stock condition survey for houses in multiple occupation

Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected]

Stock Condition Survey for

Houses in Multiple

Occupation (HMOs)

in Milton Keynes

Report of Findings September 2014

ANNEX A TO ITEM 9

http://www.ors.org.uk/

Opinion Research Services | Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey – Report of Findings September 2014

2

Contents 1. Introducing the Study ..................................................................................... 4

Overview of the Background and Survey Methodology 4

The Councils Obligations and Powers ......................................................................................................... 5

Guidance regarding House Condition Surveys ............................................................................................ 5

How this Survey was Conducted ................................................................................................................. 5

Environmental Survey ................................................................................................................................. 7

2. General HMO Characteristics ......................................................................... 8

A Profile of the Housing Stock in Milton Keynes 8

Overview of Private Rented Sector (Including HMOs) ................................................................................ 8

Population and Household Data ................................................................................................................. 8

Overall Stock Condition Findings ............................................................................................................... 12

Dwelling Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 12

3. Statutory Minimum Standards ..................................................................... 15

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) 15

Obligation to Tackle Housing Health and Safety Hazards ......................................................................... 15

Definition of Hazards under the HHSRS and Category Level..................................................................... 15

Hazards Identified by the Survey .............................................................................................................. 16

4. Internal and External Issues ......................................................................... 20

Internal and External Repairs .................................................................................................................... 20

Internal and External Condition ................................................................................................................ 22

Over-Crowding .......................................................................................................................................... 24

Other Concerns ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Anti-Social Behaviour ................................................................................................................................ 26

5. Environmental Surveys................................................................................. 29

Summary of findings 29

Environmental Survey ............................................................................................................................... 29

Summary of Environmental Survey Findings ............................................................................................ 30

6. Recommendations ....................................................................................... 33

Overall HMO Sector ................................................................................................................................... 33

Control and Licensing ................................................................................................................................ 33

Hazards ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

Internal and External Condition of Properties .......................................................................................... 34


3

Environmental Survey ............................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 35

Housing Legislation and Requirements 35

Appendix B ....................................................................................................... 40

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) 40

Appendix C ....................................................................................................... 45

List of Abbreviations 45


4

1. Introducing the Study Overview of the background and survey methodology

1.1 In 2013 Opinion Research Services (ORS) were appointed by Milton Keynes Council (MKC) to undertake a

consultation programme with a wide range of stakeholders in Milton Keynes that sought to seek views and

gather evidence to support the potential extension of mandatory licensing for the private rental sector and

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Milton Keynes in order to improve the overall quality of life for

local residents. The outcome of this study was that no further action would be taken to introduce Selective

Licensing in the private sector in Milton Keynes, and that further work would be undertaken to explore the

possibility of introducing Additional Licensing for HMOs.

1.2 Section 56 of the 2004 Housing Act gives powers to LHAs to designate areas, or the whole of the area,

within their district, as subject to Additional Licensing in respect of some or all of the HMOs in its area that

are not already subject to mandatory licensing.

1.3 The Housing Act states that in making a designation for Additional Licensing a Local Housing Authority

should be able to show that it considers a “significant proportion of the HMOs of that description in the

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.” Examples of

properties being managed sufficiently ineffectively, and as a result having a detrimental effect on a local

area, include;

» Those whose external condition and curtilage (including yards and gardens) adversely impact

upon the general character and amenity of the area in which they are located.

» Those whose internal condition, such as poor amenities, overcrowding etc. adversely impact

upon the health, safety and welfare of the occupiers and the landlords of these properties are

failing to take appropriate steps to address the issues.

» Those where there is a significant and persistent problem of anti-social behaviour affecting

other residents and/or the local community and the landlords of the HMOs are not taking

reasonable and lawful steps to eliminate or reduce the problems.

» Those where the lack of management or poor management skills or practices are otherwise

adversely impacting upon the welfare, health or safety of residents and/or impacting upon

the wider community.

