Councillor Joanna Biddolph submitted comments to Hounslow council's cabinet about its proposed policy for managing houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Based on experiences of badly managed HMOs in Turnham Green ward, she wanted cabinet members to have as wide a view as possible when considering the policy. She was pleasantly surprised that her email wasn't dismissed - and the response might even be described as positive (relatively speaking, of course). Scroll down to the end for the reply.
19th October 2021
Dear All,
I had hoped to attend cabinet this evening but I have a diary clash and will be out of London this evening. If I had been present, it is possible you might have asked me for a view; clearly that won't be possible. I offer the below to inform the development of this important policy.
There is no doubt that stronger policies are needed to manage HMOs. However, even with stronger policies, their implementation will be ineffective if they are not rigorously enforceable and, if they are, that rigorous enforcement is implemented. I am not convinced that this new policy will achieve what is needed to stop rogue landlords from bliighting a corner, a road, a community, a neighbourhood, an area by disregarding the welfare not only of their tenants but also of their tenants' neighbours.
First, let me say that of course HMOs are important options for housing. Speaking personally, during my early years in London, living indpendently was made possible by flat sharing - those flats would now be designatedHMOs. There were bad landlords then. That has not changed, despite HMO regulations. I don't believe it will change with this new policy.
Since 2018, I have had to deal with numerous problematical HMOs in Turnham Green ward. Most of them have been and are in the Gunnersbury Park Garden Estate (GPGE). Indeed, over half the HMOs in Turnham Green ward are in the GPGE - a conservation area with an Article 4 Direction covering fewer than 500 homes. So, over half the HMOs in my ward are in less than one tenth of it. The proportion is wholly wrong for the GPGE's community and sense of community, regardless of the fact that it is also wholly wrong because there are several rogue HMO landlords here who have caused significant and prolongued problems for many neighbouring households and the area as a whole. I declare an interest, I live in the GPGE. However, that is irrelevant except for the fact that it has exposed me directly to problematic HMOs - from the moment I moved here - in a way that living in other parts of my ward would not have done. There are so many HMOs, and so many problematical HMOs, right here on my doorstep I would be failing in my role as a councillor if I did not highlight the GPGE.
This fact - that the GPGE has a high number of HMOs in Turnham Green ward and in the borough, and that Turnham Green ward has a high proportion of HMOs within the borouhg, is born out in the maps in Appendix 3. They show that Turnham Green ward is seventh on the list of 20; that it has more than double the number of HMOs in Chiswick Riverside ward; and that it has just under two thirds more HMOs than are in Chiswick Homefields ward. The maps also show the intensity of the spread of HMOs in the ward and the high level of concentration of HMOs in the GPGE. One heat map shows the concentration of planning applications and certificates of lawfulness for HMOs; the GPGE is the only area in all three of the Chiswick wards. Another heat map shows the high level of complaints in the GPGE. All five maps are attached.
Before I comment on the policy in detail, I'd like to say that I am extremely disappointed that a reasonable request, made by the GPGE residents' association through me, to meet Peter Matthew, Vicky Wallas and others to discuss HMO management was refused; my follow up emailing appealing for that decision to be reversed was ignored - I have not had a reply. The fact is that the GPGE residents' association has decades of HMO experiences - first hand knowledge of good and bad - that LBH has not been interested in. Listening to residents is, I know, not something the council likes to do and it hasn't liked to do it here. That is a major failing generally and specifically in relation to managing HMOs. The GPGE residents' assocation knows who the rogue landlords are. They have provided intelligence about these landlords' business names and family members whose names are used to disguise the fact that it is the rogue landlord who owns and fills the properties. They have experienced numerous examples of appalling HMO management. The council doesn't want to know. I conclude that this policy is consequently half-hearted.
