Brighton
& Hove City Council
Report
of findings of the public consultation on proposals to introduce
new property licensing schemes (Citywide
Additional HMO and Selective Licensing)
for private rented properties
FINAL
MARCH
2024
CJ
Associates
info@cjassociates.co.uk
0207
529 4900
cjassociates.co.uk
This report provides
findings of the Brighton & Hove City Council consultation on
proposals for new property licensing schemes. The schemes
would sit within the city’s private rented property
sector.
The proposals cover
two schemes, below:
(a)
Citywide Additional Housing in
Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing
(b)
Selective
Licensing
It is proposed to
introduce Selective Licensing across 4 wards and extend it
to 13 wards. Extending to 13 wards would require approval by
the Secretary of State, as well as approval by the
Council.
The Council proposed
to introduce the schemes for improved management, standards and
conditions of the private rented sector. This is an essential
housing need for Brighton and Hove’s communities. There
are just under one in three households in the city renting
privately.
Justification for
introducing the schemes has been demonstrated by an independent
feasibility study completed in February 2023 by Cadence Innova and
a housing stock condition and stressors report by Metastreet Ltd in
March 2023.
Both studies provide
strong evidence for Additional HMO and Selective
licensing in the city. The detailed findings of these studies are
not included in this report, but copies are available from the
Council by email:
consultpropertylicensing@brighton-hove.gov.uk.
CJ Associates supported the
consultation on behalf of the Council. This included managing
and chairing six consultation meetings (online and in person) and
analysis of the responses to the consultation, which are presented
in this report.
CJ Associates are an independent
consultancy specialising in project management, strategic planning,
stakeholder engagement and consultation across a number of industry
sectors. More information about CJ Associates can be found
at: cjassociates.co.uk.
Brighton & Hove
City Council held a consultation on proposals for new property
licensing schemes between 4 October 2023 to 3 January 2024.
Below sets out
summaries of key findings from the responses to the consultation,
including:
·
116
responses to the Citywide Additional Housing in Multiple Occupation
(HMO) Licensing consultation
·
893 responses to the
Selective Licensing
consultation
Citywide Additional HMO Licensing
- Consultation Findings
There were
116 respondents to this consultation, and they indicated their
profile as 40% being homeowners, 18% living in an HMO, 17% living
in a non-HMO and 12% landlords. Less than 3% were social
housing tenants and letting agents. Written responses to the
consultation are outlined in the Appendices.
Below are
summaries of the key findings from the responses to the
consultation:
Improved
management and condition
·
64% of
respondents agreed that the scheme will improve the condition and
67% agreed that it will improve the management of HMOs.
·
Of these,
non-HMO private rented tenants (PRTs) were most
supportive.
·
50% of
letting and management agents both agreed and disagreed that the
scheme would bring improvements.
·
The
majority of landlords however are not supportive of the scheme,
with 69% and 61% disagreeing in respect of both improvement to
management and conditions.
·
Support
for the scheme, particularly in respect of its ability to improve
property conditions, was deemed to be dependent on adequate
enforcement by the Council to ensure that conditions were being met
and that action is taken where non-compliance exists.
·
Over 50%
agree that Housing Health and Safety (HHSRS) will improve
conditions. These views are shared by over 80% of PRTs (both
in HMO and non-HMO) and just under a third of landlords.
Effectiveness of the
scheme
·
The
majority of respondents agreed that the licensing proposals
would:
o
Help
identify the poorer performing landlords of HMOs (77%)
o
Help
improve the health and safety of tenants in HMOs (74%)
o
Help
ensure that HMOs are managed better (71%)
o
Help reduce
neighbourhood problems, e.g. noise or rubbish (62%)
o
Help to
support good landlords of HMOs (61%)
HMOs
– The big issues
·
Common issues
associated with HMOs were experienced by respondents as a
‘big issue’ in the last 12 months as
follows:
o
Poor
property conditions (40%)
o
Poorly
managed HMOs (39%)
o
Poor
external appearance of HMOs and their gardens (32%)
o
Dumped
rubbish and litter around HMOs (31%)
o
Noise such
as music from loud parties (29%)
Health
and safety
·
Over 50%
of respondents stated that their health had been harmed as a result
of living in an HMO over the last 12 months.
·
Just under
one third stated their safety had been harmed a great
deal.
·
The main
reason attributed to both health and safety was the general state
of disrepair, followed by mould and damp.
Duration
of scheme
·
84%
support the proposed scheme duration of 5 years.
Licensing
Fee Structure
Standard
fees
·
Over 40%
of respondents feel that the standard fee (both £800 and
£1020) is too low, including the majority of
homeowners.
·
92% of
landlords stated the fees were too high.
Prompted
licence fee
·
The
majority of respondents felt that a prompted licence fees (both
£900 and £1080) should be set, but that it was too low
to act as a deterrent given landlords' revenue.
·
The
majority of landlords considered the fees to be too
high.
EPC
reduced fee
·
Over half
agree with the reduction in fee for a rating of EPC C or above.
Whilst one third are opposed.
·
Most PRTs
and homeowners agree with the fee reduction, whilst just under a
half of landlords do not agree.
Discounted
fee for accredited landlords
·
Just under
half of all respondents support a reduction in fee for accredited
landlords, whereas just over a third do not agree.
·
The
majority of PRTs and homeowners tend to agree, and more than half
landlords agree while a little over a third disagree.
Shorter
licence for outstanding planning permission or other
issues
·
Most of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal, including
over half of homeowners, a third of PRTs and landlords.
·
Just under
one quarter of landlords disagree.
Online
payments
·
The
majority of respondents asked for a simple system for Build to Rent
and large-scale landlords that could provide a receipt or invoice.
Others asked for joint access by agents and landlords and requested
payment be available by cheque.
·
A small
number were concerned about insufficient Council resources to
provide an online payment system.
Other
comments about the scheme
·
Respondents commented
that they support the scheme as it would help to tackle
‘rogue’ landlords (18%) and bring benefits for all
(tenants, landlords and communities) (17%).
·
Those who in
opposition were concerned it would reduce the number of HMOs (9%)
and private rented sector housing (7%), penalise landlords (7%) or
be ineffective for both tenants and landlords
(7%).
Selective Licensing - Consultation
Findings
There were 893 responses to the
consultation, with 888 of these indicating their profile, including
32% private rented tenants not living in an HMO; 25% homeowners and
20% private rented tenants living in an HMO. Less than 5% were
social housing tenants.
During the analysis phase it was
identified that a third party had been associated with some of the
responses to the online consultation portal (online survey).
This resulted in similar responses being identified to a particular
survey question. However, this is not considered an issue for
the consultation, as it was respondents’ own choice on
whether or not to involve that party. In addition, the public
consultation’s purpose is to seek views on the proposed
licensing scheme (for 4 and 13 wards). The consultation has
met this purpose.
Below are summaries of the key
findings from the responses to the consultation:
Health and
safety
·
85% agree
that the proposed licensing conditions will improve the management
and the conditions of private rented properties.
·
The main
issues that respondents felt harmed their health and safety was
poor property conditions, including mould and damp and general
disrepair.
Improved
management and condition
·
85% of
respondents agree that the scheme proposals will improve the
management and condition of private rented houses (PRHs).
Again, support for the scheme was dependent upon adequate
enforcement.
·
The
majority (83%) agree that the HHRS will improve the condition of
PRHs, including the majority of tenants and homeowners.
However more than half of landlords disagree.
·
Most
commented that the scheme (including HHSRS) is essential for
tenants' health.
·
However,
many are concerned about the current lack of enforcement and lack
of compliance and feel that proper enforcement and inspection of
the scheme is essential.
Reducing
levels of deprivation in the four wards
·
85% agreed
that the scheme will be effective in reducing levels of deprivation
in the four wards.
·
Whilst the
majority of tenants and homeowners agree, over half of landlords
disagree.
·
Most
respondents feel that it would have a positive impact on local
communities and tenants' quality of lives and would assist in
addressing costs of living by improving energy
efficiency.
Scheme
duration
·
Almost all
(90%) respondents agreed that the scheme should last for 5
years.
Licensing
Fee Structure
Standard
fee (£670)
·
69% of
respondents felt that the fee was too low. The majority of
tenants and homeowners agreed.
·
Over three
quarters of landlords and letting or managing agents felt that the
fee is too high.
·
The main
point raised included that the funds must be ringfenced by the
Council, that it should be a variable fee (i.e. higher fee for
multiple property owners) and represent a fair cost for smaller
landlords whilst being sufficient to cover costs to ensure the
scheme is effective.
Prompted
licence fee (£760)
·
Almost all
respondents agree (82%) that a higher fee should be set for
pursuing licence applications. This includes almost all
tenants and homeowners. More than half of landlords do not
agree.
·
The
majority of comments stated that the fee was too low to act as an
incentive for compliance or to be an effective deterrent for
non-compliance.
EPC
reduced fee
·
The
majority disagreed with a reduced for fee achieving EPC C rating or
above. This includes just under half of landlords and most
tenants and homeowners.
