Selective Licensing Consultation Landlord Update Agenda Selective Licensing

Selective Licensing Consultation Landlord Update

Agenda • Selective Licensing Overview • Anti-Social Behaviour Update • Consultation Results Feedback • Next Steps

Selective License Overview Alan Broadbent Group Manager, Housing – Knowsley MBC

What is it? • The ability of a Local Authority (LA) to designate an area where all private rented properties are required to be licensed. • Can be introduced to tackle problems of low demand and/or antisocial behaviour

Selective Licensing Criteria In relation to antisocial behaviour the LA must be satisfied that ‘the area is experiencing a significant and persistent problem caused by antisocial behaviour and that some or all of the private sector landlords have let premises in the area and are failing to take action to combat the problem that it would be appropriate for them to take’ Section 80 Housing Act 2004

What would it mean? • PRS Landlords would be required to have a licence • The landlord would have to satisfy the LA that he/she is ‘fit and proper’ and that they have appropriate management practises in place • Local Authority could exclude a landlord or require an alternative licence holder where they fail the above • Ability to take over the management of a PRS property

What would it mean? • Licensed Landlords meeting requirements would be bound to comply with the licence conditions These can cover the requirement to : - • Take up references • Provide a written tenancy agreement • Attend meeting with the Police/LA • Take action required by the LA e. g. seek possession of the property • Licensing would last for up to 5 years

Landlord Implications • PRS Landlords will be required to have a licence • The landlord will have to be satisfy the LA that he/she is ‘fit and proper’ and that they have appropriate management practises in place – landlords can be excluded • Licensed Landlords meeting requirements will be bound to comply with the licence conditions • Criminal offence to fail to licence a property (Max £ 20 K fine) and for failure to comply with conditions (£ 5 K) • Rent payment orders

Councils Implications • Requires Management arrangements in circumstances where the landlords fails to licence, is refused or a licence is revoked • Requires either the Council or any agent to manage the property • Council would need a budget to front fund all costs e. g. consultation, set up/running, insurance, maintenance, renovations etc • Excess rent after costs payable to landlord – they can challenge accounts

Financial Implications • Landlords would be charged a licensing fee per property • Licence fees should only cover the set up and running of the scheme • Evidence from schemes Nationally indicate that full costs are rarely recovered in full

Selective Licensing Map

• • • • • Adswood Road Alamein Road Alexander Green Anzio Road Ardennes Road Arnhem Road Atkinson Grove Bakers Green Road Bluebell Lane Bower Road Brookwood Road Coppice Crescent Derna Road Fullerton Grove Geneva Close Glade Road Horrocks Close • • • • • Ironside Road Lester Grove Liverpool Road Malta Close Montgomery Road Mossbrow Road North Atlantic Close Northwood Road Paxton Road Reeds Road Rome Close Rotherham Close Salerno Drive Slim Road Tobruk Road Wavell Road Wellcroft Road

Private Rented Sector and Anti-Social Behaviour Jemma Jones Senior Legal Advisor, Crime & Disorder – Knowsley MBC

Overview • Anti-social behaviour; background, examples and controls • Current Tools and Powers • Anti-social behaviour in the Private Rented Sector

What is Anti-Social Behaviour? Acting “in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself” Sections 1(1)(a) & 1 C(2)(a) Crime & Disorder Act 1998

What is harassment, alarm or distress? Subjective Views can differ from person to person, however, a good test is whether a reasonable person might be harassed, alarmed or distressed by an incident. But what we do have is 10 years of established and tested case law which can assist us to determine what may or may not meet this definition.

Anti-Social Behaviour in Knowsley

Private Rented Sector and ASB Perpetrators of ASB is not tenure specific, i. e. perpetrators come from every housing sector, the differences come with how tenants are dealt with in the PRS in comparison to within RSL tenancies. Issues with PRS – As experienced by the ASBU 1. Landlords can be “absent” i. e. reside out of area; 2. Landlords can be difficult to locate and/or engage with – perhaps hiding behind a letting agent or failing to respond to correspondence; 3. Landlords are aware that the property may be difficult to let if they evict a tenant; 4. Landlords are concerned at the money that they will have to spend to renovate the property in order to make it “fit to let”; 5. Landlords are unaware of the legal processes for evicting a tenant.

Case Study 1 Kirkby Private landlord lets to mother and 2 sons. Behaviour of sons includes serious ASB and criminality, neighbours reporting issues daily to ASBU and police. ASBU and neighbourhood policing team attempt to work with landlord to address behaviour of tenant through warnings, outlining potential threats to security of tenancy, acceptable behaviour contracts and more. Landlord was given general advice and “signposted” to the CAB who could provide him with legal advice. Landlord could not understand that we would not take action for him and/or provide legal advice. Landlord did eventually serve notice but this was defective and the court refused to grant possession, this was eventually pursued and household evicted. Issues for Landlord: Cost Availability of Legal services Small Landlord – only property Issues for ASBU/Partnership: Delay – community perceptions Cost of pursuing other enforcement action Officer time

Case Study 2 Huyton Private landlord lets to single female. Female allows family members and guests to use property to the detriment of the neighbourhood. Tenant does not respond to warnings and/or enforcement action. Partnership takes action and closes premises for 3 months. During that period attempts to work with Landlord (who owns many properties and manages many others). Landlord does not evict tenant therefore ASBU seeks extension to closure order. Landlord evicts. ASBU seeks to manage re-housing of tenant (and 2 other households) through bond scheme and working with local landlords, offering support packages and more (2 other households moved away from the area). However, a landlord does not engage and lets to tenant in the same street. Issues for ASBU/Partnership: Community perceptions – tenant remains in locality – working with community to regain confidence in authorities; Cost of pursuing other enforcement action; Officer time – across partnership;

