Summary of the findings

• Within the survey the majority of people agreed that anti-social behaviour within this area is an issue (80%) and that this is something the council should be tackling (84%).
• When asked whether people agreed or disagreed that a selective licensing scheme would help, responses were more split with 49% agreeing and 44% disagreeing.  The breakdown of responses indicates that the majority of those who disagreed with the scheme were landlords.
• When those who disagreed were asked what they think could help to address the issues, the most frequent response was more or improved policing in the area and for local agencies to use the powers currently available to them.
• Although the majority of written representations agreed that there are problems within the area most did not agree with the proposals in their current format.
• The most frequent concerns raised by those who were against the original proposals have been identified below.  Please note this is only a summary of responses, full representations were passed on to the Private Sector Housing Team for consideration.

1. Against blanket licence – not fair or appropriate to target good landlords. 

Most good landlords are already maintaining properties to a good standard, are providing the necessary safety regulations and carefully vet their tenants.  Most also felt that tenants within their properties were not contributing to incidents of anti-social behaviour.  Those with managing agents felt that all of the criteria listed within the proposal were already being met.  There was strong feeling that the council should be specifically targeting poor landlords with sub standard accommodation and more frequent cases of anti-social behaviour.  Good landlords felt they were being targeted to pay for the results of poor landlords.

2. Concerned about the cost

Most landlords raised concerns about the amount being charged per licence, particularly those with multiple properties within the area.  The feeling was the money being charged for the licence would be taken away from the upkeep of the building and some expressed concerns that they would simply not be able to afford it.  Frustrations were evident with those who had invested money in renovating properties to a high standard.  Concerns were also raised about the costs incurred by taking those who didn’t pay to court and criminalising otherwise law abiding citizens based on their financial situation.  Suggestions put forward were to reduce the amount, to allow for instalments or payment plans for those with larger amounts and also to charge a smaller amount to good landlords.  Most people did not feel it was fair to charge the same amount across the board.  Other concerns regarding cost were around the level of on-going costs covered by landlords already.  Some felt if implemented, the licence could lead to good landlords leaving the area.  Others were concerned that the subsequent rise in rents would have a detrimental impact on working tenants.

3. Legislation already in place/duplication

Concern was raised that the scheme was not clear about any additional powers the scheme would create and that the issues within the area could be resolved by current powers.  Most felt that raising standards in the area was desirable but that this was achievable through current legislation and were not sure that the licence would bring anything different to the table.  Others felt that the money raised by Council Taxes was sufficient to cover the work that’s needed in the area.

4. Not clear how the fee would be used to deliver outcomes.

The comment was raised that the proposal did not give enough specific detail about how the fee would be used.  People wanted to know how much of the fee would be used directly within the area to address the problems rather than to just administer the scheme.

They felt the expected benefits of the scheme were very clear in the proposal (e.g. better quality tenants, less anti-social behaviour and eventual rise in values) but this seemed aspirational and there wasn’t enough evidence given of exactly how this would work and that this has been achieved in other areas.  More evidence is needed about how tangible benefits will be achieved and about how this will have an impact on anti-social behaviour.  Also some questioned whether anti-social behaviour, which they feel mostly occurs outside, is the responsibility of the landlord.

5. Lack of evidence of the link between landlords and anti-social behaviour

Although most recognised that there are issues in the area they felt there was no direct evidence between landlords and anti-social behaviour, where is the link? Feel that private landlords are being used to pay for wider social problems, particularly those issues that people felt had been brought on by the council (e.g. TDC planning policy allowing the high number of flats in the area and the high numbers of vulnerable people from outside the area being housed etc).  Some questioned the statistics within the document and felt there wasn’t enough evidence provided and that more was needed to drill down to identify the types of tenants causing the problems.  As part of this argument landlords also questioned why social landlords were not included.  Is this an admission that these problems don’t exist in social housing?  If not, why is this fair and what will the council do to address the issues in these types of housing?

6. Questions about the boundary

Questions were raised about the boundary line.  Some specific examples were raised of properties in roads with very low or no anti-social behaviour, why are they included?  Suggestions were raised to target hot spot areas rather than the whole area, as they felt this would be a far better use of resources to target the areas with known problems.

7. Negative impact on property market and housing provision

Fears were raised that high charges would drive out good landlords, make it more difficult to secure mortgages, create more empty properties and lead to a crash in the market in this area.  Others felt that it was impossible for the council to predict a rise in values as this is more effected by wider market forces.  The frustration was raised that the council is penalising those who have chosen to invest in the area and that the scheme would have a detrimental affect.

8. Issues with court system

Concerns were raised that the time taken to deal with anti social tenants is too long and not helpful to landlords.  Landlords who were trying to deal with problem tenants had difficulties with evicting them, and also with tenants being advised by Council Housing Officers to stay.  Landlords felt that they were already doing what they could to deal with the problem but that the legal system works against them.  Others asked if once this scheme was in place if the system would be revised or improved.

9. Benefits/LHA payment

Many landlords were unhappy with the current payment of LHA to tenants.  They felt that in the incident of anti-social behaviour payments should be withheld and many others felt that payment should go back direct to landlord rather than to tenant.  Many felt it was unfair that the council is targeting landlords when the tenants actually causing the anti-social behaviour should be dealt with.

10.  Alternative solutions

Those who opposed the scheme felt that the desired affects could be achieved by other means, for example more investment into the area, more jobs and better education.  They also felt that more should be done to work with the ethnic minority groups.

Back to main selective licensing consultation page

E-mail:

hannah.thorpe@
thanet.gov.uk

Tel:

01843 577120

Housing Improvement Team

E-mail:

housing.conditions
@thanet.gov.uk

Tel: 01843 577437