?
(n=67, second consultation)
Opinion
is split on the fee structure in the Additional Licensing Scheme,
although leaning slightly more heavily towards disagreement, with
30% agreeing with the structure, 31% neither agreeing nor
disagreeing and 39% disagreeing.
Figure 37.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the fee structure in the Additional
Licensing Scheme? (n=154, second consultation)
Agreement with the fee structure is
highest among residents who aren’t private tenants (55%) and
private tenants (44%), and lowest among private landlords / letting
agents or managers (11%). Over seven in ten (71%) of the latter
group oppose the changes to the fee structure.
Figure 38.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the fee structure in the Additional
Licensing Scheme? – by respondent type (base sizes in chart,
first consultation)
Advice
or community organisations (1), business owners or managers (2) and
other (8) excluded due to low base sizes
Respondents were invited to provide a
reason for their agreement or disagreement with the fee structure
in the Additional Licensing Scheme. 70 respondents provided an
answer at this question, with 9 providing invalid answers. The
responses were coded into themes, the most common of which were too
high/should be lower (15 responses), cost may be passed on to
tenants/rents will increase/some form of rent control needed (14
responses), general disagreement (12 responses) and
appropriate/reasonable/will have positive effect (11 responses).
Illustrative comments on each of these themes are provided
below.
Figure 39.: Can you suggest
any other conditions that should be applicable to HMO licensing?
(n=67, second consultation)
Too
high/should be lower
“The fees are significant and you must
take into account any work that the landlord must be do to the
property to bring it in line with the HMO standards. York has
period properties and costs to make updates to fall in line with
your guidelines can be great. I appreciate they have been
split into two payments, but for a property at the lower occupancy
rate license costs are high.”
“Extortionate landlords are already
crippled with costs in terms of health and safety and eco systems
not to mention insurance”
Cost may be passed on to
tenants/rents will increase/some form of rent control needed
“The proposed scheme together with the
proposed fees will inevitably be an additional cost to landlords
which will no doubt be passed on to tenants in increased rents.
This is at a time when inflation is already high and
increasing.”
“it is a cost that in turn will be passed
on to tenants and that is unfair on all parties”
General disagreement
“I suspect that if a landlord already
hold a license, then some of the checks have already been done.
Also if a landlord has more that one property that will be included
in this new scheme then some of the checks will not need to be
repeated.”
“I find the fees hard to justify and like
many other PR landlords feel they are a revenue generator for CYC
rather than covering the cost of the scheme / enforcement.
Surely enforcement costs should be recouped from successful
prosecutions rather than getting law abiding landlords to pay a tax
for CYC to investigate dodgy landlords? “
Appropriate/reasonable/will
have positive effect
“Should enable the licensing system is
self sustaining”
“I agree that poor conditions should be
stopped and the regulation enforcement will attract
costs”
Respondents in the second consultation were asked whether they
agree that the alternatives such as the continuation of existing
powers and/or a voluntary accreditation scheme could present
solutions to problems identified within the HMO sector. While more
respondents disagreed (44%) than agreed (37%) with this proposal,
neither were answered by the majority.
Figure 40.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that the alternatives such as the continuation of
using existing powers and/ or a voluntary accreditation schemes
instead of the proposal to introduce a targeted additional
licensing have been considered in the consultation document could
present solutions to problems identified within the HMO sector?
(n=154, second consultation)
Agreement with this suggestion was
higher among private landlords / letting agents or managers (47%)
than private tenants (29%) or residents who are not private tenants
(24%). The majority of the latter two groups disagreed with the
proposal (51% of private tenants and 58% of residents who are not
private tenants).
Figure 41.: To what extent do you
agree or disagree that the alternatives such as the continuation of
using existing powers and/ or a voluntary accreditation schemes
instead of the proposal to introduce a targeted additional
licensing have been considered in the consultation document could
present solutions to problems identified within the HMO sector?
– by respondent type (base sizes in chart, first
consultation)
Advice or community
organisations (1), business owners or managers (2) and other (9)
excluded due to low base sizes
Respondents were asked to provide a
reason for their agreement or disagreement with this suggestion. 82
respondents offered a response at this question, with 12 providing
an invalid comment. The responses were coded into themes, the most
common of which (21 responses) were comments about Voluntary
Registration Schemes, many of which highlight the pitfalls of such
schemes: “Voluntary schemes are unlikely to work because
they are voluntary. Landlords who only care about profit are
unlikely to be incentivised to voluntarily improve their practices.
Existing powers are not doing enough to combat the HMO issues
within York - this is made evident by the numerous negative
experiences expressed by students across the city.”,
“There doesn't appear to be much existing power or voluntary
ability to curtail anti-social behaviour problems, so this does not
seem to improve the situation”.
However a minority of respondents offer
more positive views on voluntary schemes: “Licensing is as
equally self-selecting as a voluntary accreditation scheme. It's
known that CYC work with DASH. There are others like Unipol. The
problem with the previous voluntary accreditation scheme was that
it was run by the council and landlords believe that licensing is
being proposed for revenue purposes and Housing Standards is just
an enabler. As such, there is an issue with trust. It needs to be
run by a third party. Consumer-based approaches work. Look at the
hospitality sector. You will not get the criminal landlords. The
proposal self-selects the better landlords. Everyone wants a high
standard of accommodation in York!”.