·
This is
due to the fact that most felt that EPC C rating should be a
licence requirement, but that there should be dispensation for
older properties.
Reduction
in fee for accredited landlords
·
The
majority of respondents disagree with providing a fee reduction for
accredited landlords. This includes most of tenants and
homeowners and 89% of social housing tenants who
responded.
·
Almost
half of landlords agree, the other half disagree.
·
The main
reason for disagreeing, is that a discount is considered
inappropriate given that these groups are often seen to be
representing landlords' interests and as such this may represent a
‘conflict of interest’ with regards to the
council’s aim to improve property conditions in the interest
of private rented tenants.
Shorter
licences for properties with outstanding planning permission or
other issues
·
Over 80%
agree, including the majority of social housing tenants and more
than 75% of tenants and homeowners and 30% of landlords.
Online
payment system
·
Most
comments asked that there be a paper-based option, helpline staff
support and simplified system for multiple property or block
owners. Some are concerned about the potential for a poor
service.
Further
comments on the proposed licencing scheme for the four
wards
·
The
majority of comments (59%) received in respect of the scheme
proposals for the four wards, expressed support for the
schemes’ extension to include other wards, including the 13
identified wards.
·
This was
based on the opinion that deprivation was not limited to the four
wards only and therefore needed to be expanded to tackle what is
perceived to be a much wider issue.
Further
comments on the proposed licencing scheme for the thirteen
wards
·
Just over
a third of comments (37%) indicated support for extending the
scheme across the city and in some cases, nationwide. Almost
an equal number of comments (36%) indicated support for the scheme
in terms of its ability to tackle those persistently non-compliant
landlords, otherwise referred to as ‘rogue’
landlords.
The findings of this consultation
report will be presented in a committee report to the Brighton
& Hove City Council, Housing and New Homes Committee on 13
March 2024. A decision will be made by the Council on whether
to proceed with Additional HMO Licensing or Selective Licensing
schemes. A copy of the committee report is available on the
council’s website.
The Private Rented
Housing Sector within Brighton and Hove – and how proposed
licensing schemes would support the Sector
Improving standards
and conditions of Brighton and Hove’s private rented sector
is a key commitment for the Council. This is reflected in the Brighton
& Hove City Council Plan 2023 to
2027 which aims to achieve ‘A Better Brighton &
Hove for all.’ The plan seeks under the priority
‘Homes for everyone’, a goal to deliver accessible,
affordable and high-quality homes for all residents in the
city. This extends to improving housing quality for private
rented accommodation.
If the proposed licensing schemes
are introduced, they are able to raise private rented sector
standards in the city and thereby support the ‘Homes for
everyone’ priority in the City Council Plan 2023 to
2027.
Homelessness prevention is another
important aspect of the City Council Plan 2023 to 2027 under the
priority ‘Improve housing support for residents’.
Equally, the Council’s Homelessness and Rough Sleeping
Strategy 2020 to 2025 aims to prevent homelessness.
A
major cause of homelessness in Brighton & Hove is end of
private rented housing tenancies, mostly from short 6 or 12 month
tenancies creating insecure housing tenures. Tenants face
abrupt end of tenancies and struggle to find new rented
housing.
The Homelessness and Rough
Sleeping Strategy 2020 to 2025 aims to increase early intervention,
prevent such end of tenancies and provide more move-on
accommodation. This includes providing support for residents
to access and maintain private rented accommodation, particularly
where this prevents or relieves homelessness.
If the proposed licensing schemes
are introduced there would be opportunities for closer alignment
and dialogue with the private rented sector – by the Council
engaging holders of property licences. Work can be achieved
to prevent or relieve homelessness and thereby support the
Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2020 to 2025.
The Council is also developing a
new Housing Strategy for the city. This is due to be
consulted on by springtime 2024. The private rented sector
will be a key theme of the Strategy, particularly on improvement
and quality of the sector.
If the proposed licensing schemes
are introduced there would be greater scope for improving private
rented housing by the Council through standards and conditions set
by licensing schemes for housing. In addition, the schemes
would have a role in returning empty homes to use.
Historically, a number of properties returned to use have entered
the private rented sector. Empty homes interventions may,
therefore, benefit from property licensing.
Property Licensing and its Place
in Brighton and Hove
The private rented
sector accommodates different types of households. Single
households (one family) occupying a property and multiple
households (different families or persons) occupying a
property. Properties occupied by multiple households form
what are termed Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). This is
when a property is occupied by three or more persons over two or
more households and kitchen, bathroom or toilet facilities are
shared.
If a rented property
is occupied by five or more people over two or more households and
facilities are shared, then an HMO licence would be required under
the Housing Act 2004. A licence would be issued, by a local
authority, for this type of HMO property. This is a licensing
scheme known as mandatory HMO licensing.
The Housing Act 2004
allows local authorities to introduce other types of
licensing. These are Additional HMO Licensing and Selective
Licensing, as set out below:
(a)
Additional
-applicable where a
significant proportion of HMOs of a particular description in a
local authority’s area are being managed sufficiently
ineffectively as to give rise, or to be likely to give
rise,
to
one or more particular problems either for those occupying the HMOs
or for members of the public.
(b)
Selective -
applicable
for private rented properties (but not HMOs requiring an HMO
licence) where there are problems in a local authority’s
area, areas or any part of them, caused by one or more of
the conditions below:
·
low
housing demand (or is likely to become such an area)
·
a
significant and persistent problem caused by anti-social
behaviour
·
poor
housing conditions
·
high
levels of migration
·
high level
of deprivation
·
high
levels of crime
When proposing to designate an area for
selective licensing on the grounds of housing conditions,
migration, deprivation or crime, a local authority may only propose
a Selective Licensing Scheme if the area also has a high proportion
of property in the private rented sector – more than
19%. In addition, any proposed Selective Scheme which exceeds
20% of its total geographical area or 20% of the area’s
private rented sector, must be confirmed by the Secretary of
State.
The independent feasibility study
by Cadence Innova and housing stock
condition and stressors report by Metastreet Ltd both gravitate
towards Additional HMO Licensing and Selective Licensing for
Brighton & Hove’s private rented sector.
Issues surrounding
management of private rented properties were also identified with
HMOs and non-HMOs (single household dwellings). In
particular, poor property conditions with serious Housing, Health
and Safety Rating System Hazards (Category 1 or high rated Category
2 hazards).
In addition,
significant deprivation was found in four of the city’s
wards. Those wards are Kemptown, Moulsecoomb &
Bevendean, Queen’s Park and Whitehawk & Marina.
Brighton & Hove also has high proportions of housing in the
private rented sector. The majority of the city’s wards
have a rented sector of 20% and more.
Brighton & Hove
City Council has consulted on the below proposals:
(a)
Introduction of
Citywide Additional HMO Licensing for HMO properties of two or more
storeys and occupied by 3 or 4 persons over two or more households
(see Figure 1 map)
(b)
Introduction of
Selective Licensing for private rented sector
properties, for example a single or two storey house or flat,
occupied by a family, a couple or two sharers in four of the
city’s wards - Kemptown, Moulsecoomb & Bevendean,
Queen’s Park and Whitehawk & Marina (see Figure 2
map). Plus, an option for a further scheme in thirteen wards
- Brunswick & Adelaide, Central Hove, Goldsmid, Hanover &
Elm Grove, Hollingdean & Fiveways, Preston Park, Regency,
Rottingdean & West Saltdean, Round Hill, South Portslade, West
Hill & North Laine, Westbourne & Poets Corner and Wish (see
Figure 3 map).
The consultation
proposals included the following details:
·
Rationale
and evidence for the proposed licensing schemes
·
Alternative options to
property licensing, how each option was considered and the
conclusion of licensing as a preferred option
·
How the
proposed schemes sit strategically within Brighton &
Hove’s housing landscape
·
How the
schemes would work
·
Proposed
licensing fees, standards and conditions and benefits of the
schemes
·
Next steps
– detailing how the consultation findings will be considered
by the Council before any decision is made to proceed with
licensing schemes.
Approval to conduct a consultation
on these proposals was granted by the Council’s Housing
Committee on 15 March 2023. A copy of the accompanying
Housing Committee report is available on the council’s
website. The report gives further details on the
proposals. This includes alternative options to licensing
considered by the Committee and how proposals were
concluded.
Figure 1: Additional Citywide HMO
Licensing Map
Figure 2: Selective
Licensing 4 Wards Map
Figure 3:
Selective Licensing 13 Wards Map
Reporting conventions
CJ Associates role is to analyse
and explain opinions of those who responded to the consultation,
but not to make a case for any proposal. This report outlines
views from the two online questionnaires (one for Citywide
Additional HMO Licensing and one for Selective Licensing), hard
copy questionnaires received, six consultation meetings held in
person and online and other direct correspondence. All
methods of responding to the consultation were open for anyone to
respond. Information presented in this report will be used to
inform decision making by the Housing and New Homes Committee at
Brighton & Hove City Council.
Understanding the
results
Most of the percentages are given
as percentages of those that responded to each of the questions.