1.4 The previous study undertaken by ORS contained detailed spatial analysis of anti-social behaviour and

environmental complaints that allow the Council to identify areas where there are significant and

persistent problems of anti-social behaviour. To help explore the extent of the other issues the Council

commissioned ORS in June 2014 to carry out a housing condition survey on a random sample of 200 HMOs

across Milton Keynes. To complement the housing condition survey an environmental assessment was also

undertaken in streets where HMO condition surveys were completed.


5

1.5 As such this study seeks to provide evidence for the Council to consider when determining whether to take

forward proposals for Additional Licensing in relation to the internal and external condition of properties,

and issues related to poor property management. Data on anti-social behaviour has already been collated

in the 2013 Report on Additional and Selective Licensing in Milton Keynes.

The Councils Obligations and Powers 1.6 Councils have an obligation to enforce certain statutory minimum standards in housing and have powers

that they can use to do this: mandatory duties are outlined in Appendix A, while further non-mandatory

powers are available to the Authority under the Housing Act 2004.

1.7 Local authorities are also required by Government to complete certain returns indicating the distribution of

their housing stock by tenure and the condition of certain aspects of the stock.

Guidance regarding House Condition Surveys 1.8 Guidance on how to conduct housing condition surveys has evolved over time:

» Local House Conditions Survey Guidance (1993; updated 2000): the Department of the

Environment issued a Guidance Manual setting out how Local House Condition Surveys

should be conducted, including a detailed survey form in a modular format, and a step-by-

step guide to implementing a survey.

» Housing Health and Safety Rating System Guidance (HHSRS) (guidance was issued in 2004;

updated 2006).

1.9 Local authorities are encouraged, by both sets of guidance, to make full use of information gathered from

house condition surveys in conjunction with data from other sources.

How this Survey was Conducted 1.10 Milton Keynes Council hold detailed records of private rented properties and HMOs. This allowed ORS to

identify a total of 423 HMOs across Milton Keynes that do not currently need to be licensed under the

current mandatory scheme but that would need to be licensed if Additional Licensing were to be

introduced. In a number of wards, and in particular in more rural locations, there were too small a number

of HMOs to give a robust and representative set of outcomes. Therefore all wards with less than 10 HMOs

were removed from the household sample base leaving a total of 372 properties for which a statistically

viable set of outcomes could be achieved. Those wards which were included and excluded can be found in

Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Distribution of HMOs by Ward

Ward HMOs Include in

Study

Campbell Park 117 Yes

Bradwell 63 Yes

Woughton 49 Yes

Middleton 34 Yes

Linford North 28 Yes

Wolverton 22 Yes

Linford South 21 Yes


6

Bletchley and Fenny Stratford 14 Yes

Stantonbury 14 Yes

Eaton Manor 10 Yes

Loughton Park 7 No

Stony Stratford 6 No

Denbigh 4 No

Emerson Valley 4 No

Newport Pagnell North 4 No

Whaddon 4 No

Olney 3 No

Walton Park 3 No

Danesborough 2 No

Furzton 2 No

Hanslope Park 2 No

Newport Pagnell South 2 No

Sherington 1 No

Loughton Park 7 No

TOTAL 423

1.11 For all of the surveys conducted information on the following factors was collected:

» General characteristics of the property.

» Socio-economic information about the household.

» Dwelling dimensions.

» Condition of the internal and external fabric of the property.

» Identification of Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazards.

» Security and fire safety measures.

» Tenancy, neighbourhood and landlord related issues.

1.12 When asking questions to tenants on neighbourhood and landlord related issues the surveyors sough to get

the combined view of all household members where more than 1 tenant was present at the time of the

survey. Where only one tenant was present only the views of that individual have been recorded.

1.13 All of the surveys were undertaken by ORS’ well-established team of fully-trained and experienced property

surveyors that we work with on a regular basis. The surveyor team have extensive experience of gathering

the necessary data for stock condition surveys, and many have worked on the English Housing Survey (EHS)

and the Welsh and Scottish equivalents. By working with this team on a regular basis, we find we can

effectively manage quality and ensure survey data of a consistently high standard.