Among those who discuss the
continuation of existing powers, some highlight the powers councils
already have, and the need for these powers to be used more
effectively: “The Council have sufficient powers already
available to deal with problem HMO's, but do not use them
effectively”, while others point out that the failure of
existing powers highlights the need for further licensing:
“Current powers are not resolving issues at moment and a
voluntary scheme would see little take-up or action as nothing it
currently done to resolve issues”.
Figure 42.: Any other
comments: (n=82, second consultation)
At the end of the survey, respondents
were asked if they had any final comments that had not been covered
by the previous questions. 176 respondents provided further
comments at this stage in the first consultation, and 53 in the
second consultation, with 13 responses invalid in the first
consultation and 4 in the second. In the first consultation, the
most common themes to the comments were around needing improved
living conditions, standards & safety/better monitoring and
control/protection for tenants, and comments/suggestions for
amendment to the conditions/regulations. The latter was the most
common theme in the second consultation, followed by scheme not
needed/Council shouldn't interfere/unnecessary burden. Illustrative
comments in these themes are provided below.
Figure 43.: Please state a reason
for your response below: (base sizes in chart, first and second
consultation)
Need improved living
conditions, standards & safety / better monitoring and control
/ protection for tenants
“I have had an awful experience so far,
with a landlord that turns up at the house without notice, shouts
and is abusive even when we are playing by all the rules. When
asking for issues to be fixed we are met with anger and it takes a
lot of time before anything is ever completed”
“I'm a 30 year old doctor and the
situation is so bad that the next time I move, I'm moving to a
different city as I can't deal with the poor housing situation any
more after two years.”
“Much of the private rental housing stock
is very low quality and private landlords take advantage of housing
as a necessary but scarce resource. It is disgusting.”
“I have experienced good landlords in York, so I do not wish
it to be assumed that all landlords are terrible. But the vast vast
vast majority are. Letting agencies are perhaps even worse - and
there should be no excuse since their entire business model and
expertise is focussed on this one area. Letting agencies and
landlords should be held to a minimum standard, and there should be
a clear and accessible process for any tenant or neighbour in the
city to make a formal or informal complaint on a range of key
issues.”
Comments/suggestions for
amendment to the conditions/regulations
“There should be something in place
regarding bills e.g. with bills included tenancies tenants should
be notified how much they are spending in bills, and if it drops
below a certain number (because for example no one is living in the
house for part of the tenancy) then this should be taken off the
rent. The tenants should be able to meet the landlord at least
once.”
“If successful in this change, would like
to see this standard applied to all HMO's irrespective to location
for the future.”
“Should be a limit on the amount of HMOs
you can buy, more opportunities for younger adults to buy HMOs
(especially those that have lived in one before). They can actually
be hands on and know how to meet the requirements. Maybe a scheme
for recent university alumni to have the opportunity to buy a
HMO?”
“The areas defined for additional
licensing are ward based. I suspect that this problem is not
widespread throughout the wards and is specific to a few streets or
confined areas within these wards. I would recommend that it may
not be necessary for the scheme area to be as wide as suggested and
by limiting it to several streets a better picture of how acute the
problem is in relation to this type of housing may be identified
and discussed. Should other areas emerge as an issue in the future
a further licensing scheme could be developed in those areas
dealing with those specific concerns.”
Scheme not needed/Council
shouldn't interfere/unnecessary burden
“I disagree with the proposed changes.
The existing laws and regulations are enough. My landlords have all
been compliant and the houses safe.”
“There is no requirement. There are
many good landlords in York and this scheme is about further
regulation, cost and revenue generation for YCC “
Written
submissions
The consultation received written
submissions by email from three organisations, the York Residential
Landlords Association, Safeagent and an organisation representing
students in York, as well as seven private landlords. Here is a
summary of the key themes, with full responses provided as Appendix
F.
§ Safeagent
expressed support for additional licensing initiatives, so long as
they “are implemented in a way that takes account of the
Private Rented Sector (PRS)’s own efforts to promote
high standards”.
§ Safeagent
believe that the council could benefit from offering discounted
licence fees to landlords and agents who are accredited under their
own accreditation scheme. This is because members of these schemes
are less likely to be non-compliant with the council’s
proposed licence, thus reducing the administration and compliance
costs to the council of enforcing the licensing scheme.
§ Safeagent were
keen to work with York City Council, with one suggestion being a
co-licensing scheme.
§ YRLA state that the first consultation is
unlikely to meet the requirements for a lawful consultation,
due to a lack of a clearly evidenced case for the scheme, guidance
on room sizes and the inclusion of insufficient information on
areas such as the details of the scheme and the wards under
consideration.
§ YRLA acknowledge that the second
consultation addressed many of the issues they raised with the
first consultation; however, they still believe that the case
offered in the consultation does not provide the evidence
required to prove a need for the scheme.
§ YRLA highlight that there is no evidence
that a proactive HHSRS inspection regime wouldn’t
achieve the same goals of the HMO licensing regime. They state that
York City Council already possess the powers to deal with issues
of damp and properties lacking EPCs. They also argue that the
council already possess data it requires about housing stock within
its benefits and council tax records, and that it doesn’t
need PRS legislation to capture this.