These may not always total 100% due to either multiple
responses or lack of responses or rounding up of the numbers.
It is important to consider the results in the context of the small
number of responses to the questions.
When considering the questions
that ask for respondents to provide additional comments, the
findings represent a percentage of the number of comments received
and not a percentage of the number of respondents to each question.
The consultation was conducted in
line with principles of good practice outlined in Government
guidance (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance)
Steps were also taken to satisfy the Housing Act 2004.
Specifically, for the proposed
Additional HMO Licensing scheme, section 56(3) of the Act 2004
states that prior to designating areas subject to licensing the
local authority must:
·
take reasonable steps
to consult persons who are likely to be affected by the
designation;
and
·
consider any
representations made in accordance with the consultation and not
withdrawn.
Specifically, for the proposed
Selective Licensing scheme, section 80(9) of the Act 2004 states
that prior to designating areas subject to licensing the local
authority must:
·
take
reasonable steps to
consult persons who are likely to be affected by the designation;
and
·
consider any
representations made in accordance with the consultation and not
withdrawn.
The Council’s consultation
ran for a period of 13 weeks, commencing 4 October 2023 and closing
at midnight on 3 January 2024 and was open to all ‘interested
parties.’ This means a person or organisation that can
be affected by or perceive itself to be affected by a decision or
activity.
Information about the consultation
proposals were launched and published on the Council’s
website on 4 October 2023. Details of how the consultation
was publicised are listed in Table 1.
Views on the consultation
proposals were sought by the methods below:
·
Two separate online
questionnaires accessed via the Council’s website:
o
Citywide Additional
HMO Licensing
o
Selective
Licensing
o
Consultees were invited to complete questionnaires for
each or both schemes
o
A copy of
the questionnaires can be found in the Appendices
·
Hard copy
questionnaires for each of the schemes and an information booklet
were available from the Customer Service Centre, Hove Town Hall and
across all 13 public libraries - copies of the questionnaires were
also available on request in alternative formats
·
Six consultation
meetings (see Table 1 for further details)
·
Written responses
could be submitted to the Council by email or hardcopy
·
Responses could also
be made by phone.
Table 1: Consultation
meetings
|
Meeting
|
Venue/Format
|
Date/Time
|
|
Landlords and landlord
organisations
|
Online
|
30 October 2023
6pm-8pm
|
|
Letting and managing
agents
|
Online
|
2
November 2023
6pm-8pm
|
|
Community groups (acting for
private rented sector tenants)
|
In person at Brighthelm Church and
Community Centre, Brighton
|
11 November 2023
10am-Midday
|
|
Private rented tenants
|
Online
|
14 November 2023
6pm – 8pm
|
|
All interested parties (for
residents, businesses and public sector organisations)
|
In person at Brighthelm Church and
Community Centre, Brighton
|
18 November 2023
10am - Midday
|
|
All interested parties (for
residents, businesses and public sector organisations)
|
Online
|
5
December 2023
10am-Midday
|
Consultation activities
The Council completed a wide range
of promotional activities to raise awareness and to encourage
participation, both internally and externally, before and during
the consultation. This ensured all persons and organisations
likely to be affected by or interested in the licensing proposals
were aware of the consultation. In addition, that they were
encouraged to and had an opportunity to take part. It also
ensured that reasonable steps were being taken to consult persons
and organisations likely to be affected by the
proposals.
During the consultation,
promotional activities were focused on the following audiences, as
being directly or indirectly impacted by licensing
proposals:
·
Private rented
tenants
·
Local
residents
·
Universities and
university students
·
Landlords and property
owners
·
Landlords and property
owners living abroad
·
Organisations and
bodies representing landlords
·
Letting and managing
agents
·
Community groups
representing private rented tenants
·
Public service
organisations
The approach taken for each these
groups is shown in Table 2. The specific activities
undertaken are contained in Tables 3 and
4.
Table 2: Approach to publicising
by audience
|
Audience
|
Approach
|
|
Private rented tenants
|
Direct mailing of promotional
postcards to residential addresses; communication with
representative groups; consultation meeting; promotional materials
in public facilities, service and community spaces; social, local
and outdoor media
|
|
Local residents
|
Direct mailing of promotional
postcards to residential addresses; communication with
representative groups; consultation meeting; promotional materials
in public facilities and service and community spaces; social,
local and outdoor media
|
|
Universities and university
students
|
Direct emails to university
representatives and student unions; telephone calls; consultation
meeting; promotional materials (flyers and posters) distributed on
campuses; social, local and outdoor media
|
|
Landlords and property
owners
|
Direct emails; consultation
meeting; publicity campaign via London Property Licensing and by
landlord organisations; social, local and outdoor media
|
|
Landlords and property owners
overseas
|
Direct emails; telephone calls;
consultation meeting; publicity campaign via London Property
Licensing; social media
|
|
Letting and managing
agents
|
Direct emails; telephone calls;
consultation meeting; publicity campaign via London Property
Licensing; social media
|
|
Community groups (representing
private rented tenants)
|
Direct emails; telephone calls;
consultation meeting, social, local and outdoor media
|
|
Landlord organisations
|
Direct email; telephone calls;
consultation meeting; publicity campaign via London Property
Licensing, social, local and outdoor media
|
|
Public service
organisations
|
Direct emails; consultation
meeting
|
The approach to publicising the
consultation was in line withthe General Data Protection
Regulations. There were limitations on the extent to which
any existing data held by the Council was useable. For
example, when making direct contact with persons or organisations
about the proposed licensing schemes. When engaging letting
agents by email or telephone, their contact information was found
by Google searches only. This placed considerable time and
effort on the consultation, but it was a requirement for Data
Protection Regulation rules.
The materials developed to promote
the consultation included:
·
Digital consultation
webpage
·
Emails
·
Local media
articles
·
Partner
websites
·
Hard copy A3 and A4
posters
·
Hard copy A5
flyer
·
Hard copy A5
postcards
·
Information
booklet
·
Digital
posters
·
Digital
banner
·
Social media
posts
Table 3: Consultation activities
– external promotion
The below table sets out the
activities undertaken by the Council to raise awareness of the
consultation.
|
Channel
|
Material
|
Activity
|
Audience
|
Date
|
|
Brighton & Hove City Council
website
|
Newsroom press release
|
Announcement of proposals:
newsroom article announcing the discussion of proposals at the
Housing and New Homes Committee
|
General public
|
13 September 2023
|
|
Brighton & Hove City Council
website
|
Newsroom press release
|
Consultation launch Newsroom
article, informing the public about the launch of the consultation
and “how they can have their say” on the
proposals
|
General public
|
4
October 2023
|
|
Brighton & Hove City Council
website
|
Consultation webpage
|
Consultation launch article:
details of the proposals, including “how to have your say on
the proposals” published
|
General public
|
4
October 2023
|
|
London Property Licensing
(LPL)
|
Information about the
consultation
|
Promotional package, including
article on the homepage of LPL website, details of the consultation
cascaded by monthly electronic newsletter mailing (to 3,700
members) and social media posts (Twitter; Facebook;
LinkedIn)
|
Landlords and letting agents based
outside of Brighton & Hove
|
10 October 2023 onwards
4
December 2023 onwards (for electronic newsletter
mailing)
|
|
Direct email
|
Information about the consultation
and the online consultation event (held 2 November 2023)
|
Email sent directly
|
Landlord organisations
|
10 October 2023 (follow up email
on 12 October 2023)
|
|
Direct email
|
Information about the consultation
and online consultation events (held on 30 October 2023 and 2
November 2023) and how to attend
|
Email sent directly
|
Letting and managing agents
(including those with overseas landlords’
interests)
|
12 October 2023
|
|
Brighton & Hove Public
Libraries, Hove Town Hall and Bartholomew Customer Service
Centres
|
Hard copy questionnaires and
information booklet
|
Placed in all 13 public libraries
- including a self-addressed envelope for return of the
questionnaires. Note, questionnaires and information booklets
not placed inside Bartholomew customer service centre, copies were
provided upon request. Copies placed in Hove Town Hall
|
General public
|
1
November 2023 (onwards)
|
|
Brighton & Hove Public
Libraries, Hove Town Hall and Bartholomew Customer Service Centres
and public leisure facility buildings
|
A3 and A4 posters with QR
codes
|
Posters in all 13 public
libraries, the majority of public leisure facilities buildings and
Hove Town Hall customer service centre
|
General public
|
1
November 2023 (onwards)
|
|
Direct email
|
Information about the consultation
and the consultation events
|
Email sent directly
|
Community groups and organisations
representing private sector tenants
|
In advance of the six consultation
events and afterwards to say thank you and encourage
responses
|
|
Local media
|
Full page advert in the
Brightonian monthly magazine
|
Advertisement notifying the public
about the consultation
|
General public
|
Week commencing 6 November 2023