1.14 ORS used a team of 4 fully trained and experienced surveyors for this project. All had the necessary

expertise to undertake the required stock condition surveys and have practical experience of the Housing

Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and collecting the necessary data for RDSAP analysis. The

surveyors completed a total of 191 household surveys during July 2014.

The map overleaf shows the location of the household surveys that were completed.


7

Environmental Survey 1.15 The Environmental Survey sought to capture a range of information about the environmental

characteristics of the areas where household surveys were completed. The study was completed by means

of a narrative by the surveyor based on a number of general themes. Photographs were also taken to

support the assessment by the surveyor. The themes that were assessed were:

» Traffic congestion, noise or pollution from traffic.

» Parking Provision.

» Smoke, pollution or noise from factories or other premises.

» Open space for the public.

» Facilities for children and young people.

» Litter/dirty streets/rubbish dumping or fly tipping.

» Empty/boarded-up properties.

» Condition of pavements and street furniture.

» Vandalism/Anti-Social Behaviour.

» Any other observations.

Map 2: Distribution of Completed HMO Surveys


8

2. General HMO Characteristics A Profile of the Housing Stock in Milton Keynes

Overview of Private Rented Sector (Including HMOs)

Population and Household Data 2.1 Over the past decade Milton Keynes has seen an increase in population of over 20%. This is significantly

higher than for other surrounding local authorities and can be seen in the table and charts below. This

represents an increase of some 41,761 persons. The latest Mid-Year Estimate (2012) increased the

population by a further 3,579 to 252,400.

Figure 2: Population Change by Local Authority 2001-2011 (Census)

All usual residents 2001 2011 % Change

Milton Keynes 207,060 248,821 20.2 Luton 184,367 203,201 10.2 Northampton 194,463 212,069 9.1 Central Bedfordshire 233,654 254,381 8.9 South Northamptonshire 79,297 85,189 7.4 Bedford 147,908 157,479 6.5 Aylesbury Vale 165,760 174,137 5.1 Wellingborough 72,520 75,356 3.9

Figure 3: Percentage Population Change by Local Authority 2001-2011 (Census)


9

Figure 4: Comparison of Population Change by Local Authority 2001-2011 (Census)

Growth in Private Rented Sector

2.2 As with much of the South East of England, the housing market in Milton Keynes has seen significant

change over recent years. A key feature of this change across the region has been a growing and adapting

role for the private rented sector.

2.3 Between 2001-2011, Census data shows that the number of households in Milton Keynes increased by

15,221, or a growth of 18.3%. The private rented sector, however, increased by 259.6% in that period with

the number of households in that tenure increasing from 6,579 to 17,066. The sector now makes up 17.3%

of housing stock in Milton Keynes, a rise from 7.6% in 2001. This has come at the expense of the home

ownership where the market share has dropped from 70.4% in 2001 to 57.7% in 2011, and also a small

drop in the social housing sector from 20.4% to 18.0%. This is shown in the table below.

2.4 Compared to surrounding local authorities, between 2001 and 2011 Milton Keynes has had the highest

relative increase in its private rented sector, and the highest numeric increase.

Figure 5: Tenure Change in Milton Keynes 2001-2011 (Census)

2001 2011

Tenure Number of

Households % Share

Number of Households

% Share % Change

2001-2011

Total households 83,363 98,584 18.3

Home owner 58,681 70.4 62,898 57.7 7.2

Social Housing 16,979 20.4 17,763 18.0 4.6

Private Rented 6,579 7.6 17,066 17.3 259.6

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Population Change 2001-2011

2001 2011


10

Figure 6: Tenure Change by Local Authority (%) 2001-2011 (Census)