§ YRLA disagree that the decline in
problems reported when an HMO licence is renewed is evidence that
licensing reduces issues, and is instead a reflection of the fact
that when renewing the licence, the property has already been
inspected for the initial licence, leading to the majority of
problems in the property already being identified.
§ YRLA disagree that there is a strong
correlation between property age and condition, and that two of
the wards that the Council seeks to licence have property ages that
are newer than the city average.
§ YRLA state that there is not a link
between HMOs and environmental complaints, with a number of the
noisiest wards in the city having fewer HMOs. Where noise issues
are prevalent this is more likely due to proximity to the urban
core.
§ YRLA argue that no local authority
has effectively implemented and run a properly resourced licensing
scheme which is effective on a self-funding basis.
§ Safeagent “welcome the
targeted nature of the licensing proposals”.
§ YRLA disagree that the wards of
Heworth, Hull Road and Osbaldwick and Derwent are justifiably in
need of a licensing scheme.
§ One landlord disagrees that additional
licensing in York will have an impact, unless the council has
the ability to detect wrongdoers and enforce the legislation.
They state that as some landlords will flout the rules, while
putting a cost on those who do adhere to the legislation. This will
cause landlords to leave the sector and drive up rents, making it
less affordable to tenants.
§ One landlord suggests that the title of
Enforcement Officer be changed to Information Officer
or something similar, as the title Enforcement Officer might be
likely to immediately build a barrier.
§ One landlord highlights that the Council
already have powers to enforce improvement works on all
rental properties due to HHSRS. They suggest that advertising the
message to tenants that they can report issues under HHSRS may be a
more suitable course of action.
§ YRLA state that without effective
enforcement the additional licensing scheme will be
self-selecting in the same way that voluntary schemes currently
in place are.
§ Concerns are held by Safeagent about the
assumed link between the prevalence of ASB and the volume of PRS
accommodation in an area. Any correlation between ASB and PRS
does not necessarily indicate causation, and it is therefore
not reasonable for landlords and agents to “play a
disproportionately large part” when it comes to tackling the
causes of ASB.
§ YRLA likewise argue there is no true
correlation between HMOs and ASB, as the two wards with the
highest level of HMOs have no complaints of ASB at all. There is a
correlation between waste complaints and HMOs, but this is impacted
by these areas being closer to the urban core of the
city.
§ YRLA highlight that complaints about ASB
relate to the concentration of HMO properties, which the
licensing scheme is not able to deal with, as licenses can’t
be refused due to the number of HMOs in the area.
§ Safeagent disagree with the implication of
the proposal that there should be a “parity of
approach” between the PRS and social rented sector. Social
housing providers have wider responsibilities for the communities
they work with, whereas PRS landlords and agents are private
businesses which “cannot reasonably be expected to tackle
wider social problems”.
§ Safeagent hold concerns about the
wording of the licence being valid for a maximum of five years,
particularly that if this is a fixed period, landlords or agents
who apply for the licence part way through the period would be
charged for the full five years. They suggest that the fee either
be charged pro-rata, or that it be made clear that licenses last
for a full five years regardless of when they are taken out,
“and remain valid when the designation is renewed or comes to
an end”.
§ Safeagent suggest that landlords who are
offering permanent accommodation to meet homelessness duties
should be given a fee waiver. This approach could be made more
structured through adoption of a partnership arrangement in which
letting agents source properties for council referrals for homeless
people or those at risk of homelessness.
§ Safeagent “are supportive of any
requirement to obtain references for prospective
tenants”.
§ YRLA state that the fee structure in the
second consultation is not compliant with the law due to the second
element of the fee being payable once an application is complete
but before a notice of decision is issued. This could result in the
application being refused after the second stage payment is made,
making the fee structure unlawful.
§ A landlord questioned whether there would
be a grace period of six months once the scheme is
introduced for landlords of HMOs to turn their properties back to
single let properties, allowing for their current tenants to see
out their notice period, without the need for licensing.
§ YRLA state that additional licensing
schemes put costs onto landlords, leading to them leaving
the sector and increasing rents.
§ Safeagent request that regular
information on the scheme’s implementation be “made
available in a clear and consistent format”. This information
should include, at a minimum:
§ Estimated number of PRS properties
requiring licenses
§ Number of applications made for licenses
and progress in the processing of these licenses
§ Analysis of
reasons for queries or refusals of licenses and the extent to which
remedial action is identified and taken as a result
§ Analysis of
outcomes of ongoing inspections and extent to which remedial action
is identified and taken as a result
§ Progress
reports across the whole 5-year period covered by the scheme.
§ One landlord requests that landlords be
provided with early indications of new demands and
regulations to be introduced in the next 2-5 years so that they
can plan ahead.
§ A representative body for university
students in York “strongly welcome” the
proposals, and highlight that “the provision of good quality,
safe and well managed accommodation for all of York’s
residents should be a priority for the Council”.
§ A representative body for university
students in York call attention to evidence of the extent of
poor conditions and property management within York’s private
rented market, particularly among the student housing sector.
Drawing upon research produced in conjunction with Citizens’
Advice York, they highlight that 42% of 600 polled residents were
dissatisfied with their experience of accommodation in York, half
report that repairs weren’t carried out in reasonable
timeframes and 31% experienced pests or insect
infestations.