and repeated on 4 December 2023
|
|
Local media
|
Full page advert in the Hovarian
monthly magazine
|
Advertisement notifying the public
about the consultation
|
General public
|
Week commencing 6 November
2023
and repeated on 4 December
2023
|
|
Direct emails
|
Information about the
consultation, how to respond and the consultation events
|
Direct email
|
Public service organisations -
East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service and Sussex Police
|
14 to 22 November 2023
|
|
Social
media
|
Reminder of the
consultation launch
|
Facebook and Twitter
posts
|
General
public
|
16 November
2023
|
|
Members of the Council
|
Members’
briefing
|
Update to Members on the licensing
consultation and encouragement to share with residents – how
they can “have their say” online, attend a meeting
event or connect with social media (media links in the
briefing)
|
Members of the
Council
|
16 November
2023
|
|
Residential mailing
|
A5 postcard with 3,468
distributed
|
Direct mailing to addresses that
have an association with the private rented sector
|
Residential addresses within the 4
and 13 wards proposed for selective licensing
|
20 November 2023
(onwards)
|
|
Community venues
|
A5 flyers and A4 posters with QR
codes
|
Distribution of flyers:
·
1000 across public
libraries
·
300 in Brighton
Institute of Modern Music
·
400 to Sussex
University Student Union
·
500 to Council
members
·
100 flyers across the
majority of public leisure facilities
Distribution of
posters:
·
10 A4 posters to
Brighton University
|
General public and university
students
|
20 November 2023
(onwards)
|
|
Brighton & Hove City bus
stops
|
Digital posters with QR code
linking to the consultation web page
|
Various bus stops in the city,
advertising the consultation and how to respond
|
General public
|
27 November 2023
(onwards)
|
|
Brighton & Hove Primary Care
bulletin (electronic mailing)
|
Bulletin on the
consultation
|
Bulletin to promote the
consultation across primary care networks
|
General Practitioner practices,
Primary Care Network Managers and general public
|
24 November 2023
|
|
Direct email
|
Promoting the final online
consultation event on 5 December 2023
|
Email reminding stakeholders about
the event and providing information on how to take part
|
Letting and managing agents
(including those with overseas landlords’ interests),
landlords and landlord organisations, community groups, public
service organisations and Student representative bodies
|
29 November 2023
|
|
Direct
email
|
Overview of the
consultation
|
Information to raise
awareness on the consultation, shared with various
organisations
|
National Energy
Action, British Red Cross, Brighton & Hove Energy
Services Coop, Brighton & Hove Food Partnership, Money Advice
Plus and Southern Water
|
30 November
2023
|
|
Direct email
|
Consultation reminder: four weeks
to go
|
Webpage links to the consultation
were shared and reminder to respond by 3 January 2024
|
Letting and managing agents
(including those with overseas landlords’ interests),
landlords and landlord organisations, community groups, public
service organisations and student representative bodies
|
7 December 2023
|
|
Direct email
|
Consultation final reminder: one
week to go
|
Webpage links to the consultation
were shared and reminder to respond by 3 January 2024
|
Letting and managing agents
(including those with overseas landlords’ interests),
landlords and landlord organisations, community groups, public
service organisations and student representative bodies
|
29 December 2023
|
Table 4: Consultation
Activities - Council internal communications
The below table sets out the
activities undertaken to raise awareness of the consultation within
the Council.
|
Channel
|
Material
|
Activity
|
Audience
|
Date
|
|
Brighton & Hove City Council
website
|
Newsroom press release
|
Announcement of proposals:
Newsroom article announcing the discussion of proposals at the
Housing and New Homes Committee
|
Council staff
|
13 September 2023
|
|
Housing, Neighbourhoods and
Communities (HNC) Directorate
|
Presentation
|
Presentation to all HNC staff on
the consultation launch
|
Council staff
|
4
October 2023
|
|
Brighton & Hove City Council
website
|
Newsroom press release
|
Consultation launch: Newsroom
article informing staff about the launch of the consultation and
how they can have their say on the proposals
|
Council staff
|
4
October 2023
|
|
Members of the Council
|
Members’
briefing
|
Update to Members on the licensing
consultation and encouragement to share with residents – how
they can “have their say” online, attend a meeting
event or connect with social media (media links in the
briefing)
|
Members of the
Council
|
16 November
2023
|
|
HNC Directorate
|
Article
|
Article on the
consultation and how staff and their family or friends etc can take
part
|
Council staff across
all of HNC
|
23 November
2023
|
|
HNC Directorate
|
Housing update bulletin
|
Reminder about the
consultation and how staff can take part
|
Council staff in the
Housing division only of the HNC Directorate
|
29 November
2023
|
There were 116 responses to the
consultation received by the Council, with the majority
received via
the Council’s online consultation
portal (online survey) and 3originally received as paper copies. In
addition, there were 5 separate written responses
received. There were also 62
participants who joined the 6consultation meetings held by the
Council.
The below analysis takes into
account all responses received to this consultation:
Listed below are some of the most
common issues that have been associated with HMOs and flats within
HMOs. In the last 12 months, how much of an issue or not have the
following been for you? (Question 2a)
Poorly managed HMOs
Poorly managed HMOs was raised by
more than a half (57%) of those PRTs living in HMOs. Homeowners
(34%) and PRTs not living in HMOs (28%) said that it was ‘a
fairly big issue’. A majority of landlords (69%) stated
that it had been ‘not an issue at all’.
Poor property
conditions
Poor property conditions were
considered a big issue by nearly two thirds (67%) of those PRTs
living in HMOs, 44% of those PRTs not living in HMOs and 38% of
homeowners. A majority of landlords (69%) stated that it was
‘not an issue at all’.
Poor external appearance of HMOs
and their gardens
Poor external appearance of HMOs
and their garden was raised by 67% of social housing tenants as
‘a big issue’ with 33% agreeing it was ‘a fairly
big issue’. Homeowners (42%) also agreed it was a ‘big
issue’ with 38% stating it was ‘a fairly big
issue’. Also 29% and 22% respectively of PRTs living in HMOs
and those renting in non-HMOs also cited this as ‘a big
issue’, but more than a half (56%) of those not living in
HMOs said it was ‘a fairly big issue’. Conversely, over
three quarters (77%) of landlords did not see it as an issue at
all.
Noise such as music from loud
parties
Noise such as music from loud
parties was selected by 67% of social housing tenants and 45% of
homeowners as a big issue. More than a third (38%) of PRTs living
in HMOs and 26% living in a non-HMO, plus more than half of all
landlords (62%) said it ‘not an issue at
all’.
Dumped rubbish and litter around
HMOs
Dumped rubbish and litter around
HMOs was selected by 46% of homeowners who responded to this
question as ‘a big issue’ with 33% saying it was
‘a fairly big issue’. This issue was also either a
‘big issue’ or ‘a fairly big issue’ for
PRTs both in HMOs and non-HMOs. 69% of the 13 landlords who
responded said it was ‘not an issue at all’.
In the past 12 months, in your
local area, have there been any other issues associated with HMOs
or flats within HMOs? (Question 2b)
Comments
received: 85
When asked about other issues,
equal numbers referred to the issue of anti-social behaviour and
poor conditions internally (14%). Anti-social behaviour
overall was reported by those living next to or in close proximity
to HMOs.
With regards to property
conditions these related to significant levels of general disrepair
for example, poorly fitting windows, lack of insulation, heating,
leaks, mould and damp. One in every ten comments referred to
issues with litter and waste disposal (including issues with fly
tipping and lack of waste collection).
An equal number expressed the lack
of action by their landlord or managing agent to address issues or
undertake repairs as being a factor they were
experiencing.
Almost equal numbers (11%) of
comments referred to issues with external property conditions, for
example relating to gardens in disrepair and litter not being
cleared. Just under one in ten (8%) restated the issue of
noise from HMOs. A lack of action by landlords to address
issues was also cited as a factor (10%).
Lesser mentioned issues related to
opposition of encouraging more HMOs due to a concern that they were
reducing the availability of housing for families (3%). Only 3% of
comments stated that there were no issues with their
housing.
Have you lived in an HMO in the
past 12 months? (Question 2c)
If you have lived in an HMO in the
last 12 months, do you feel that your health or safety has been
harmed by the condition of the property you have
occupied? (Question 2d)
Please provide any additional
comments on if you feel that your health or safety has been harmed
by the conditions of the HMO you have occupied.
(Question
2e)
Comments
received: 51
Of the 22% of respondents who had
lived in an HMO in the past 12 months, just under one in five (19%)
stated that their health had been affected ‘a great
deal’ with the majority (58%) stating it had affected them
‘to some extent’, 15% ‘not at all’ and 8%
‘not very much’. In terms of impact on safety,
just under one third (27%) felt it had been affected ‘a great
deal’ with only a slightly lesser amount (23%) ‘to some
extent and 30% ‘not very much’.
The majority of comments (39%)
cited the general state of disrepair to their property as being the
cause. 29% of comments specifically referred to the negative
impact of mould and damp on their health and wellbeing. 12%
specifically referred to experiencing poor health (mental or
physical) and feelings of insecurity (both physical and mental) as
a result of the condition of their property.
