Licensing Consultation in Southwark

Reply to the comment left by "Jay James" at "10/10/2014 - 19:05":

Jay Jay,

My personal information including my terms are not public information, they are specifically private and protected.

It has nothing to do with the scheme proposed which is a public process and anyone can read and comment on the scheme here or anywhere else. Though I would have to say I would like responses to be made into the consultation process.

I do wonder at being described as confrontational, I rather suspect that most reasonable people, including almost everyone here, would react badly to having their personal information fished for on a forum.

In terms of confrontation there are posters here, like Victoria who asks every question in a reasoned and effective way, others well not so much. Statements like 'criminal code for landlords' are just inflammatory, it doesn't help and it isn't part of a debate on a proposal..

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "11/10/2014 - 14:42":

Thanks for your reply John. It was quite a measured one. I do however disagree that any of your personal information was put on here. I leave readers to decide upon that if they are so inclined. Certainly no information not already in the public domain was put on here. Still, it strikes me that your post just above is professional and measured.

"Confrontational" was clearly given as a characterisation of some of your posts. (Accurate or otherwise.) It was also an attempt to keep language mild. Linking it to disclosing personal info was therefore innaccurate.

The task to bring in a licensing arrangement / consultation may or may mot be a good idea. I would have expected an elected official to take the approach / make some of the arguments you have on these pages, rather than an employee / consultant. I suppose that is really much closer to what I was thinking when using the characterisation "confrontational".

As to the original topic, it seems an additional and selective licensing arrangement (details to be decided) is a foregone conclusion. Are you able to confirm that an additional / selective licensing arrangement may or may not happen? I am not against this, it would just be better if all parties invloved in renting were licensable / treated the same.

Hallo John, thank you for your answer.

Sure, the law takes precedence over every thing, but the interpretation of the law is the issue. The RRO, which is the ultimate law on this subject, states that measures described in RRO (including the fitting of observation panes to kitchen doors) should be implemented 'WHERE NECESSARY'. So it is down to deciding the necessity.

I would like a more clear answer to the scenario I presented you before. A landlord hires a fire risk assessor, the assessor states that observation panes to kitchen doors are not necessary and the landlord indeed does not fit the panels. Would the Council rule against the professional risk assessment ? (keep in mind fire risk assessors are normally LACORS accredited).

You are saying that the "LA uses the HHSRS system to assess risk". You also say "if a landlord has a current FRA which is suitable for the property and all the recommendations for action on it have been addressed and there are no HHSRS hazards within the property we then have no cause of action".

So the LA risk assessment take precedence over the landlord's FRA carried out by a LACORS accredited professional ? I have not heard the LA coming in to inspect the safety of the gas appliances (for example) when the landlord presents a Gas Safety Record certificate, so why wouldn't the LA rely on the risk assessment carried out by a qualified professional on behalf of the landlord ?

thank you

Reply to the comment left by "John Daley" at "11/10/2014 - 14:42":

John - the council is bringing in powers that add a "movable feast" of criminal laws to an already thick law book. Why do you dictate or claim onwership on what is or isnt helpful when if anything its the LL's who need to get inflamed here as they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the application costs and it's penalties.

Clearly it's not helpful to claim as Southwark does that a glass fire door in an HMO kitchen in one street helps reduce ASB but isn't needed 5 yards away in a different street - it's junk science in support of a criminal code.

I think taken from your reponses that the council proposals will (if not withdrawn) catch people like Vicotria in an interpretation web - no sweat for the council but a massive risk for her.

Reply to the comment left by "Victoria Morris" at "11/10/2014 - 21:18":

Victoria - To quote Southwark from their docs

"Our intention is to simplify the standard in comparison with our current standards, include additional information (fire precautions for example), and introduce some clarity to help landlords comply. The new document is, we believe, easier to understand and more straightforward to use as a reference."

Your comments highlight your (and no doubt others) confusion in interpreting these proposals, the answers so far are still falling short of the clarity any business needs if it is to remain compliant. Don't forget all the conditions you and fellow LL's negotiate, haggle, clarify and sign up to with Southwark prior to scheme launch can be changed at any time during the 5 year license as there is no sunset clause to the conditions.

If you look again you'll see the ASB and fire link is not even being proven in the Southwark published papers - but in comparision to Thanet the fire risk figures per head of population were at least supplied to prove a link and support their proposals. Which when they went live (oddly) didn't include the fitting of glass panel type kitchen fire doors - still that's the beauty of licensing schemes because if they bump into their friends at Southwark and learn about the huge risk to life by not having these doors in small HMO's they can always make an adjustment to the licensing conditions and bring it in for the PRS in Kent.

Reply to the comment left by "Victoria Morris" at "11/10/2014 - 21:18":

Hi Victoria,

There is some grey area and overlap between RRO and HHSRS. The FRA required under the RRO applies up the the front door of the dwelling in single family lets, where there are common areas. Where a property is an HMO the FRA includes the common areas inside the dwelling as well but not the areas capable of being made secure by the tenant. This last area is subject to HHSRS and LA regulation.

So we do have some interpretation required as how we most sensibly make the building safe and how we apply the law first and then the guidance.