Managing HMOs in the borough policy concerns
- Article 4 Direction : The GPGE conservation area already includes an Article 4 Direction. It has not provided any safeguards whatsoever against the mismanagment of HMOs by rogue landlords. Houses here have been divided up into tiny units, turning these modest 1927 houses typically with two double-bedrooms and one single bedroom, sometimes three double-bedrooms and one single bedroom, into HMOs for for six, eight, even 10 residents. This is too many residents for these small houses and too many residents in one house in relation to neighbours.
- Benefits to residents : Improved safety and living conditions of private tenants living in HMOs: This is an assertion that is unsupported by custom and practice; having to apply for planning permission has nothing to do with ensuring safety and living conditions beyond that stage.
- Benefits to residents: Improved management practices for waste and recycling, ASB, upkeep, community: Again, an Article 4 Direction will not necessarily have any impact on bad practices.
- 3.7 : Assessment of whether the landlord or manager is fit and proper and that adequate arrangements are in place: How will an assessment be made? Given that new HMO applications in the GPGE have recently been approved, with landlords known to be rogue landlords, it isn't clear to me that this hoped-for approach is achievable. Additionally, we know from the rogue landlords in the GPGE that they start new companies for each tenancy; bring in their family members or friends as directors, disguising the fact that the rogue landlord is in reality in charge; this policy will not stop that.
- 3.8 : Duration of a licence: As with the assessment point, it could well be impossible for officers to know whether the landlord will be a rogue landlord; if it isn't, neighbours will be condemned to five years of the terrible effects. Five years is too long in all cases, because of the risks of a landlord being a rogue landlord.
- 3.13 : Executive Director authorised to approve minor amendments: This must first include consultation with the relevant residents' association and ward councillors; I do not believe it is possible for anyone in this role to have the detail needed to make these decisions alone.
- 3.14 and 3.15 : Waste and recycling management: There is also the issue that the landlord/agent doesn't provide common information in the premises and, in some cases, doesn't know what that information is. With the HMO next to me, the landlord visits weekly to put out the waste/recycling - and gets it wrong every week. Several times I provided information, suitable to be put on on a noticeboard or back door, for example; it was ignored. Sending it to the landlord/agent made no difference, either. Nor did explaining it when asked by a tenant, while standing next to recycling bins that had not been collected; my explanations lastes only as long as the tenant stayed; when he moved out, the waste/recycling returned to being problematical.
- 3.18 3.19 3.20 and 3.21 : Article 4 Direction: It has made no difference here in the GPGE. It has not achieved anything to "protect local amenity or the well-being of the area".
- 4.1 : Prosecutions and penalty fines: In what period have there been 13 landlord prosecutions and 37 civil penalty fines?
- 4.2 : Will help to raise management standards: Where is the evidence that is achievable? It has not happened in the GPGE.
- 4.7 : Article 4 Direction will ... manage the impact on local amenity and character: This is an assertion not backed up by evidence; it has not worked in the GPGE.
- Legal and governance comments: These seem not to give the leeway stated in the policy document and might mean the new policy is impossible to implement and will be unebforceable.
- Equalities, etc: "The use of an Article 4 Direction is not intended to restrict development altogether, but instead aims to ensure that development requires planning permission." This sentence is significant as it highlights the fact that an Article 4 Direction will not achieve the intended aims.
- Consultation 15.1 : Which members in the three Chiswick wards, and in the opposition generally, were involved? The meeting I requested was refused.
- Languages: There is no recognition that landlords and their tenants might not speak/understand English well or at all.
- Community trigger: Where is this potentially important option for residents whose complaints about HMOs go unheeded or are inappropriately acted on? Residents of the GPGE were failed for years and did not know about the community trigger.
Licensing policy concerns
- Waste and recycling education pack and posters: In my experience, landlords do not pass on information to their tenants. Even if they do, they do not ensure they are displayed in the HMO. Nor is there any evidence that they are passed on from tenant to tenant. Regardless, whatever is produced it must be fully accessible by all, recognising that not all tenants speak English.
- 4 : Duration of licenses : Page 3: Third paragraph from the bottom beginning "In the event that ..." This paragraph should be in the HMO policy document.
