HMO licensing costs - are they fair?

tbs624

The NLA (Nat LL Association) has researched the differences in HMO licensing fees up and down the country. They give the following figures:

165 Councils have fees between £250 and £500

Most expensive was Tendring DC at *£2,665

( *although TDC website says £545 fee)

Least Expensive: Babergh ,Mid Suffolk, NE Derbyshire, North Kesteven, Purbeck, West Lynsey, Wychavon (all DCs) and Ribble Valley BC

Leeds CC has the largest number of HMOs (2570)

24 local auths. have no HMOs

Council spending the most on HMOs Manchester £3,066,918)

42 local auths say their schemes have cost them nothing to operate

169 councils weren’t able to give info about how much their schemes cost to operate

3 councils out of the 248 that have authority over HMOs did not respond: LB of Newham, S Northamptonshire (east Midlands) and St Helen’s BC (NW)

Do we suppose that the 42 Local Authorities who say their schemes “cost nothing” are the Councils who are slow to enforce the regulations and /or fail to take advantage of the opportunity for additional /selective licensing?

Tessa Shepperson also has a list of different Council’s HMO licensing fees here

Given that the NLA also has Letting Agents as members, I found this comment by David Cox, NLA Policy Officer interesting:

“Local authorities are charging wildly different amounts of money, often based on irrational accounting. Many Councils seem to have plucked figures out of thin air as the fees bear no relevance to the management costs of running this type of scheme”

That’s not dissimilar to the views that many Ts have of LAs and their random admin/renewals fees

pararct

Given the fact a lot of them break the rules on fire protection and alarms etc. is it probably more then fair.

How can 2 sections of 7.5 mm of plasterboard on a stud wall between flats/rooms be sufficient in so called permanent accommodation?

Its a crying same most councils do not police the system as they should, lives are being put at risk.

dlk

I can see the point of registering HMO's if this was actually to check the properties for safety excetera. However the fees do appear a tad excessive for a one off visit to check you're complying with minimum standards (and even that doesn't always happen).

It does appear to simply be a tax on landlords. If I licence my property today which would last for 5 years but then sell the property 6 months later to a new landlord the licence can't be transferred and he has to purchase a brand new licence. It's the same house in the same condition! Why on earth would a new licence be necessary rather than a transfer of name if it wasn't simply a stealth tax?

theartfullodger

Councils should IMHO make it quick, easy & fair(in price) to apply for an HMO license.. otherwise fewer Landlords will apply (bleedin' obvious really). The "Housing Standards" depts. of councils are all overworked & they need help to make things easier for them, not harder...

Then it will be easier to go after the (relatively few..) bad LLs...

Cheers!


Artful

poppysarah

Manchester have extra rules for some areas with high levels of HMO/rental.
It's to make tenant's lives better and to improve living standards.

No one makes you become a landlord. It should be a positive decision to go into that business.

Some of the rules seem a bit odd ...but
I'd assume "person of good character" checks are done on landlords who have access unfettered to communal areas of properties - and I'd hope so too.

poppysarah

theartfullodger wrote: »

Councils should IMHO make it quick, easy & fair(in price) to apply for an HMO license.. otherwise fewer Landlords will apply (bleedin' obvious really).

Why do people live in a HMO?
For some it might be by choice but for others it'll be because they're normally cheaper than renting a whole place.

If rents overall were cheaper perhaps HMO wouldn't be a big issue.

Brb

I can understand different councils having different fees as the department that deals with them needs to be the size to cope with the amount of HMOs the council has in their district, which'll be different for each council.

Now if these fees were simply collected and the inspections etc not carried out, that I would find unfair.

clutton_2

in one london borough this is the latest HMO fees info

""The fees charged for licence applications have been reviewed by the Council and are due to change from the start of October 2010. They are to increase by the following:

First time licence Increase from £110 per unit to £380 per unit (per room)

Renewal Increase from £55 to £380 per unit.

These huge increases are probably due to the Council's having spent all the money from Licensing at the beginning of the 5 year cycle, and now need to raise more money to cover their budgeting incompetence.

These levels of fees are way too high..... and will inevitably lead to rent increases


""I'd assume "person of good character" checks are done on landlords who have access unfettered to communal areas of properties ""

Popy - in Manchester the landlord has to pay an additional sum for him/herself to get CRB checked....

tbs624

dlk wrote: »

I can see the point of registering HMO's if this was actually to check the properties for safety excetera. However the fees do appear a tad excessive for a one off visit to check you're complying with minimum standards (and even that doesn't always happen).

The Councils are apparently not permitted to make a profit on license fees. There is a "licensing application toolkit" to help them arrive at their figures, which was apparentyl developed with input from LL groups but Joe Public can't access it:)

dlk wrote: »

It does appear to simply be a tax on landlords. If I licence my property today which would last for 5 years but then sell the property 6 months later to a new landlord the licence can't be transferred and he has to purchase a brand new licence. It's the same house in the same condition! Why on earth would a new licence be necessary rather than a transfer of name if it wasn't simply a stealth tax?

It's not just about the building though - an HMO licence can't be granted unless the manager/license holder has been checked out as a fit and proper person so if the person changes, then re-licensing becomes necessary.

Given that HMOs house some of the most vulnerable Ts in the PRS and that the regs were designed to deal with safety issues, who should cover the costs, if not LLs?

Some LLs, having coughed up for their licence, have then received 4 figure grants to help with necessary works.

tbs624

theartfullodger wrote: »

Councils should IMHO make it quick, easy & fair(in price) to apply for an HMO license.. otherwise fewer Landlords will apply (bleedin' obvious really).

But do you think that it's the actual license fee that puts LLs off applying , or is that they know that they will be required to upgrade their properties and provide evidence of themselves being "fit and proper"?

For some, it will no doubt be that they have never bothered to acquaint themselves with the regs for anything and think they can simply do as they please.

theartfullodger wrote: »

The "Housing Standards" depts. of councils are all overworked & they need help to make things easier for them, not harder...

Agreed. That was one of the reasons I was interested in those Councils who said that their licensing schemes cost them nothing to operate - how can they run an efficient scheme with no costs involved? Maybe they prop it up under a general PRS housing budget?

tbs624

Brb wrote: »

I can understand different councils having different fees as the department that deals with them needs to be the size to cope with the amount of HMOs the council has in their district, which'll be different for each council.

This was why it was agreed there would be no standard "cap", as some Councils would have been left out of pocket and others would simply have charged the max possible, regardless of the fact that their costs incurred were lower