Lack of landlord action to
undertake repairs was mentioned in 10% of the comments. A
small number (2%) stated that they were happy with their landlord
and the property they lived in but an equal number reported being
concerned about eviction if they made a complaint.
To what extent do you agree or
disagree that the proposed licence standards and conditions of the
scheme will improve the management and condition of HMOs in
Brighton & Hove? (Question 3a)
Management
Condition
Please provide any additional
comments on the management and condition of HMOs – including
any comments you have on the proposed conditions
themselves (Question 3b)
Comments
received: 150
The majority who responded to this
question strongly agreed that the scheme will improve the
management (39%) and the condition (38%) of HMOs with a quarter
tending to agree with improved management (25%) and just under a
third (29%) with condition. 42% of homeowners, 38% of PRTs
living in HMOs and over half (55%) of non-HMO tenants also strongly
agreed that the scheme will improve the management. With
regards to condition, the responses were similar, 35% of
homeowners, 48% of PRTS living in HMOs and 55% of non-HMO tenants
also strongly agreed.
The most frequently mentioned
comment was regarding lack of enforcement (15%) by the Council,
closely followed by reports of a lack of compliance by agents and
landlords (12%). 10% of comments said that enforcement was
essential if the scheme is to be effective in improving conditions,
however 9% felt that licensing was not needed and that existing
legislation was sufficient to address any issues. 6% stated
that the scheme will not change standards or conditions and are
difficult to enforce.
To what extent do you agree or
disagree that the HHSRS will improve conditions of HMOs, for the
proposed scheme in Brighton & Hove?
(Question 3c)
Please provide any additional
comments on HHSRS for improving conditions of HMOs, for the
proposed scheme, in Brighton & Hove. (Question 3d)
Comments
received: 80
The majority of respondents to
this question either strongly agree (38%) or tend to agree (29%)
that the HHSRS will improve conditions of HMOs, while 14% did not
agree or disagree and 10% strongly disagree.
Half of PRTs not living in HMOs
and just under half (43%) living in HMOs strongly agree, as do 40%
of homeowners. Under a third of landlords (29%) who responded
tended to agree, with equal numbers (14%) either tending to
disagree or strongly disagree.
The majority of comments stated
that the scheme as being essential for improving tenants’
rights (18%) or stating that the licencing was not needed or
effective (20%). Enforcement was raised in 15% of comments,
with 10% suggesting the Council use existing HMO powers, and 8%
raising the need for additional enforcement and inspection
resources. A smaller number (5%) of comments want to see the scheme
directly address conditions for damp, mould and
insultation.
The Council is proposing that the
scheme will last for five years (this is the maximum period a
scheme can last). How long do you think the scheme should
last? (Question 3e)
If you think the scheme should
last less than 5 years, please tell us why. (Question 3f)
Comments
received: 30
An overwhelming (84%) number of
respondents to this question supported a 5-year period for the
scheme. There was a small minority of homeowners (11%)
preferring 2 years and 9% preferring 3 years. One in 10 landlords
indicated 1 year was sufficient.
Of the comments received, 33%
stated that they felt the scheme would be ineffective and 13%
expressing that they were against the scheme due to the belief that
landlords will sell their properties - if the scheme is
introduced. 7% felt that the scheme should last less than
five years so that landlords could be monitored more frequently to
ensure they were complying with conditions and that this would be
needed to incentivise landlords to comply.
Thinking about the licensing
proposals, how much do you agree or disagree with the following
statements? (Question 4)
Additional HMO licensing would
help ensure that HMOs are managed better
Additional HMO licensing would
help ensure that HMOs are managed better is strongly agreed by 46%
of those who responded to this question, with a quarter tending to
agree and 15% strongly disagreeing. Approximately half of
homeowners and PRTs (both in and not in HMOs) strongly agree, with
over 20% tending to agree. Landlords strongly disagreed (31%)
or tended to disagree (23%).
Additional HMO licensing would
help improve the health or safety of tenants living in
HMOs
Additional HMO licensing would
help improve the health or safety of tenants living in HMOs is
strongly supported by 44% of those who responded to this question
while 30% tend to agree. Over half of PRTs living in HMOs and
non-HMOs and just under half (42%) of homeowners strongly
agree. Just over 30% of landlords equally strongly disagree
or tend to agree.
Additional HMO licensing would
help identify the poorer performing landlords of HMOs
In addition to more than 50% of
respondents strongly agreeing, a quarter also tend to agree and
only 13% strongly disagree. This is reflected by over 60% of
PRTs and just under 50% of homeowners strongly agreeing. Just
over 30% of landlords equally strongly disagree or tend to
agree.
Additional HMO licensing would
help to support good landlords of HMOs
The majority of respondents (40%)
to this question strongly agreed, and 21% tend to agree and 15%
strongly disagree with a small minority of 7% tend to
disagree. Over 40% of PRTs strongly agree, and while 23% of
landlords who responded to this question strongly agreed, 38%
strongly disagreed.
Additional HMO licensing would
help reduce neighbourhood problems, e.g. noise or
rubbish
Just under a third of all
respondents to this question strongly agree (32%) or tend to agree
(30%). Support from PRTs and homeowners is similar while 38%
of landlords strongly disagreeing.
Fee structure
For the standard fee of £800
its equals around £3.08 per week (over 5 years). Do you think
the fee is (Question 5a):
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response. (Question 5b)
Comments
received: 30
The majority of respondents (43%)
to this question felt that the fee is too low. Including 69% of
home owners. Over one third (33%) feel it is about right,
with more than half of PRTs agreeing. One quarter of
respondents considered the fee to be too high, with an overwhelming
majority of landlords (92%) taking this position.
Most comments received in response
to this question stated that the fee was not justified, as it would
impact on rents (19%) and landlord’s costs
(8%).
Others were concerned that the fee
was too low and felt that landlords’ rental revenue meant
they were in a position to pay the fee. Some felt that the
fee must cover the Council’s costs and scheme
enforcement. 17% took the opportunity to state their
opposition to the scheme. A few comments (3%) stated they
were content with the fee, as long as it was not passed onto
tenants.
For the standard fee of
£1,020 it equals around £3.92 per week (over 5 years).
Do you think this fee is (Question 5c):
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response. (Question 5d)
Comments
received: 73
The majority of respondents (43%)
to this question stated that the fee is too low, while just over a
third (31%) feel it is about right and just over a quarter feel it
is too low. Most home owners (68%) believe it is too low, while
more than half of PRTs feel it is just about right.
Conversely, an overwhelming majority of landlords (92%) stated it
is too high.
More than one in ten respondents
(16%) are opposed to the fee, as there is concern it will be passed
to tenants, penalises good landlords (7%) or will see the number of
private rented properties reduced (5%). However, more than one in
ten (14%) feel the fee is too low given landlords’ rental
revenues. 8% of comments indicated that the fee must cover
the Council’s costs and enforcement
activities.
In instances where a licence
application is not made, the Council will incur extra costs in
pursuing the application. This is called a prompted licence fee.
For this, the Council is proposing a higher fee of £900 (for
HMOs let on single tenancies with 3 or 4 occupants) over 5 years.
This equals around £3.46 per week (Question 5e)
Do you think the £900 higher
fee should be set for pursuing licence applications?
Do you think the higher fee
is (Question 5f):
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response. (Question 5g)
Comments
received: 63
A
majority of respondents (69%) agree that the £900 higher fee
should be set, while 15% do not and 16% are unsure. Almost
three quarters of PRTs and homeowners agree, while just over a
third of landlords do not agree.
When asked about the higher fee
more than half said it was too low, and just over 20% said it was
too high or just about right.
Of the additional comments
received, the majority (23%) said the fee was too low to act as a
deterrent and that landlords could afford a higher fee due to their
revenues (13%). Others (11%) suggested that the Council
should impose a penalty or ban. Some said it was not
justified due to the concern that it would be passed onto tenants
(3%) in the form of increased rents, or that the fee is only
justified if the scheme is properly enforced (6%).
The Council is proposing a higher
fee (prompted licence fee) of £1,080 (for HMOs let on
multiple tenancies with 3 or 4 occupants) over 5 years. This equals
around £4.15 per week. Do you think the £1,080
higher fee should be set for pursuing licence
applications? (Question 5h)
Do you think the £1,080
higher fee is (Question 5i)
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response (Question 5j)
Comments
received: 32
Most respondents (52%) feel that
the fee is too low including 70% of homeowners. One quarter
feel that it is ‘about right’. This includes the
majority of PRTs. 75% of landlord's think that it is too
high.
While the majority agree with the
higher fee, just over half of respondents state that the fee is too
low, particularly homeowners (70%) while three quarters of
landlords state the fee is too high.
The main comments received suggest
the fee is too low to act as a deterrent (19%). Equal numbers of
comments (9%) felt the fee was too low to cover Council’s
costs and also in respect of landlords' revenue which is perceived
to be relatively high, especially for those with multiple
HMOs. Those who felt the fee was not justified were concerned
it would impact rents (9%) or that the scheme is not needed at all
(6%).