- 5 : Fit and proper person criteria : Bullet points: An addition is needed here - that the council will seek from local residents information on the applicant and that it will make it encouraging to submit information about rogue landlords. In the GPGE, one household repeatedly over 20 years reported bad HMO practices; records were not passed on and/or were lost and were not acted on. Failures of process must be minimised so that the fit and proper aspect can be used effectively. Otherwise, it is just words. Anyone can complete an applicaiton form in a way that gives a different impression from the reality.
- 5 : Assessment of associated persons : This appears to me to be impossible to achieve.
- 5 : Tests for fitness, etc : There is reference to a code of practice; where is this and how is it disseminated to landlords and their tenants?
Household waste and recycling policy concerns
- 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 appear to be in conflict with one another. The former allows someone to opt out of a wheeled bin for no reason (as has happend in my case ... I produce very little waste and use my neighbour's bin by agreement); the latter says residents cannot opt out of having a wheeled bin unless they are exempt (I am not exempt, I have opted out).
Appendix 3: Evidence Report
- Using the electoral roll to identify unregistered HMOs: I accept that this is one measurement. However, it seems clear to me from experiences in the GPGE that there are many multi-occupied houses where tenants are transitory, moving in briefly then leaving; sometimes they are alone or a couple, often they seem to be in groups. None of them might at any time be on the electoral register. Those HMOs cannot be identified using the electoral and, as is the case here, they are often badly managed.
Policies that are needed
- Maintain a list of landlords and their records: Complaints about specific landlords appear not to be considered when new applications are received because record keeping doesn't make this easy. The council should compile a cross referenced list, including other people associated with the landlord (such as husbands/wives/brothers/sisters/parents, etc), so that HMO licenses are not granted to landlords with current appalling records. The licensing policy refers to "historical records" but in the experience of the GPGE, there is no historical record of its rogue landlords. Residents' associations and ward councillors should be asked for information on each application to try to reduce the problems from rogue landlords increasing their portfolios of badly managed HMOs.
- Limit the number of rooms and the number of residents in an HMO: Rather than having an Article 4 Direction across the borough, the council needs to set maximum numbers according to each flat, house, road, community, neighbourhood. In these GPGE houses, where there is a high proportion of older residents interspersed by small families, HMOs of more than five people are disruptive, disturbing and distressing to many. Yet, we have houses licensed for six, eight, 10 people. We have been reassured that HMO licences for 10 pepole will not be granted again - but these existing large disruptive houses remain in our community. Five maximum here, please. This will also mean that houses will not be divided in such a way that they can never be turned back into family houses.
- Limit the number of HMOs in a road, a confluence of roads, an area with a clear boundary (such as the GPGE, but there are others in Turnham Green ward and presumably other wards): There must be limits, enforced whether the current landlords are good or rogue (properties change hands and a good landlord might be replaced by a bad landlord, or indeed the other way round) to maintain the sense of community that exists in any one place, and to encourage an improved sense of community where it has already been disrupted by HMOs and their, typically, high turnover of transitory tenants.
- Local residents' associations and the ward councillors to be informed of and consulted about each HMO application and/or any variation of a previous HMO application, and renewals of existing HMOs: Regardless of whether planning permission is needed (given that there is to be a 12 month consultation, followed by policy development and consideration, there will be applications between now and then), local representatives must be consulted and their views must be taken on board. Officers at Hounslow House or working from home do not have enough local knowledge, or understanding of the way a neighbourhood works, to make the decisions alone. Local representatives' views must be sought and respected. Clearly, local representatives must not block fair applications but they will know whether a road, a corner, a community, etc, has reached saturation point - as is the case with the GPGE currently. we cannot take any more HMOs and more must be done to identify unlicensed HMOs so that the council teams have the correct information about the number of HMOs here.
- Run a campaign to identify unlicensed HMOs: There is an urgent need to identify unlicensed HMOs. The council should enlist the help of residents to do this, for example asking residents' associations to ask their members to identify possible HMOs. The GPGE attempted to do this earlier this year but it requires more time than we have so far been able to commit and it needs to be welcomed and encouraged by the council by providing guidance.