§ One private landlord fed back that they
had no issues with the proposal as their properties are
already of a high standard. They state that they are aware that
there are a lot of 3 bedroom houses which are below the
standards they would expect, and agree with the importance
of fire safety compliance.
§ One landlord suggests that C4
restrictions, particularly around parking, be
relaxed.
§ One landlord suggests that there should be
a focus on small houses of families living with 5 or 6
children, rather than HMOs, as often houses don’t have
easy access to a park meaning that children are kept in the house
or are playing on the street.
‘Let’s Talk Housing’ meeting
feedback
As part of the second consultation, two
public meetings were also held in December 2021 to give the
opportunity to hear more about the HMO licensing proposals. At the
end of each session the attendees were given the opportunity to ask
questions about the proposal. These have been summarised into key
themes below.
In both sessions, questions were asked
about why the Council is not challenging landlords on violations of
current legislation, such as expiration of EPCs.
A query was raised over whether the
council has capacity to deal with additional licensing, as there is
no point implementing the measures if the council doesn’t
have the resources to manage them.
An attendee raised a question regarding
whether current HMO landlords would have a grace period to return
their property back to a single let before needing to get a
licence, in order to give them a chance to give notice to their
current tenants.
It was raised that institutional student
accommodation providers are exempt from HMO requirements through
signing up to an approved code of practice, and queries why a
similar scheme isn’t proposed for HMOs.
It was claimed that student tenant
often don’t comply with or understand safety rules such as
not leaving doors wedged open, and there is a need for better
education of students on these issues. Likewise, there is a need to
help students to understand what they should be getting their
landlords to fix and what they need to do to avoid issues, for
example in waste management.
It was raised in one session that those
in attendance are likely to already be in favour of licensing, as
evidenced by their presence.
A question was raised over whether
agents who specifically market student properties would or could be
encouraged to market their properties from January onwards.
It was raised that the surveys included
in evidence of student housing conditions don’t make
reference to HMOs.
A query was raised over the action being
taken to ensure housing standards are maintained in properties
provided by the Council and registered providers , and whether
proposed licensing would apply to these providers, and
institutional accommodation providers.
Appendix A:
Respondent type profile
|
Respondent type
|
First consultation
|
Second consultation
|
|
Private landlord / letting agent or
manager
|
33%
|
32%
|
|
Private tenant
|
32%
|
41%
|
|
A resident (who is not a private
tenant)
|
31%
|
21%
|
|
Business owner or manager
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
An advice or community
organisation
|
1%
|
1%
|
|
Other
|
3%
|
3%
|
|
N
|
699
|
354
|
|
Gender
|
First consultation
|
Second consultation
|
|
Female
|
221
|
64
|
|
Male
|
166
|
58
|
|
Non-binary/gender variant
|
8
|
3
|
|
Prefer not to say
|
57
|
27
|
|
N
|
452
|
152
|
|
Sexuality
|
First consultation
|
Second consultation
|
|
Heterosexual/straight
|
271
|
3
|
|
Bisexual
|
44
|
9
|
|
Gay man
|
16
|
11
|
|
Gay woman/lesbian
|
7
|
83
|
|
Prefer not to say
|
104
|
42
|
|
N
|
442
|
148
|
|
Disability
|
|
First consultation
|
Second consultation
|
|
No
|
363
|
95
|
|
Yes
|
limited a little
|
66
|
21
|
|
limited a lot
|
19
|
|
Prefer not to say
|
32
|
|
N
|
448
|
148
|
|
Ward
|
First consultation
|
|
Acomb
|
33
|
|
Bishopthorpe
|
5
|
|
Clifton
|
38
|
|
Copmanthorpe
|
5
|
|
Fishergate
|
61
|
|
Fulford & Heslington
|
97
|
|
Guildhall
|
52
|
|
Haxby & Wigginton
|
10
|
|
Heworth
|
49
|
|
Heworth Without
|
14
|
|
Holgate
|
15
|
|
Hull Road
|
176
|
|
Huntington & New
Earswick
|
10
|
|
Micklegate
|
40
|
|
Osbaldwick & Derwent
|
47
|
|
Rawcliffe and Clifton
Without
|
7
|
|
Rural West York
|
7
|
|
Strensall
|
3
|
|
Westfield
|
5
|
|
Wheldrake
|
5
|
|
N
|
679
|
|
Employment
|
First consultation
|
Second consultation
|
|
Employee in full-time job (30 hours
plus per week)
|
127
|
46
|
|
Employee in part-time job (under 30
hours per week)
|
33
|
12
|
|
Self-employed full-time
|
37
|
30
|
|
Self-employed part-time
|
19
|
|
Full-time education at school, college
or university
|
125
|
32
|
|
Unemployed and available for
work
|
2
|
-
|
|
Permanently sick/disabled
|
2
|
-
|
|
Wholly retired from work
|
63
|
21
|
|
Looking after the home
|
5
|
-
|
|
Other
|
16
|
8
|
|
Prefer not to say
|
22
|
-
|
|
N
|
261
|
150
|
|
Ethnicity
|
First consultation
|
Second consultation
|
|
White - English / Welsh / Scottish /
Northern Irish / British
|
338
|
102
|
|
White - Irish
|
2
|
1
|
|
White - Gypsy or Irish
Traveller
|
0
|
1
|
|
Any other White background
|
20
|
4
|
|
Mixed - White and Black
Caribbean
|
3
|
0
|
|
Mixed - White and Black
African
|
1
|
0
|
|
Mixed - White and Asian
|
5
|
1
|
|
Any other Mixed / multiple ethnic
background
|
2
|
0
|
|
Asian - Indian
|
5
|
3
|
|
Asian - Bangladeshi
|
1
|
1
|
|
Asian - Chinese
|
1
|
1
|
|
Any other Asian background
|
1
|
0
|
|
Black - African
|
1
|
1
|
|
Any other Black / African / Caribbean
background
|
0
|
1
|
|
Any other ethnic background
|
0
|
1
|
|
Prefer not to say
|
69
|
32
|
|
N
|
449
|
149
|
Appendix B:
Written responses
YORK CITY COUNCIL’S
ADDITIONAL LICENSING PROPOSALS
A RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION
FROM SAFEAGENT – DECEMBER 2021
INTRODUCTION
safeagent www.safeagents.co.uk
is an accreditation
scheme for lettings and management agents operating in the Private
Rented Sector (PRS) safeagent firms are required
to:
·
deliver defined
standards of customer service
·
operate within strict
client accounting standards
·
maintain a separate
client bank account
·
be included under a
Client Money Protection Scheme
Firms must provide evidence that
they continue to meet safeagent criteria on an annual basis,
in order to retain their licence. The scheme operates UK wide and
has 1500 firms with over 2500 offices.
