9:31 AM, 26th November 2015, About 7 years ago 47
I have been an avid reader of your letters for many years and wish to put to you a quandary regarding these new rules which are coming into effect in our district and also nationwide.
We are two owners and landlords of more than 50 mixed, fully approved multi-let, and licensed HMO properties in south Lincolnshire. We use a properly licensed management agent and have no problems with our legal or taxable status.
Our quandary is in regard to the changes in room sizes that are coming into effect and the way our local council is intending to enforce them.
They have sent us an official notice to provide them with addresses, room numbers and dimensions of ALL the rooms in ALL our properties to assess the room sizes in this regard.
We have complied and as a result the council are now intending to issue closure notices on many of our rooms as they fall under the guidance.
The closure notices are mixed between singles and doubles with the majority of the notices being double rooms that are under their required 15 sq m. ( even though it would appear that the legal requirement is in fact only 11sq m) We have only 3 rooms that are under 6.5sq m and presently let as singles. These have of course been issued with closure notices.
The problem as we see it, is thus –
Over that last 10 years we have invested over £2.5m in the refurbishment of our properties, we have worked with the council to assure the standards are fully met with regard to ALL of the regulations and have building plans for the refurbishments/conversions, complete with the correct number of bathrooms, kitchens, sound insulation and fire safety requirements etc etc. We have many building plans – signed off – and full photos, costings and listed refurbishments in our archives.
The council are now intent on issuing closure notices on the rooms that previously they had approved for double and single use due to the new requirements of the law.
The council have written to us stating it is now their legal requirement to enforce the room sizes ( due to national government insistence) even though it would appear that these room sizes were always in the regulations but had never been enforced by the council in any of our approved building works or planning applications.
If – as we can see happening – we are stopped from using the double rooms that are already in occupation by fully vetted and approved tenants – we will have to issue section 21 notices to the couples therein and refill the rooms with new single tenancies.
( with absolutely NO reissue of a single tenancy to “one” of the couples as this would lead to “over crowding” offence when they instantly let their partner “stay ” in their room “temporarily”)
The council are also intent on enforcing the regulations that each multi-let house will have to have at least one communal lounge for tenants use.
In business terms this means the loss of one letting bedroom per house and the loss of the double room rent(s) with the unnecessary eviction of more than 300 people under a VERY difficult process where such section 21 eviction may well be viewed by the courts as illegal, as it is being used only as a means to satisfy the difficult situation that would follow from a prosecution by the council against our company, for non compliance to a legal notice from themselves –
That legal notice being a change in their definition and insistence of room size regulations, which over the past decade, they had not strictly imposed on our conversions.
We have engaged the services of a barrister to take the council to task over this matter.
Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated as would any advice from your members.
We are seeking a simple solution – that being – a firm, written assurance with legal backing – that no action will be taken on retrospectively approved multi-let, HMO properties.
At present have four projects under construction which are now under threat – a new 20 bedroom ex-nightclub conversion and 3x, 6 room multi-let property refurbishments. All of which previously have had full council approval and are now at a standstill due to the council having changed their minds as to the bedroom sizes.
We think we need to stand our ground on this matter.
It will obviously effect millions of people in the future and will make it very difficult financially, to develop suitable properties for multi-let use.
With the imposition of the new mutli-let “mandatory licensing” laws in April of next year? – the councils will have the effective ability to refuse the license for properties – that fail “any” of the regulatory or management standards, with no regard as to their previous permissions, and effectively stop mutli-let use for retrospectively approved, decent, well designed and well run houses unless they are reconverted to the “new” regulations.
As you can imagine this is an impossible situation.
As a last word of humour?
The need for article 4 is now redundant!
Thank you so much for your excellent informative news and mails.
Next ArticleCourt call centres fuelling possession delays
10:16 AM, 1st December 2015, About 7 years ago
Lots of our customer’s value being able to move into a room within a day or day of getting a job in the area. It’s the best room on the market at the time someone is looking that they take.
So unless the better landlords have empty rooms, they have very little effect on the market…. Yet lots of the better landlords would rather charge a little less rent and not have to spend time finding new tenants.
18:27 PM, 4th December 2015, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "01/12/2015 - 00:33":
They must think the market can substain the prices and its big enough to take the units they intend to build.
2:11 AM, 7th December 2015, About 7 years ago
The problem with increasing quality is that it decreases quantity and that will result in higher prices
Imagine a law that baned farmers from selling potatoes or eggs that were below a government approved size. Less potatoes or eggs would get to market and what is on the market would thus be a higher price
Also some people have argued that a tenant does not want to rent the small room they are forced to do it because its all they can afford. That's just a stupid as saying mr smith doesn't want to buy a ford he really wants the Bentley but he is forced to buy the ford as its all he can afford.
2:14 AM, 7th December 2015, About 7 years ago
lots of people value a smaller and cheaper room. I know one landlord with a HMO which has 5 big rooms and one small room. £450 for the big rooms £350 for the small one. When he has a small and a big room available he gives the choice to the tenant which they would like and in half of the cases they go for the smaller room
the powers that be and their inexperienced cheerleaders basically want to take that choice away.
Anyway what will happen to his small room is that he will knock through and one of the doubles will become a v.big double he can offer at a higher price. one less room rental in the area which means higher prices for renters.
20:34 PM, 11th December 2015, About 7 years ago
10.5sq metres for £2895 per month, or £600,000 to buy. A snip.
23:33 PM, 11th December 2015, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Chris Byways" at "11/12/2015 - 20:34":
The world's gone mad.
9:21 AM, 20th May 2017, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Gillian Schifreen" at "28/11/2015 - 13:42":
Has anyone looked at how many rooms will be lost by being too small? How many people would have to pay more or commute further to find an affordable room? I imagine the people who think that there should be minimum room sizes have little real first hand knowledge of what tenants are up against, and probably do not have a business renting to them.
I promise I have never forced anyone to rent from me. The do so because they like the accommodation and cost.