Agenda item

NBeresford introduced the updated Private Sector Enforcement policy and new Civil Penalties Policy for feedback before they were sent on for Cabinet approval. She explained this was primarily about tackling substandard accommodation in private sector rented homes, but also enforcement powers available regarding the condition of registered provider homes. She noted that specific amendments and alterations related to the Ishak case where a young child had died following instances of damp and mould in the home, and that the council had taken on board extensive guidance from central government.

Cllr Dhyani congratulated the team on the policy, stating that she felt it definitely solved the purpose and would give them a better control on the private rented sector.

Cllr Pringle praised the penalty matrix taking into account the severity of the case and harm caused to the tenant or others. She proposed adding in an aggravating feature regarding evidence of bullying of vulnerable tenants, and asked whether there were any powers to compensate the tenant in such cases. RClarke explained that the line regarding harm would encompass vulnerability, and that the Housing Act did allow the council or tenant to apply to the RPT for a rent repayment order of up to 12 months' rent. She also confirmed that tenants would be supported in this if they qualified. Cllr Pringle noted that she would like to hear more about specific cases at a future date, and raised the need to publicise more widely to tenants that the council had these powers in the case of private sector properties.

Cllr Stevens queried the existence of the £30,000 limit. RClarke clarified that this was the legislated maximum in the Housing and Planning Act, and while there was statutory guidance regarding what a local authority should consider, they had the power to determine their own matrix and fine levels. NBeresford referenced 2 active cases just finalised with fines of £20,000 and £1,200, and explained that this money came back into the service, ring-fenced to enable further regulatory enforcement activity.

Cllr Stevens asked whether the council had a good handle on total privately tenanted properties across the borough, particularly HMOs. NBeresford noted that this was a significant proportion of the borough's stock and the service had only 9 members of staff, but that processes were undertaken through the Rogue Landlord Initiative to identify homes operating as unlicensed HMOs. RClarke noted that the BRE had conducted a housing stock survey in 2019-20 just prior to COVID, and come up with approximate figures of 11,000 privately rented properties, 280 HMOs with 5 or more people, and around 1,000 HMOs with 3 or 4 people. She stated that while they could deal with complaints as they came in, doing research into all 11,000 properties would be very resource-heavy.

Cllr Weston asked how much higher the rents were with private landlords than with DBC. NBeresford clarified that while DBC's rents were set at social rent, private sector landlords would set their rent in line with the Local Housing Allowance rates. She noted that Hertfordshire was covered by a border market rental area and had 3 catchment areas, meaning there could be anomalies, but that on average a 2-bedroom home might rent for £1,200 to £1,400 a month upwards, a 3-bedroom home for £2,000, and larger family homes well in excess of £3,500.

Cllr Cox asked for clarification on whether the private sector included housing associations. NBeresford confirmed this was correct. Cllr Cox asked about cases where the housing association failed to act due to being unable to get hold of the developer or contractor responsible for the works. NBeresford explained that the registered provider would be in the same position as the council in terms of responsibility to their tenant in rectifying any defect. She explained that the council would not typically undertake the works, but that RClarke's team would engage with the landlord to help them fulfil their obligations, and steps could be taken to serve improvement notices if they failed to engage. She noted that in serious cases the council could undertake works by default and put charging orders on the properties to recoup monies, but this was a last resort.

Cllr Pringle asked whether the statement about issuing a civil penalty for each individual breach meant the £30,000 limit was per tenant. RClarke clarified that this was per offence and there could be multiple offences against an individual tenant. Cllr Pringle asked if they would also pursue the landlord for legal costs, and RClarke explained that the RPT frowned upon adding costs as the civil penalty was assumed to cover this.

Cllr Pringle asked what happened to homes and tenants in the event of a banning order, and if the council could take them over. RClarke stated that there would have to be an alternative in place, and that the ideal situation would be for the tenant to remain in situ with a change of management. NBeresford noted that in extreme cases the council might prohibit use of a property, and referenced historical cases where they had taken over management of HMOs.