safeagent is an accredited training provider
under the Rent Smart Wales scheme and meets the requirements for
training for agents under the Scottish Government Register.
Recently, we have been approved by Government as a Government
approved Client Money Protection scheme.
SAFEAGENT AND LICENSING
safeagent is supportive of initiatives such
as Additional Licensing, providing they are implemented in a way
that takes account of the Private Rented Sector (PRS)’s own
efforts to promote high standards.
safeagent believes that positive engagement
with voluntary schemes and the representative bodies of landlords
and agents (such as safeagent) is essential to the success
of initiatives such as Additional Licensing. We are mindful that
the operational problems associated with lack of such engagement
have been highlighted in House of Commons
Standard Note SN/SP 4634.
The same note sets out
how important it is for licensing schemes to avoid being
burdensome. We
believe that promoting voluntary schemes, and offering discounted
licence fees to accredited landlords and agents, can help to
achieve this. Voluntary schemes often require members to
observe standards that are at least compatible with (and are often
over and above) those of licensing schemes. We believe, therefore, that if York City
Council were to allow discounts based on membership of
safeagent (as well as other similar bodies) implementing and
policing the licensing scheme would ultimately be less costly and
more effective, allowing resources to be concentrated in the areas
where they are most needed.
This is a commonly accepted
approach by many English Local Authorities. We would further point
out that, in Wales, the Welsh Government has recently recognised
the importance of membership of specified bodies such as
safeagent and is offering discounted fees to members as a
consequence https://www.rentsmart.gov.wales/en/
PROMOTING PROFESSIONALISM IN THE
PRS - THE ROLE OF AGENTS
safeagent’s
engagement around the
country, with various local authorities, suggests that lettings and
management agents have a key role to play in making licensing,
accreditation and other, voluntary regulatory schemes work
effectively. Agents tend to handle relatively large portfolios of
properties, certainly when compared to small landlords. They tend,
therefore, to be in a position to gain an understanding of
licensing based on wider experience. They become expert in trouble
shooting and ensuring that the balance of responsibilities between
the agent and the landlord is clearly understood. This, amongst
other things, can help to prevent non-compliance due to
misunderstandings about local licensing arrangements.
Furthermore, safeagent
ensures its members maintain certain operational standards, have
Client Money Protection arrangements in place, keep separate client
accounts and comply with their legal obligation to be a member of a
redress scheme. We also provide training. All this can be of
assistance to councils who are trying to drive up standards in the
PRS.
Although agents are now required
to belong to a government approved redress scheme, display their
fees and publish their client money protection status, our
experience to date suggests local authorities face challenges in
enforcing these standards. Membership of bodies such as
safeagent can reduce the need for the local authority to use
its formal, legal powers in these areas.
YORK CITY COUNCIL’S
PROPOSALS - SPECIFIC ISSUES
Proposed Licensing Area
We welcome the targeted nature of
the licensing proposals.
Licensing Period and Changes in
License Holder
We note the fact that a
licence would be valid for “a maximum of five
years”
Given the use of the term “maximum”, we are concerned
that licence applications made part way through the designated
period would incur the full fee. This is unfair and makes licenses
granted later in the designated period poor value for money. In
these cases, we believe the fee should be charged
“pro-rata”.
Charging of full fees for part
periods is also anti-competitive, as it can add cost to the process
of engaging or changing a license holding managing agent.
Specifically, we often
see cases where a reputable agent has to take on management of a
property and the license, when there has been a history of
management and/or compliance problems. We would suggest that, in
cases where an agent steps in as licence holder/manager, the
licensing fee should again be charged “pro
rata”.
Alternatively, it should be made
clear that licenses taken out part way through the period last for
a full 5 years - and remain valid when the designation is
renewed or comes to an end. If a designation comes to an end,
inspections and resultant remedial actions should continue to be in
operation until all licenses have expired.
