It’s a flop! Council unlikely to renew selective licensing scheme
Woking Borough Council are likely to scrap their attempt at implementing a Selective Licence Scheme in the Canalside ward, after significant shortfalls and failure to achieve its goals.
On 1 April 2018, Woking Borough Council enacted its delegated powers under the Housing Act 2004 to implement a Selective Licence Scheme within the Canalside boundary (parts of Maybury and Woking town centre).
Canalside ward was selected due to the number of private rented properties located within the ward and the number of prosecution cases taken against private landlords in that particular area (though these prosecutions related between 2012 and 2017 with it being repeat offenders and only a few landlords - you could probably count them on the one hand!).
The best of intentions
Taken from its own website, the Council introduced the Selective Licence scheme for myriad reasons, which were to:
Ensure that these properties are managed properly.
Improve neighbourhoods in the designated area.
Reduce complaints of noise, rubbish, housing disrepair and other anti-social behaviour related to the private rental sector by making landlords accountable for their tenants.
Continue to improve the private rented sector.
Ensure the licence holder and manager are suitable.
Ensure fundamental basic standards of accommodation are provided, including safe gas and electrics and room sizes for an appropriate number of occupants.
Assist in identifying and dealing with rogue landlords.
According to the Council’s online public register, the Council has 836 Selective Licences, with the cost of each licence being £560.00.
On paper, it looks great, doesn't it!
The worst of outcomes
To date, the scheme has "resulted in a £245,000 net shortfall in income across Selective Licensing and HMO Licensing". An unnecessary cost to the taxpayers.
These costs will undoubtedly rise throughout the remaining term of the scheme.
No actual income has been made during the term of the licencing scheme.
Sugarcoated statements
The bold statements from the Council claim that:
The scheme has improved the overall standard of property conditions (though no actual evidence or benchmarking available).
Had a positive impact on the designated area (though no actual evidence available).
Not sure how many times Surrey Property Licensing has read the above statements from other Local Authorities. Perhaps there is a subscription to a cloud-based service that Local Authorities can join and share each other's statements?
It is highly probable that the Council cannot evidence these bold claims and will not be able to show that the scheme has produced the results it wanted (as set out in the 9 bullet points above); if they can, the impact will be very minimal.
Conclusion: It's a flop!
The Council does not know how to proactively undertake enforcement action and meet their duties under the Housing Act 2004. This is likely due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of licensing schemes and housing enforcement in general - or just poorly advised by their legal department? This is quite clear from a Council report which states, "there is less scope for income to be generated...and from financial penalties on landlords not complying with the scheme." WTF?
This is a true reflection of how little understanding the Council has of the private rented sector, housing enforcement and licensing.
The Council is and will be none the wiser as to actual rogue landlords and private rented property conditions within the borough, meaning that tenants in the private rented sector remain in poor, inhabitable, and hazardous conditions and that the Council is unlikely to take any robust enforcement action (their enforcement policy is well and truly out of date).
Considering the Council "does not hold the information" into how many Category 1 or 2 hazards exist within its own housing stock (potentially putting the lives of its own tenants at risk), how can it effectively ensure private rented stock within the borough is safe and habitable? How does it expect to fulfil its obligations under the Housing Act 2004 Section 3 in the future?
Ignorance is bliss in this matter, no doubt.
Our message and advice to all landlords, however, is this...
Housing Law is the same as Criminal Law
Ensure you are compliant.
Do not become complacent.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Surrey Property Licensing cares about the Private Rented Sector, and the best part — not only do we say things how they are (if you've messed up, we will tell you, life is too short to skirt around the problem; let’s just get on with sorting it out), but we also are not the Council. We ensure your properties meet the required standards set by the Government and Councils.
If you require a licence or you’re not sure, Surrey Property Licensing can assist you with your HMO and Selective Licence applications and professionally represent you.
We also help mitigate any Housing Enforcement action taken by the Council or your Tenants, including Rent Repayment Orders, Civil Penalties, and Notices under the Housing Act 2004.
Get in touch today to discuss your concerns and queries. A stitch in time, and all that…