% Change 2001-2011 All

households Home owner

Social rented Private rented

Bedford 7.1 -1.2 8.9 70.7

Central Bedfordshire 10.7 5.2 5.2 91.8

Luton 5 -10.2 0.8 200.8

Aylesbury Vale 7.6 2.9 -2.7 81.4

Milton Keynes 18.3 7.2 4.6 259.4

Northampton 9.8 -2.3 3 250.5

South Northamptonshire 9.5 6.9 -1.5 72.6

Wellingborough 6.6 -0.6 -3.6 245.2

Figure 7: Tenure Change by Local Authority (Number) 2001-2011 (Census)

Absolute Change 2001-2011 All households Home owner Social

rented Private rented

Bedford 4,211 -521 835 4,189 Central Bedfordshire 10,131 3,821 697 6,038 Luton 3,543 -5,117 89 8,441 Aylesbury Vale 4,882 1,440 -251 4,143 Milton Keynes 15,221 4,217 784 10,487 Northampton 7,907 -1,357 446 9,504 South Northamptonshire 2,999 1,734 -54 1,615 Wellingborough 1,972 -132 -213 2,582

Figure 8: Percentage Growth in Private Rented Sector by Local Authority 2001-2011 (Census)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

% Growth in Private Rented Sector 2001-2011


11

2.5 There is also a growing awareness within Milton Keynes that the housing market has continued to change

since the 2011 Census. It has been driven by population growth, housing costs and benefit changes brought

about by welfare reforms.

2.6 Data obtained from the Council on HMOs in Milton Keynes has been plotted to show the location of 423

HMO properties across Milton Keynes. This shows those HMOs that could be included if Additional

Licensing were to be introduced.

2.7 The map shows there to be higher concentrations of HMOs that could be subject to Additional Licensing

around the central area of Milton Keynes in the wards of Campbell Park, Bradwell, Woughton, Middleton,

Linford North, Wolverton and Linford South.


12

Overall Stock Condition Findings

Property Management

2.8 During the Stock Condition Survey tenants were asked a number of specific questions about property

management issues in the HMO sector in Milton Keynes.

» Tenancy Agreement: The vast majority (89%) of landlords provide a tenancy agreement, with

just 4% of respondents saying they did not have a written tenancy agreement and 7% who did

not know.

» Rent deposit backed by Government scheme: The majority (72%) of tenants have their

deposits protected under a government backed deposit scheme. Just 3% said that they were

aware that their deposit was not protected and 14% were unsure. A further 11% of

respondents said that they had not paid a deposit. Whilst use of the rent deposit scheme is

now mandatory it would appear that there is likely to be an issue with non-compliance by a

small proportion of landlords in the area.

» Poor management by the Landlord: Just 3 residents (1.6%) felt that poor management of

their HMO by their landlord was a fairly big problem, with the vast majority reporting poor

management not to be a big problem (7.9%) or not a problem at all (90.5%).

Fire Safety

2.9 The vast majority of HMOs in Milton Keynes have either a mains powered smoke alarm or an LD2 Alarm

installed. Just 5 of the properties surveyed only had battery smoke alarms and just 4 did not have any

smoke alarms installed.

Figure 9: Fire alarm provision in HMOs (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Milton Keynes

Number %

LD2 Alarm 91 48%

Wired Alarm 90 47%

Battery Alarm 5 3%

No Alarm 4 2%

Security

2.10 The majority of HMOs (88%) in Milton Keynes have one or more property security measures installed.

However this still means that 12% of HMOs do not have appropriate security measures installed.

Dwelling Characteristics 2.11 The following charts show the construction date, property type, property size, and construction type profile

for HMOs in Milton Keynes.

Dwelling Construction Date

2.12 Significant proportions of HMO housing in Milton Keynes were constructed between 1975 and 1981 and

between 1982 and 1990 (39% and 36% consecutively). Just 10%, or 19 HMOs were constructed pre 1945.