In the example you quote I think an inspector would accept the FRA written by the contractor, unless there were obvious grounds to question it. If we were concerned about any particular thing we would raise our concerns with the landlord and from our point of view justify the concerns with the HHSRS risk assessment.

If the item could not be resolved by discussion then we would refer to the Fire Service for advice and a decision.

As a final point the title fire risk assessor is not in any way protected, you or I could add it to our CV tomorrow. I am not aware that LACORS have an accreditation scheme for this qualification, they issed the guidance but have since been subsumed into LGR ( Local Govt Regulation ) which is an advisory body for LA's. They don't offer training outside except LA staff.

There is a NEBOSH qualification but most training is from commercial firms which largely self regulate. I don't think this area of practice is as well regulated as gas safety where all practioners are required to meet national standards and be registered as competent by Gas Safe before being allowed to work.

I would like to thank John Daley for posting on this site and being upfront and explaining certain aspects. Having spent the day looking through the consultation documents and formulating a response to Southwark Council on their website, I am concerned that there seems to be no material difference between the smaller HMOs and the huge HMOs in the requirements. The one size fits all concept isn't suitable for small 3 person HMOs, in my opinion. How much lee way on these rules will given for the smaller HMOs or will the rules be set in stone?

In particular I would like to know how Southwark ex-local authority flats will be treated (now owned by us under leasehold and rented to private tenants)? Southwark is exempt from the requirements but they are our landlord/managing agent. Will we be given help by Southwark to achieve licensing or do we have to get it right first and then await a check by the council? Whilst it is still only in consultation at the moment, it would be helpful if we knew more about how Southwark intend to make this work in principle.

If you are able to add anything else it would be appreciated as it is of concern to us. Many thanks.

Credit where it is due, that is the most comprehensive, well written consultation document I've seen to date.

However, it totally fails to establish a clear link between the PRS and ASB. The link is tenuous at best and very far from conclusive. It could be equally applied to density of trees in the area (as someone once said). Or more realistically to income, education or a host of other social factors.

The increase in EHO regulatory activity is nonsense without looking at the increased time, targets and resources expended on gathering this 'evidence'. Flood Buckingham palace with EHO's and you'll find a similar increase.

As for it being a 'consultation', this is already a done deal as far as the council is concerned. See this quote from before the results of the consultation;

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s39298/Private%20Rented%20Sector.pdf

This paper sets out background information about Landlord Accreditation and selective licensing schemes which the Leader has stated he is committed to implementing in Southwark

See also from the consultation;

After the Council has approved the scheme

Note, no question of if the council approves the scheme.

Too much time and money has been spent for the council to back down now, irrespective of it being right or wrong.

Unfortunately, this is all about politics and empire building.

If these conclusions from the report are correct;

Conclusion 1
Therefore our first key conclusion is we would be unjustified in making a designation for borough-wide selective licensing.

Conclusion 2
On the basis of the evidence in the maps in Appendix 4 there is a link between the density of housing benefit related PRS lettings and the incidences of ASB that arise closely to the occupation of property. For example, noise complaints, domestic refuse issues and rowdy neighbours.

The obvious solution would be for Southwark council to bring in a scheme to check housing benefit is ulimately going to a fit and proper person providing decent housing.

It is what any responsible parent would do if paying for an adult offspring's rent (and council's are in effect acting in loco parentis).

They already have a 100% comprehensive data base of recipients. No rogues can slip through the net (like the 10,000 estimated unregistered in Newham).

But the council won't, because they know they would then have a huge problem finding enough decent housing and it doesn't raise revenue/empires. No political gain in that.

Far easier to tax the good landlords and turn a blind eye to the rogues.

Reply to the comment left by "Yvette Newbury " at "14/10/2014 - 23:54":

Hi Yvette,

In terms of the HMO standards because we have indicated an intention to use them as license conditions they are intended to be what we expect for the letting of an HMO.

I accept tht there are clear differences in scale of HMOs and the smallest and largest are far different in regulatory approach.

However we have just had a five page debate here which indicates that is some areas at least it is just not possible to write a definitive standard unless we reproduce a hundred pages of other organisations guidance.

Having worked with the staff who are currently enforcing this stuff every day on the streets of the borough this draft HMO std represents what seems to be a reasonable guide to a workable standard for HMO letting. Most of the terms have been tested at tribunals over time and we have not included anything that we have 'lost' on.

That is not to be overconfident, we are attempting to get this right and consultation with all parts of the community is part of the process. If we get a broad and reasoned objection to any part we'd have to think it through and decide what we should do.

At every point a landlord can ask for more specific guidance or a site visit to clarify what is required for compliance.

In terms of process our intention is to issue a conditional licence on application, the conditions being compliance with the Rental Standard and the HMO standard if the property qualifies.

We then propose to inspect the property in accordance with our inspection priorities in the proposal. The intention is to take this on trust unless we have any evidence to the contrary, though everything will be inspected in the end.

I think it is the right approach to focus our resources on those properties where we have concerns based on size, possible questions on planning or building control, previous evidence or complaints and leave the average landlord who is likely to be managing ok or better to a compliance visit in slow time.

In terms of the properties that have been sold or leased by the Council, if they are let as HMO's or in the selective areas, we propose to license them like any other let property.