Additional Licensing
Fees
We believe that the Council should
offer a discounted rate for ‘accredited’ landlords and
agents. We would request that York City Council specifically list
safeagent as a recognised professional accrediting body, and
offer fee discounts to:
·
Agents who are members
of safeagent (where the agent is the licence
holder)
·
Landlords who engage
agents that are members of safeagent (where the landlord is the licence
holder)
We would suggest that this is
justified because safeagent members and the landlords who
engage them are less likely to be non-compliant and that, as a
result, there would be reduced costs to the council. We would also
suggest that safeagent membership mitigates the need for
compliance visits to be carried out by the council. For example,
the timing and content of visits could be risk based, recognising
that the risk of non-compliance is much lower in the case of
properties managed by safeagent agents.
In our detailed comments below, we
point out some of the areas where compliance with key standards is
an inherent part of the safeagent scheme. These are the
areas where we think promotion of safeagent membership
through license fee discounts could ultimately save the Council
money, as well as increase the take up of voluntary
accreditation.
Fee Waiver – Tackling
Homelessness
We would suggest that, in
cases where a private landlord is assisting the
Council by offering permanent
accommodation to meet homelessness duties,
license applications should be
accepted without any fee being payable.
Furthermore, this approach could
become more structured if the council were to enter into
partnership arrangements whereby lettings agents source properties
for council referrals of homeless people or those at risk of
homelessness. safeagent is currently working on a model
whereby a “Social Lettings Agency” is created through
links to one or more established local agents. This is an
alternative to the traditional approach whereby entirely new
voluntary sector entities need to be set up. We would be happy to
discuss this model with the council at any time.
LICENCE
CONDITIONS
Tenant
Referencing
We are supportive of any
requirement to obtain references for prospective tenants.
safeagent is actively involved in promoting good practice in
tenant referencing. We would be happy to discuss our work in this
area with the Council.
Tenancy
Management
safeagent agents are expected
provide and fill in a tenancy agreement on behalf of the
landlord. they will always make sure the terms of the tenancy are
fair and help the tenant to understand the agreement.
They will always
provide clear information to the tenant about any pre-tenancy
payments and what these cover. They will explain any requirement
for a guarantor and what the guarantor role entails.
At
the end of a tenancy, they will always serve the tenant with the
correct period of notice as set out in the tenancy
agreement.
Under safeagent’s service standards, agents are required to take a deposit to
protect against possible damage. They are required to explain the
basis on which the deposit is being held and the purpose for which
it is required, as well as to confirm the deposit protection
arrangements. When joining safeagent,
agents are asked to provide details of the number and value of the
deposits they have registered with the scheme.
Agents are
asked to authorise safeagent to contact the scheme to verify
this information.
During the course of a tenancy, safeagent agents will check the condition of the property and draw up a
schedule to outline any deductions to be made from the
tenant’s deposit. They will return the deposit in line with
timescales and processes required by the statutory tenancy deposit
schemes.
safeagent agents are also required to:
·
Have a designated client account with the bank
·
Operate to strictly defined Accounting Standards
·
Be part of a mandatory Client Money Protection
Scheme.
These requirements provide
additional security for client monies held, over and above the
requirements of the York City licensing scheme. Again, this is an
area where increased safeagent membership would be of
benefit to the Council and local tenants.
Licence Conditions
Relating to the Property
We
welcome York City Council’s drive to improve property
standards. We believe that safeagent’s standards go a long way to ensuring compliance with
license conditions.
Under safeagent’s service standards, safeagent agents are expected to visit any property to be let with the
landlord and advise on any action needed before letting the
property. This includes any repairs and refurbishments needed to
put it into a fit state for letting. They will also go with
possible new tenants to view unoccupied property. Tenants can,
therefore, be confident that safeagent agents have provided advice to the landlord concerning any
repairs or refurbishments which are necessary.
safeagent agents are expected to explain both the landlord’s and
the tenant’s the rights and responsibilities. To guard
against misunderstandings, they will arrange for the preparation of
a schedule of the condition of the property.
safeagent
agents are required to ensure that tenants are provided with
copies of safety certificates on gas and electrical appliances
before they commit to the tenancy. They will provide details of the
condition of the property, plus a list of its contents. The
property will have undergone all required safety checks on
furnishings, and gas and electrical services.
Thereafter, safeagent’s
standards require
agents to carry out property inspections periodically, as agreed
with the landlord, in line with normal good practice.
safeagent and our firms would anticipate inspections to be carried out every 6
months as a minimum, to identify any problems relating to the
condition and management of the property. In line with common
practice, records of such inspections would contain a log of who
carried out the inspection, the date and time of inspection and
issues found and action(s) taken. Under a licensing scheme, this
information could be shared with the council in an appropriate
format.
Tenants will be fully aware of access arrangements.
safeagent agents are expected to arrange in advance a time for access,
in order to inspect the condition of the property in accordance
with the tenancy agreement. safeagent agents will arrange to have routine maintenance work carried
out, up to a limit agreed with the landlord. The agent will refer
expenditure above that limit to the landlord.
Training
We welcome the proposal that
agents who are license holders should undergo training.
Membership
of safeagent
means that agents already have
access to an extensive training package, engagement with which
should reduce the need for the local authority to intervene.