Case Study 3 – The Good Prescot ASBU contacted by community member following leaflet drop reporting problems with neighbour. Issues included, parties, threatening behaviour, general annoyance. Tenant did not heed warning letters or approaches from ASBU or local policing team. ASB Co-ordinator managed to locate details of landlord and the letting agent and contacted them to discuss issues. Letting agent supported ASB Co-ordinator and sent joint warning letter. When tenant failed to heed this warning letting agent served notice and tenant handed in keys. Complainant was ecstatic with result and stated first time in months they felt safe in their own home.

Current Tools and Powers Safer Knowsley Partnership utilise: “Any lawful means” • Warnings • Acceptable Behaviour Contracts • Anti Social Behaviour Orders • Anti Social Behaviour Interventions • Tenancy Enforcement Action • Fixed Penalty Notices • Prosecution for criminal offences

Anti-Social Behaviour in the Private Rented Sector • In comparison to ASB in the social housing sector ASB in the Private Rented Sector is more challenging • Private Landlord Accreditation can have a positive influence on reducing ASB in the PRS • Knowsley Landlord Accreditation Scheme & Tenancy Bonds – for all new tenancy bonds ASBU are consulted by Strategic Housing before issuing a bond

Consultation Response Alan Broadbent Group Manager, Housing – Knowsley MBC

Survey Responses • Residents and landlords were asked five simple questions • Questions themed around: • Low Housing Demand • Anti Social Behaviour • Empty Homes • 252 responses received by residents and 15 received by landlords in the proposed selective licensing area in Reeds Road, North Huyton.

Resident Responses Q 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that problems of nuisance and anti social behaviour in the area proposed are at levels that need to be reduced? 27 34 191 Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree or Disagree § 75. 8 % of residents either agreed or strongly agreed or agreed that nuisance and anti social behaviour are at a level that needs reducing.

Landlord Responses Q 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that problems of nuisance and anti social behaviour in the area proposed are at levels that need to be reduced? 3 6 6 Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disgree or Disagree § 40% of landlords strongly agreed or agreed that nuisance and anti social behaviour are at a level that needs reducing and 20% Disagreed

Resident Responses Q 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that Selective Licensing would help to reduce problems of nuisance and anti social behaviour in the area proposed (as shown on the map) 20 16 1 (Not answered) Strongly Agree or Agree 215 § Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree or Disagree 85. 3% of residents strongly agreed that Selective Licensing would help reduce anti social behaviour.

Landlord Responses Q 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that Selective Licensing would help to reduce problems of nuisance and anti social behaviour in the area proposed (as shown on the map) 6 6 Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree or Disagree 3 § 40% An equal number respondents agreed and disagreed that Selective Licensing would help reduce anti social behaviour.

Resident Responses Q 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that there are too many empty homes in the area (as shown on the map) where Selective Licensing is proposed? 43 2 52 155 (Not answered) Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree or Disagree § § 61. 5% of residents strongly agreed that there were too many empty homes in the area. 17% strongly disagreed that there are too many empty homes.

Landlord Responses Q 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that there are too many empty homes in the area (as shown on the map) where Selective Licensing is proposed? 4 6 Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree 5 § Strongly Disagree or Disagree 33% of landlords neither agreed or disagreed that there are too many empty properties within the area

Resident Responses Q 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that Selective Licensing would help to reduce the number of empty homes in the area proposed? 25 44 183 § Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree or Disagree 72. 6% of residents strongly agreed or agreed that SL would reduce empty homes in the area.

Landlord Responses Q 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that Selective Licensing would help to reduce the number of empty homes in the area proposed)? 3 7 Stongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree 5 § Strongly Disagree or Disagree 46. 6% of landlords disagreed that SL would reduce empty homes in the area. .

Resident Responses Q 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the area proposed for Selective Licensing? 120 100 6, 3 4, 8 6, 3 10, 7 19 13, 9 23, 8 9, 5 80 23, 8 15, 1 60 Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Agree or Agree (Not answered) 87, 3 40 84, 5 76, 6 61, 1 56, 7 20 0 Reputation of area Homes losing value People not settling poor Properties run down Not enough shops or facilities

Landlord Responses Q 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the area proposed for Selective Licensing? 16 14 3 3 12 10 7 7 8 Strongly Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree 3 6 4 9 4 4 2 5 3 5 4 2 0 Reputation of area Homes losing value People not settling Properties run down Not enough shops poor or facilites Disagree or Strongly Disagree

Residents - Conclusions • The perception from residents: • There are too many empty homes in the study area • There is low housing demand in the study area • Anti Social Behaviour and incidents of nuisance is all too common in the area • The area is subject to reducing house prices, poor reputation and run down properties • Residents on the whole agree that Selective Licensing can help resolve these issues

Landlords - Conclusions • The perception from Landlords: • Anti Social behaviour incidents are at a level that they needed to be reduced • Equal numbers of landlords thought Selective Licensing would help reduce such incidents as those who thought it wouldn’t • Landlords agreed that residents don’t settle in the area • On the whole landlords disagreed that area reputation was poor, homes had lost value and properties where run down

Next Steps

Consultation Timeline

Questions?