Do you think there should be a
reduction in the fee for properties with an Energy Performance
Certificate rating of C or above? (Question 5k)
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response (Question 5l)
Comments
received: 50
While 35% of respondents tend to
agree with the fee reduction, 22% were strongly opposed. Most
PRTs and homeowners tended to agree or strongly agree with the fee
reduction, with just under a third of landlords strongly
disagreeing and 23% strongly agreeing.
In respect of comments received,
16% agreed that the reduction in fee would be an incentive for
landlords. An equal number disagreed, as they felt that the
improvements needed to achieve a C rating would be too costly (8%)
or would not be effective in improving conditions (8%). Half
that number again (4%) disagreed, as they felt landlords will sell
their properties as a result of the scheme or because it will
increase property rents.
Conversely, a similar number
agreed with the fee reduction, as they felt achieving a C rating
would improve conditions (6%) and would result in savings for
tenants (4%) as a result of improved energy efficiency. 14% felt
that achieving a C rating would not be possible for older or listed
buildings due to restrictions imposed by the Council. For example,
treatment of windows.
It is proposed to offer a
discounted licence fee for landlords who are accredited with
landlord groups (these are ihowz Landlord Association, National
Residential Landlords Association and Safeagent). Do you
think there should be a reduction in the fee for landlords who are
accredited under a landlord scheme who can meet national standards
of good practice? (Question 5m)
Please provide comments to explain
your response (Question 5n)
Comments
received: 43
While just under half of all
respondents support the fee reduction, over a third do not
agree. A majority of PRTs and homeowners tend to agree and
more than half of landlords agree while a little over a third
disagree.
Most comments received (16%) were
concerned that the fee was not appropriate and represented a
conflict of interest. Others did not support the reduction,
as they felt it is landlords’ existing responsibility to
maintain properties to a decent standard (14%) and therefore, did
not warrant a discount. 12% of comments received indicated
that being accredited would not necessarily result in improved
standards (12%).
A
smaller number of comments suggested the discount should depend on
the standards of the group (8%) and would incentivise good
landlords (6%). Other comments stated it was unfair on small
landlords who might not be able to afford accreditation (4%) and
that it might help to tackle rogue landlords (2%).
Licences
Normally licences are awarded for
the length of the scheme (up to five years). The Council cannot
refuse to award a licence where there is outstanding planning
permission or other issues at the property, e.g. no planning
permission in place to have an HMO. The Council (therefore) is
proposing to issue shorter licences where there is outstanding
planning permission or other issues at the property. Do you
agree or disagree with this? (Question 6)
Most respondents agreed or
strongly agreed with the proposal, including over half of
homeowners and a third of PRTs and landlords. However, almost a
quarter of landlords disagreed.
Landlords and Agents
We intend to set the application
and payment process online only via the Council’s website
– is there anything we need to consider for making this work
for you? (Question 7)
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response. Please also include any
specific considerations to make online payments work for
you. (Question 7b)
Comments
received: 14
Almost half of respondents said
there were issues to be considered and most asked that the system
be simple for use by Build to Rent and large scale landlords (21%),
with others requesting a receipt or invoice be provided (14%) and
that joint access be given for agents and landlords (7%). A
number of respondents requested offline payment by cheque to be
made available (7%). An equal number of comments indicated
that the Council did not have enough resources to operate an online
payment system (7%).
Please provide any further
comments you have about the proposed Additional HMO Licensing
Scheme (Question 8)
Comments
received: 101
Respondents took the opportunity
to state their support for the scheme, as it would tackle rogue
landlords (18%) and bring benefits for all (tenants, landlords and
communities) (17%).
Those who stated their opposition
were concerned it would reduce the number of HMOs (9%) and private
rented sector housing (7%), penalise landlords (7%) or be
ineffective for both tenants and landlords (7%).
Other comments against the scheme
stated that it would lead to increased rents (5%) and creating
unaffordable housing through an expected increase in rents
(3%). A number requested clear guidance for landlords and
tenants (5%) on each of their responsibilities.
Citywide Additional HMO
Licensing: Respondent Profile
All respondents to the
questionnaire took the opportunity to select one of the below
groups to describe themselves:
|
Are
you responding to the questionnaire as...
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Home
owner in B&H
|
48
|
41.4
|
|
PRT
in B&H living in a HMO
|
21
|
18.1
|
|
PRT
in B&H NOT living in a HMO
|
20
|
17.2
|
|
Social
housing tenant in B&H
|
3
|
2.6
|
|
Letting
or management agent
|
3
|
2.6
|
|
Landlord
of rented property in B&H
|
14
|
12.1
|
|
Other
|
6
|
5.2
|
|
No
response
|
1
|
0.9
|
|
Total
|
116
|
100
|
Respondents from the following
groups were also given the opportunity to provide more information
about their profile:
|
Home
owner in B&H
|
|
PRT
in B&H living in a HMO
|
|
PRT
in B&H NOT living in a HMO
|
|
Social
housing tenant in B&H
|
Not all respondents from these
groups provided a response to the various profile
questions.
Where respondents did not answer
or preferred not to provide an answer, these have not been included
in the figures below.
The Council did not gather profile
information from those that responded as a business or
organisation.
The tables below
include:
·
Total = number of
respondents who answered the question
·
% = percentage of
respondents who answered the question
|
Age
Groups
|
Total
|
%
|
|
18
to 24
|
12
|
14.0
|
|
25
to 34
|
17
|
19.8
|
|
35
to 44
|
19
|
22.1
|
|
45
to 54
|
11
|
12.8
|
|
55
to 64
|
14
|
16.3
|
|
65
to 74
|
13
|
15.1
|
|
Total
|
86
|
100
|
|
What
gender are you?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Female
|
42
|
44.2
|
|
Male
|
48
|
50.5
|
|
Other
|
5
|
5.3
|
|
Total
|
95
|
100
|
|
Do
you identify as the sex you were assigned at birth?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
87
|
97.8
|
|
No
|
2
|
2.2
|
|
Total
|
89
|
100
|
|
How
would you describe your ethnic origin?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Asian
or Asian British: Indian
|
1
|
1.2
|
|
Mixed:
Black Caribbean and White
|
1
|
1.2
|
|
Any
other mixed background (please give detail below)
|
1
|
1.2
|
|
White:
English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British
|
65
|
79.3
|
|
White:
Irish
|
2
|
2.4
|
|
Any
other White background (please give details below)
|
11
|
13.4
|
|
Any
other ethnic group (please give details below)
|
1
|
1.2
|
|
Total
|
82
|
100
|
|
Which
of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Bisexual
|
7
|
9.2
|
|
Gay
|
15
|
19.7
|
|
Heterosexual
/ straight
|
52
|
68.4
|
|
Lesbian
|
2
|
2.6
|
|
Total
|
76
|
100
|
|
What
is your religion or belief?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
I
have no particular religion/belief
|
38
|
48.1
|
|
Buddhist
|
1
|
1.3
|
|
Christian
|
16
|
20.3
|
|
Agnostic
|
6
|
7.6
|
|
Atheist
|
14
|
17.7
|
|
Other
religion
|
2
|
2.5
|
|
Other
philosophical belief
|
2
|
2.5
|
|
Total
|
79
|
100
|
|
Are
you currently serving in the UK Armed Forces? (this includes
reservists or part-time service, such as the Territorial
Army)
|
Total
|
%
|
|
No
|
90
|
100
|
|
Armed
forces service - Have you ever served in the UK Armed
Forces?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
2
|
2.2
|
|
No
|
88
|
97.8
|
|
Total
|
90
|
100
|
|
Armed
forces service - Are you a member of a current or former serviceman
or woman's immediate family/household?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
4
|
4.4
|
|
No
|
86
|
95.6
|
|
Total
|
90
|
100
|
|
Connection
to the armed forces
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
6
|
6.7
|
|
No
|
84
|
93.3
|
|
Total
|
90
|
100
|
|
Are
your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or
disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12
months?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
a little
|
17
|
18.7
|
|
Yes
a lot
|
10
|
11.0
|
|
No
|
64
|
70.3
|
|
Total
|
91
|
100
|
|
Are
you a carer?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
12
|
13.0
|
|
No
|
80
|
87.0
|
|
Total
|
92
|
100
|
There
were 893 responses to the consultation received by the
Council. The majority were received via the council’s
online consultation portal (online survey) of which 3 were
originally made as paper copies. In addition, there were 12
separate written responses received. There were also 62
participants joining the 6 consultation meetings held by the
Council.
If you have lived in a private
rented property in the last 12 months, do you feel that your health
or safety has been harmed by the condition of the property you have
occupied? (Question 1d)
Health
Safety
Please provide any additional
comments on if you feel that your health or safety has been harmed
by the condition of the property you have occupied
(Question
1f)
Comments
received: 903
Just under half (41%) of all those
who responded to question 1d felt that their health had ‘to
some extent’ been harmed by living in a private rented
property. This included 42% of social housing tenants, 41% of
private rented tenants who live in HMOs and 40% in non-HMO
properties.