Although not a condition of
safeagent membership, safeagent offers accreditation
through an online foundation course as well as qualifications such
as BTEC Level 3 in Lettings and Management practice.
safeagent offers training to
those who have been involved in lettings and management for some
time as well as those who are just starting out. Training is
available for principals of firms as well as employees. Thus,
safeagent’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is
designed to cater for a wide range of professional development
needs. Training is easily accessible and can be undertaken
when it suits the trainee. Any candidate completing the
safeagent Foundation Lettings Course successfully also has
the opportunity to use the designation 'safeagent
qualified'. safeagent Foundation Lettings Course (Wales)
is also approved training recognised by Rent Smart Wales, the Welsh
Government’s regulatory body as meeting the requirements for
agents to have complying with their licensing
requirement.
One advantage of
this approach is that it makes it easy to ascertain (through on-line
monitoring) that participants have in fact undertaken the required
training, prior to or immediately after accreditation.
Modules available
cover:
·
Pre-tenancy
issues
·
Responsibilities and
liabilities
·
Setting up a
tenancy
·
During a
tenancy
·
Ending a
tenancy
·
General law concepts,
statute vs contract
·
Relationships
·
Obligations
·
Process
·
Considerations for
corporate tenants
·
Continuing
Professional Development (CPD)
In addition,
safeagent provides mini online courses designed to cover a
number of elements in more detail, as appropriate to the learner's
role, include topics such as:
|
Assured Shorthold Tenancies
(ASTs)
|
|
Client Money
|
|
Consumer Protection
Regulations (CPRs)
|
|
Deposits
|
|
Disrepair
|
|
Electrical Appliances &
Safety
|
|
Gas Appliances &
Safety
|
|
Houses in Multiple Occupation
(HMOs)
|
|
Housing, Health & Safety
Rating System (HHSRS)
|
|
Inventories and schedules of
condition
|
|
Joint Tenancies
|
|
Notice Requiring
Possession
|
We would further suggest that
discounted fees for safeagent agents would provide an
incentive to positive engagement with training that is fully
compatible with the requirements of the licensing
scheme.
We note that the council accepts
the following as an alternative to attending the council’s
own course;
·
Residential Landlords
Association, Principles of Letting
·
National Landlords
Association, Foundation Course
·
YorProperty
Accreditation Scheme Core Management/Property Standards
courses
·
NFOPP Level 2
Award
·
NFOPP Level 3
Technical Award
We would also urge the council to
recognise safeagent training and add it to this
list.
Anti-Social Behaviour
For our members,
dealing with actual and perceived anti-social behaviour in the PRS
is a day to day activity. However, in
general, we have concerns about the assumed link between the amount
of PRS accommodation in the neighbourhood and the incidence of
ASB.
There may be some
correlation between incidences of ASB and the prevalence of
PRS accommodation on the area. However, correlation does not imply
causation. The causes of ASB are many and varied. It
is not, in our view, reasonable to expect agents and landlords to
play a disproportionately large part in tackling them.
Furthermore, we would
strongly advise against any proposals which imply a parity of
approach between the PRS and the social rented sector. Social
landlords are publicly funded (and regulated) to develop and manage
housing on a large scale. Their social purpose brings with it wider
responsibilities for the communities in which they work. As private
businesses, PRS landlords and their agents, whilst having clear
responsibilities to manage their properties professionally cannot
reasonably be expected to tackle wider social problems.
Suitability of Licence
Holder
We note and welcome the
requirement that the council would only issue a licence if it is
satisfied that the proposed licence holder is a ‘fit and
proper’ person and that there are suitable management
arrangements in place. We believe that this requirement highlights
the importance of lettings and management agents belonging to
recognised accrediting bodies like safeagent, who themselves
apply a fit and proper person test.
Allprincipals,
partners and directors of a safeagent firm are asked to make
the following declaration on application:
–
“I confirm that: for a period of 10 years prior to this
application I have had no conviction for any criminal offence
(excluding any motor offence not resulting in a custodial sentence)
nor have I been guilty of conduct which would bring the Scheme or
myself into disrepute; I am not an undischarged bankrupt nor is
there any current arrangement or composition with my creditors; I
am not nor have I been a director of a company which has within the
period of 10 years prior to this application entered into
liquidation whether compulsory or voluntary (save for the purpose
of amalgamation or reconstruction of a solvent company) nor had a
receiver appointed of its undertaking nor had an administration
order made against it nor entered into an arrangement or
composition with its creditors; nor have I at any time been
disqualified from acting as a Director of a company nor subject to
a warning or banning order from the Consumer Markets Authority or
the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform.
If I am subject to any current claim or am aware of any impending
claim for professional negligence or loss of money or if I have
been the subject of any investigation by the Consumer Markets
Authority and/or local Trading Standards Office, full details of
the circumstances are set out in a report enclosed with the
application; all information provided by me in connection with this
application is, to the best of my knowledge,
correct”
We believe this certification is broadly in line with York City
council’s licensing conditions and is another example of
where promotion of safeagent membership through discounts
could help to ensure compliance.
Complaints
All
safeagent firms are required to have a written customer
complaints procedure, available on request. Our guidance sets out
how the first step for complainants is to ask the firm they are
dealing with for a copy, which will outline the method by which
they can seek to resolve any issues.
In line with
statutory requirements, all safeagent members must also be
members of a recognised redress scheme.