The experience of HMOs in the GPGE conservation area
To give the context, this is some of what we have experienced in the GPGE (this is not the full list):
- XXX The Ridgeway: Residents spent over four years reporting a rogue landlord who was running a dangerous HMO, possibly also relying on modern slavery for the many illegal extensions he built. Soon after I moved here I was introduced to this problem by a neighbour living in these dangerous premises and immediately supported her attempts to get action from the council. The process was frustratingly slow; we did not feel we were believed. After far too long, this locally notorious landlord, Mr Nayeri, was fined £136,000 plus £16,000 costs which the council praised itself for, despite letting down its residents for years (https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/news/article/518/six-figure_fine_for_rogue_landlord).
- XXX Gunnersbury Avenue: This party house, well-known in New Zealand and with its own Facebook page showing terrible living conditions and tenants with debauched anti social behaviour, was so out of control that for 15 years an elderly next door neighbour lived nocturnally as he could never sleep at night because of the significant disturbance caused by a succession of unruly tenants and a weak. laissez-faire landlord. Neighbours opposite the back of this house battled for attention for 20 years, with deterioriating mental health from the stress and night after night of noise disturbance; they are now moving as they cannot put up any longer with this landlord's disregard of others. This landlord is building his HMO portfolio in the GPGE and now also runs a lettings agency; his lettings boards now proliferate the GPGE; his tenants are notable for their inability to manage waste/recycling responsibly.
- XXX Gunnersbury Avenue: A large HMO with so many tenants that neighbours say that every day it feels as if there is a party next door, none of the tenants having any regard for the fact that they have neighbours living a normal peaceful existence. Even after an amicable meeting with the tenants and the landlord, little changed permanently.
- XXX Park Drive, XXX Park Drive, XXX Park Drive with other HMOs nearby: This is in a cluster of HMOs, all appallingly managed with tenants who work for Deliveroo or similar, congregating noisily outside on motorbikes (disturbing neighbours long into the night) and failing to manage waste/recycling; rats are often seen on the pavement and in the front gardens here and nearby.
- XXX and XXX The Ridgeway: Whenever tenants leave these houses, both owned by the same rogue landlord, the grass verge is covered in a slew of disgusting fly tipping either removed from the properties by the rogue landlord or dumped there by the tenants. The houses have to be repainted every time tenants change, even if it is only after a few months. A few weeks ago, there was a fire in the garages at the back of these houses, those garages having been extended and knocked together to serve as an enormous warehouse. It seems logical to attribute the warehouse to the landlord's other business - a property services company refurbishing properties it owns or manages on behalf of others - but I must stress that unless that has been confirmed by the HMO team, this is local speculation.
- XXX Gunnersbury Lane: This overfull flat made life next door and nearby impossible. Large numbers of people came round to parties midweek and at weekends lasting through the night - including during lockdowns - which spilled out onto the communal path to other flats, onto the roof of the commercial premises below and next door. The contents of so many bottles and cans were drunk, contributing to a massive fly tip (at one time, this was the borough's second worst fly tip). People urinated on the communal path, on the roof of the commercial premises, down the stairs to the road. Even if the residents were in but not holding parties, the people living next door were disturbed every night by the noise generated by the residents of this flat. It was so bad, repeatedly, that the next door neighbours moved.
Jo
Reply from leader of the council Cllr Steve Curran
From: Councillor Steve Curran <[email protected]>
Sent: 19 October 2021 10:26
To:Councillor Joanna Biddolph <[email protected]>
Subject:RE: CEX581 Managing HMOs in the borough
Cllr Biddolph,
Thank you very much for your detailed email. I think its fair to say that the Cabinet report tonight is one string in our bow we hope to use to manage HMOs which don’t meet the required standard. We’re looking at further work on how we manage HMOs, that’s under current discussion and the points you have raised will inform that work.
Best wishes
Cllr Steve Curran
Leader of the Council