One in five (21%) felt that their
health had been affected ‘a great
deal’.
In terms of safety, more than one
third (36.1%) felt that their safety had been affected ‘a
great deal’ and another 36% said it was affected ‘to
some extent’. Just under a quarter (24.9%) felt that
their safety had not been affected at all.
Again, the impact of safety was
raised by those living in private rented property, including 42% of
social housing tenants, 40% of private rented tenants who live in
HMOs and 35% in non-HMO properties. The most frequently
mentioned issue regarding health and safety concerns related to
mould and damp (24%) and impact of poor property conditions overall
(20%).
17% of comments specifically
referred to a negative impact of these conditions on their health
(both physical and mental) and to their sense of safety (physical
and mental). A lack of action by landlords or managing
agents to rectify issues was also raised and this was cited as
contributing towards the impacts on health and safety. Just
under one in ten (8%) raised concern about the negative behaviour
of landlords and agents.
Licence conditions
To what extent do you agree or
disagree that the proposed licence conditions of the schemes will
improve the management and condition of private rented properties
in Brighton & Hove? (Question 2a)
Management
Condition
Please provide any additional
comments on the management and condition of private rented
properties - including any comments you have on the proposed
licence conditions themselves. (Question 2b)
Comments
received: 1777
Just under three quarters of all
respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that the scheme would
improve both the management (73%) and the condition (74%) of
private rented properties. Almost one in ten, strongly
disagreed that the scheme would bring any improvements to either
the management or condition of properties.
Almost all social housing tenants,
the majority of private rented tenants who live in HMOs and non-HMO
properties and homeowners agree that management and condition will
be improved. While half of letting or management agents and almost
half of landlords strongly disagree.
Respondents most frequently
mentioned issue was the need to ensure that the scheme was properly
enforced (21%), including the carrying out of property
inspections. This is considered essential for effective
delivery and implementation of the scheme.
This is followed closely by
agreement that the scheme would be effective in improving standards
(18%) and would be beneficial for PRTs (17% of comments received).
A small number of comments (5%) referred to the licensing
conditions as not being effective and existing legislation already
covers requirements set by conditions.
There is evidence of significant
deprivation in the four wards proposed for selective licensing. To
what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed licence
conditions of the schemes will reduce levels of deprivation in the
four wards (Question 2c)
Please provide any additional
comments on the proposed licence conditions and reduction of
deprivation in the four wards - including any comments you have on
the proposed licence conditions themselves. (Question 2d)
Comments
received: 688
Almost seven out of 10 respondents
(69%) ‘strongly agreed’ that the proposed licensing
scheme will reduce levels of deprivation in the four wards, with
only one in ten (10%) strongly disagreeing. The majority of
social housing tenants, PRTS who live in both HMO and non-HMO
properties and a third of home owners ‘strongly agree’
deprivation will reduce while nearly two thirds of letting or
management agents and landlords ‘strongly
disagree’.
Of the additional comments
received, half associated the proposed scheme with a positive
impact on communities and overall quality of life. Just over
40% said that tenants' lives would be improved as a result of a
reduction in costs of living. With the same number stating
this was directly connected to improvements in energy efficiency
that is anticipated from the proposed licensing
conditions.
A
smaller percentage of comments (6%) felt that the proposed scheme
will not be effective in reducing deprivation and will not be
effective in tackling those landlords who it is perceived
persistently avoid maintaining their properties to a decent
standard (3%).
In addition to licence conditions
of the schemes, it is proposed properties would be improved by
requirements under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System
(HHSRS). To what extent do you agree or disagree that HHSRS
will improve conditions of private rented properties, for the
proposed schemes, in Brighton & Hove? (Question 2e)
Please provide any additional
comments on HHSRS for improving conditions of private rented
properties, for the proposed schemes, in Brighton &
Hove (Question 2f)
Comments
received: 1154
Almost three quarters of all
respondents who answered this question ‘strongly
agreed’ that property conditions would be improved under the
requirements of the HHSRS. While less than one in ten (8.6%)
strongly disagreed, and just under 5% neither agreeing nor
disagreeing.
The majority of social housing
tenants (86%) and over 70% of PRTs strongly agree that the HHSRS
will improve conditions. Conversely, almost 40% of landlords
and over 30% of letting or management agents ‘strongly
disagree’ that it will improve conditions.
When asked for additional
comments, just under a third (29%) referred to the HHSRS and
‘good property conditions’ as being essential for the
health of private rented tenants. More than a quarter cited
enforcement and inspection as being essential to effective
implementation, while an equal number of comments also cited the
current lack of enforcement by the Council as being an
issue.
A
small number of comments related to the need to address health
issues linked to poor property conditions (3%). In contrast, a
minority of comments (2%) considered the scheme to be an unfair and
unnecessary cost involving too much bureaucracy and said that the
HHRS itself was ineffective (1%).
The Council is proposing that the
schemes will last for five years (this is the maximum period
schemes can last). How long do you think the schemes should
last? (Question 2g)
If you think the schemes should
last less than 5 years please tell us why. (Question 2h)
Comments
received: 126
The majority of respondents (90%)
agreed that the scheme should last for five years, whereas only 6%
felt that it should last for one year. Of those that selected
one year, 40% were letting and management agents and 20%
landlords.
When asked to explain why, just
over one in ten (11%) of comments received indicated that it was
important to review and assess the scheme effectiveness within a
five-year period. A similar amount (10%) felt it should be a
pilot scheme and just 8% said that the scheme should be reviewed
annually.
However, the majority of comments
(30%) received in answer to this question expressed a complete
rejection of the scheme, feeling that it should not be implemented
at all.
The proposed fee structure is
based on a standard fee of £670 over 5 years. This equals
around £2.58 per week (over 5 years). Do you think this fee
is (Question 3a):
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response (Question 3b)
Comments
received: 1929
The majority of respondents (69%)
considered the proposed fee structure to be ‘too
low’. Just under one in five (17%) agreed with the
proposed fee structure as being ‘about right’ with a
similar number (15%) considering the fee to be ‘too
high’.
While almost all agreed that the
fee was too low, of those that said it was too high 83% were
letting and management agents and 76% landlords.
Of the comments received an equal
number (17%) referred to the importance of ringfencing the funds
and charging a variable fee (17%) dependent upon the number of
properties owned by a landlord (suggesting the more properties,
higher the fee).
This was also linked to the need
to ensure that the costs to ‘smaller’ landlords who
owned fewer, or one property, were also ‘fair’ given
the likelihood of less revenue being received from rents.
Only 3% of comments expressed concern that any fees or
additional costs would be passed onto tenants in the form of
increased rents.
In instances where a licence
application is not made, the Council will incur extra costs in
pursuing the application. This is called a prompted licence fee.
For this, the Council is proposing a higher fee of £760 over
5 years. This equals around £2.92 per week.
Do you think a higher fee should
be set for pursuing licence applications? (Question 3c)
Do you think the £760 higher
fee is(Question 3d):
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response
(Question 3e)
Comments
received: 525
A
majority of respondents (74%) said the £760 fee is too low
and over 80% said that it should be set higher, with only a little
over one in ten (12%) of responses disagreeing. This view was
shared by almost all social housing tenants, over 75% of PRTs who
live in non-HMO properties, and 80% of those who live in HMO
properties and home owners. More than half of letting and
management agents and landlords said they do not agree the fee
should be higher and when asked about the £760 fee, 67%
respectively said it was too high.
When asked to explain their
response, 68% of comments received considered the fee to be too low
to act as enough of an incentive for landlords to comply.
Namely, not high enough to act as an effective deterrent for
non-compliance. 12% stated that enforcement was essential and 4%
said that costs would be passed to tenants.
Do you think there should be a
reduction in the fee for properties with an Energy Performance
Certificate rating of C or above? (Question 3f)
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response.
(Question 3g)
Comments
received: 688
The majority of respondents (67%)
strongly disagreed that a discount should be given to those
landlords whose property achieved an EPC rating of C or
above. Just over 1 in 10 (13%) tended to
agree.
For those who disagreed, reasons
cited related to the feeling that a discount was not warranted and
that an EPC C rating should be the minimum requirement of obtaining
a licence (17%). Some comments (16%) related to the fact that
obtaining a C rating was not possible or was very difficult for
older buildings, for example listed buildings where windows could
not easily be replaced.
Others referred to the difficulty
in implementing the measures and stated that they would not be
effective in raising standards (7%). A small number (4%) of
comments related to the opinion that these measures would penalise
good landlords and would not act as an incentive for improving
standards.
Do you think there should be a
reduction in the fee for landlords who are accredited under a
landlord scheme who can meet national standards of good
practice? (Question 3h)
Please provide any additional
comments to explain your response.
(Question 3i)
Comments
received: 565
Nearly two thirds (67%) of
respondents who answered this question ‘strongly
disagreed’ with the proposal to reduce the fee for accredited
landlords, whereas just under one in ten respondents tended to
agree.