Firms are
required, at the request of the
complainant, to refer the complaint to a redress scheme once their
in-house procedure has been exhausted. They are also required to
comply with any award determined by the redress scheme, within the
timescale prescribed.
Under co-regulation
schemes elsewhere in the UK, safeagent has undertaken to
review any complaints that have been adjudicated upon by any of the
redress schemes. Under such an arrangement, safeagent
can report to the Council on the number of complaints reaching this
stage and on the adjudications made. Non-compliance with a redress
scheme’s adjudication would eventually lead to
disqualification of the agent from safeagent. We would be
happy to come to a similar arrangement with York City.
MEASURING THE SUCCESS
OF THE SCHEME
We believe that
regular information on implementation of the scheme should be made
available in a clear and consistent format. Reports to local
landlord and agent forums, representative bodies and other
stakeholders should include at minimum:
·
The
estimated number of private rented properties that require
licensing under the Additional licensing scheme
·
The number
of applications received in respect of these properties
·
Progress
in processing (granting, querying or refusing) the licence
applications received
·
Analysis
of the reasons for any queries or refusals and the extent to which
remedial action is identified and taken as a result
·
Analysis
of the outcomes of ongoing inspections and the extent to which
remedial action is identified and taken as a result
·
Progress
reports across the whole 5 year period covered by the
scheme.
This should help to
enable the Council to work in partnership with landlords, agents,
representative bodies and other stakeholders to ensure the success
of the scheme.
CONCLUSION
It seems to us that many of the
licencing requirements in the York City scheme highlight how
important it is for landlords to work with reputable agents such as
safeagent members. Offering a discount to licence holders
who work with a safeagent accredited agent would help to
promote this.
safeagent would welcome a collaborative
approach with York City Council, based on shared objectives.
We believe that agents who are members of a recognised body are
more likely to embrace Additional Licensing and less likely to
generate complaints or breaches of their licence. Discounted fees
for safeagent members would be a significant incentive to
positive engagement by agents. In return, the Council would
experience reduced administration and compliance costs.
CONTACT DETAILS
safeagent
Cheltenham Office Park
Hatherley Lane
Cheltenham
GL51 6SH
Tel: 01242 581712
Email: info@safeagentcheme.co.uk
APPENDIX 1 –
COMPATIBILITY OF SAFEAGENT SERVICE STANDARDS WITH TYPICAL SCHEME
CONDITIONS
|
Example
Scheme Conditions
|
SAFEAGENT Service Standard Requirements
|
|
Fees
|
SAFEAGENT
promotes complete transparency in agency fees. Members provide
landlords with a statement of account as often as
agreed.
|
|
Rent
Liabilities and Payments
|
SAFEAGENT
agents collect the rent and pass it on every month or as otherwise
agreed. The agent will keep a separate clients' account to hold all
monies.
|
|
Contact
Details
|
SAFEAGENT
agents are expected to respond to tenant and other legitimate
enquiries in a timely manner. Up to date contact details will
enable them to respond to tenants’ requests for maintenance
or repairs which might in some cases have to be referred to the
landlord for approval.
|
|
State of
Repair
|
SAFEAGENT
agents visit the property with landlords and advise on any action
needed before letting the property. This includes any repairs and
refurbishments needed to put it into a fit state for letting. They
will also go with possible new tenants to view unoccupied property.
Tenants can be confident that SAFEAGENT agents have provided advice
to the landlord concerning any repairs or refurbishments which are
necessary.
|
|
Access and
Possession arrangements
|
SAFEAGENT
agents will visit the property periodically during the course of
the tenancy as often as agreed with the landlord. Tenants will be
fully aware of access arrangements. At the end of a tenancy, they
will always serve the tenant with the correct period of notice as
set out in the tenancy agreement.
|
|
Repairs
and Maintenance
|
SAFEAGENT
agents will arrange to have routine maintenance work carried out,
up to a limit agreed with the landlord. The agent will refer
expenditure above that limit to the landlord.
|
|
Access,
Cleaning and Maintenance of Common Parts
|
SAFEAGENT
agents will arrange in advance a time for access to the property in
order to inspect the condition of the property in accordance with
the tenancy agreement.
|
|
Level of
Facilities
|
SAFEAGENT
agents ensure that tenants are provided with copies of safety
certificates on gas and electrical appliances before you commit to
the tenancy. They provide details of the condition of the property,
plus a list of its contents. The property will have undergone all
required safety checks on furnishings, and gas and electrical
services.
|
|
Deposits
|
SAFEAGENT
agents provide and fill in a tenancy agreement and take a deposit
to protect against possible damage. They will explain the basis on
which it is being held and the purpose for which it is
required.
|
|
References
|
SAFEAGENT
agents choose a tenant in a way agreed with the landlord, taking up
references or checking the tenant's rent payment record.
|
|
Complaints
& Dispute Handling
|
SAFEAGENT
agents explain both the landlord’s and the tenant’s the
rights and responsibilities. To guard against misunderstandings,
they will arrange for the preparation of a schedule of the
condition of the property.
During the
tenancy, they will arrange to check the condition of the property
and draw up a schedule to outline any deductions to be made
from the tenant’s initial deposit. They will return the
deposit as soon as possible, less any appropriate
deductions.
|
This
project has been delivered to ISO 9001:2015, 20252:2019 and
27001:2013 standards.