Of the respondents who strongly
disagreed, almost 90% were social housing tenants, over 70%
PRTs who live in HMO
and non-HMO properties, 65% of home owners, 29% of letting and
management agents and 36% of landlords also strongly
disagreed. Just under half (43%) of letting and management
agents tended to disagree with the fee reduction.
The majority of comments (63%)
stated that they were against the fee as it was perceived to create
a conflict of interest or was not appropriate. Just over one
in ten (11%) said that being accredited by a landlord group did not
necessarily make a landlord more ‘responsible’ in terms
of maintaining the standards of their properties and that
membership itself did not warrant a reduction in fee or should not
be ‘an excuse’ to pay less (8%). Maintaining
properties to a certain standard is considered as the
responsibility of a landlord whether or not they are
accredited.
Normally, licences are awarded for
the length of the scheme (up to a maximum of 5 years). The Council
cannot refuse to grant a licence where there is outstanding
planning permission or other issues at the property, e.g.
unauthorised work without planning permission in place.
The Council is, therefore,
proposing to issue shorter licences where there is outstanding
planning permission or other issues at the property. Do you agree
or disagree with this? (Question 4)
With regards to the issuing of
shorter licences where there was an identified issue, the majority
of respondents (71%) ‘strongly agreed’ and further 11%
‘agreed’. Only a minority (6%) tended to
‘strongly disagree’ with this
proposal.
Almost all social housing tenants
who responded to this question agreed, with the majority of PRTs
and home owners also agreeing, as well as over 30% of
landlords. Just under a quarter of landlords
disagreed.
We intend to set the application
and payment process online only via the Council’s website -
is there anything we need to consider for making this work for
you? (Question 5a)
Please provide additional comments
to explain your response. Please also include any specific
considerations to make online payments work for you. For example,
personal assistance from the Council if you struggle with making
online payments. (Question 5b)
Comments
received: 62
The majority of comments received
(32%) in respect of online payments expressed the need to retain a
paper-based option, and also the availability of staff (by
telephone or in person) to provide support and address
enquiries.
With regards to an online payment
system itself, just under a third (29%) of comments received
referred to the need for a simplified system which allowed those
landlords with multiple properties or ‘block owners’ to
submit one application, as opposed to separate applications for
individual properties.
Just over one in ten anticipated
the Council’s service in this respect to be poor. A
range of comments were received accounting for less than 2% in each
case related to other aspects such as requesting cheque payment,
joint access by landlords and agents to the system, and different
payment options and instalments.
Please provide any further
comments you have on the proposed Selective Licensing Scheme for 4
wards. (Question 6a)
Comments
received: 567
An overwhelming majority of
comments received (59%) in respect of the scheme proposals for the
four wards, expressed support for the scheme’s extension to
include other wards, including the 13 identified wards. This
was based on the opinion that deprivation was not limited to the
four wards only and therefore needed to be expanded to tackle what
is perceived as a much wider issue.
A
small number (7%) specifically referred to the scheme’s
ability to help improve standards in the private rented sector and
therefore agreed that it should be implemented, in some comments
‘as soon as possible’. 5% of comments expressed
concern that as a direct result of the proposals, landlords would
leave the sector by selling their properties, and therefore there
would be less properties available to rent. In addition, 4%
of comments referred to concern that the costs of the scheme would
be passed onto tenants thereby increasing rents.
Instead of focusing on the private
rented sector, 4% of comments indicated that the Council should be
providing more social housing and not relying on the private rented
sector as a housing solution and that they should be helping to
address wider issues associated with the rented sector (such as
noise and anti-social behaviour). In addition, not leaving
those issues for landlords to address.
Please provide any further
comments you have on the proposed Selective Licensing Scheme for 13
wards. (Question 6b)
Comments
received: 899
There was overwhelming support for
the proposed scheme for 13 wards. Just over a third of
comments (37%) indicated support for extending the scheme across
the city and in some cases, nationwide. Almost an equal
number of comments (36%) indicated support for the scheme in terms
of its ability to tackle those persistently non-compliant
landlords, otherwise referred to as ‘rogue’
landlords.
A
small percentage of comments (5%) related to the need for
enforcement and greater Council accountability to ensure the scheme
is effective. An equal number of comments expressed the
opinion that the proposals would help to promote the health, safety
and welfare of tenants.
A
smaller minority (3%) felt that the scheme would result in a
reduction of properties within the private rented housing sector,
as landlords would be inclined or forced to sell as a result of
costs associated with the scheme.
While the 893 respondents were
given the opportunity to select a category that best describes
them, and 888 answered questions about their profile, as seen
below:
|
Are
you responding to the questionnaire as a…
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Home
owner in B&H
|
228
|
25.7
|
|
PRT
in B&H living in a HMO
|
174
|
19.6
|
|
PRT
in B&H NOT living in a HMO
|
290
|
32.7
|
|
Social
housing tenant in B&H
|
38
|
4.3
|
|
Letting
or management agent
|
7
|
0.8
|
|
Landlord
of rented property in B&H
|
66
|
7.4
|
|
Local
business
|
1
|
0.1
|
|
Other
|
84
|
9.5
|
|
Total
respondents to the question
|
888
|
100
|
Respondents from the following
groups were also given the opportunity to provide more information
about their profile:
|
Respondent
groups
|
|
Home
owner in B&H
|
|
PRT
in B&H living in a HMO
|
|
PRT
in B&H NOT living in a HMO
|
|
Social
housing tenant in B&H
|
Not all respondents from these
groups provided a response to the various profile questions.
Where respondents did not answer or preferred not to provide an
answer, these have not been included in the figures
below.
The Council did not gather profile
information from those that responded as a business or
organisation.
The tables below
include:
·
Total = number of
respondents who answered the question
·
% = percentage of
respondents who answered the question
|
Age
groups
|
Total
|
%
|
|
18
to 24
|
39
|
19.0
|
|
25
to 34
|
53
|
25.9
|
|
35
to 44
|
33
|
16.1
|
|
45
to 54
|
30
|
14.6
|
|
55
to 64
|
31
|
15.1
|
|
65
to 74
|
15
|
7.3
|
|
75+
|
4
|
2.0
|
|
Total
|
205
|
100
|
|
What
gender are you?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Female
|
119
|
55.1
|
|
Male
|
84
|
38.9
|
|
Other
|
13
|
6.0
|
|
Total
|
216
|
100
|
|
Do
you identify as the sex you were assigned at birth?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
188
|
92.2
|
|
No
|
16
|
7.8
|
|
Total
|
204
|
100
|
|
How
would you describe your ethnic origin?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Asian
or Asian British: Indian
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Asian
or Asian British: Pakistani
|
2
|
0.9
|
|
Any
other Asian background (please give details below)
|
3
|
1.4
|
|
Black
or Black British: Caribbean
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Mixed:
Asian and White
|
6
|
2.8
|
|
Mixed:
Black African and White
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Mixed:
Black Caribbean and White
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Any
other mixed background (please give detail below)
|
5
|
2.3
|
|
White:
English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British
|
156
|
73.2
|
|
White:
Irish
|
7
|
3.3
|
|
White:
Gypsy/Romany/Traveller
|
2
|
0.9
|
|
Any
other White background (please give details below)
|
26
|
12.2
|
|
Arab
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Any
other ethnic group (please give details below)
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Total
|
213
|
100
|
|
Which
of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Bisexual
|
44
|
24.9
|
|
Gay
|
21
|
11.9
|
|
Heterosexual
/ straight
|
102
|
57.6
|
|
Lesbian
|
6
|
3.4
|
|
Other
|
4
|
2.3
|
|
Total
|
177
|
100
|
|
What
is your religion or belief?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
I
have no particular religion/belief
|
112
|
57.1
|
|
Christian
|
29
|
14.8
|
|
Jewish
|
5
|
2.6
|
|
Muslim
|
3
|
1.5
|
|
Pagan
|
3
|
1.5
|
|
Agnostic
|
10
|
5.1
|
|
Atheist
|
32
|
16.3
|
|
Other
religion
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Other
philosophical belief
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
Total
|
196
|
100
|
|
Armed
forces service - Are you currently serving in the UK Armed Forces?
(this includes reservists or part-time service, such as the
Territorial Army)
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
2
|
1
|
|
No
|
202
|
99
|
|
Total
|
204
|
100
|
|
Armed
forces service - Have you ever served in the UK Armed
Forces?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
4
|
2
|
|
No
|
196
|
98
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100
|
|
Are
you a member of a current or former serviceman or woman's immediate
family/household?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
10
|
5
|
|
No
|
189
|
95
|
|
Total
|
199
|
100
|
|
Connection
to the armed forces
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
15
|
7.6
|
|
No
|
182
|
92
|
|
Total
|
197
|
100
|
|
Are
your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or
disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12
months?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
a little
|
42
|
20.5
|
|
Yes
a lot
|
26
|
12.7
|
|
No
|
137
|
66.8
|
|
Total
|
205
|
100
|
|
Are
you a carer?
|
Total
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
28
|
12.8
|
|
No
|
190
|
87.2
|
|
Total
|
218
|
100
|