13

Dwelling Type Profile

2.13 The building type profile for HMOs in Milton Keynes is a reflection of the predominant type of dwelling

stock that was built between 1975 and 1990 with the highest proportion (92%) of HMOs being in houses

and just 8% being in flats. A high proportion (66%) of HMOs are in terraced houses, compared to 20% in

semi-detached properties and 14% in detached properties. Most HMOs are in either 2 storey properties

(55%) or in 3 storey properties (41%) with just 5% being in single story properties.

Dwelling Size

2.14 Over a third (34%) of HMOs have an overall floor size area of less than 100m2. A similar proportion (32%)

have an overall floor space of between 100-120m2. Just under a fifth of properties (18%) have an overall

floor size of between 120-150m2, and a further 16% have an overall floor space area of greater than 150m2.

Figure 10: Dwelling Characteristics for HMOs in Milton Keynes (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2013)


14

Summary

General Housing and Household Characteristics

» There are 423 HMOs in Milton Keynes that have been identified by the Council as being eligible

for Additional Licensing should a decision be taken to introduce a new scheme.

» A total of 372 were selected as a statistically viable base for the household surveys in those

wards with 10 or more HMOs. A total of 191 successful surveys were completed.

» The vast majority of landlords provide a tenancy agreement (89%) and just under three quarters

(72%) of tenants have their deposits protected under a government backed deposit scheme.

» However, there is opportunity for improvement as whilst use of the rent deposit scheme is now

mandatory it would appear that there is likely to be an issue with non-compliance by a small

proportion of landlords in the area.

» Poor management by the Landlord is not seen as a problem with just 3 residents (1.6%) feeling

that poor management of their HMO by their landlord was a fairly big problem, with the vast

majority reporting poor management not a problem at all (90.5%).

» The provision of HMO fire safety can be considered as above standard. The vast majority of

HMOs in Milton Keynes have either a mains powered smoke alarm or an LD2 Alarm installed.

Just 5 of the properties surveyed only had battery smoke alarms and just 4 did not have any

smoke alarms installed. This is significantly above the national average and reflects adherence

to Council existing and successful enforcement and legislative measures.

» The provision of security measures is considered to be well above average with the majority

(88%) of HMOs having one or more appropriate security measure in place.

» The profile of age of construction can be considered modern with significant proportions of

HMOs in Milton Keynes having been constructed between 1975 and 1981 or between 1982 and

1990 (39% and 36% consecutively).


15

3. Statutory Minimum Standards The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

Obligation to Tackle Housing Health and Safety Hazards 3.1 Tackling Health and Safety hazards in homes is an important issue both in terms of the quality of the

housing stock but also in terms of the contribution this makes to Health and Well Being. The obligation to

do so is set out in law.

3.2 Formerly, under Part VI of the Housing Act 1985, local authorities had a statutory duty to take: ‘The most

satisfactory course of action’, with regard to unfit dwellings and the Act was supported by relevant

statutory guidance:

» A range of enforcement measures were available including service of statutory notices to

make dwellings fit. Closure or demolition was only appropriate in the most extreme cases. In

the private rented sector enforcement action was much more likely in respect of unfit homes.

» With owner occupied dwellings in particular, many local authorities looked to offer financial

assistance, especially where owners were on low incomes.

3.3 From April 2006, Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 repealed the former housing fitness standard and through

statutory instruments and statutory guidance replaced it with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

3.4 As described in Appendix A, the Act differentiates between Category 1 and Category 2 hazards. Local

authorities have a duty to take ‘the most appropriate course of action’ in respect of any hazard scored

under the HHSRS as Category 1. Authorities have discretionary power to take action with Category 2

hazards (which do not score past the threshold for Category 1). Further information on the definition of

the HHSRS Hazards is given in Appendix B and below.

Definition of Hazards under the HHSRS and Category Level 3.5 The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) replaced the former fitness standard and is a

prescribed method of assessing individual hazards, rather than a conventional standard to give a judgment

of fit or unfit. The HHSRS is evidence based – national statistics on the health impacts of hazards

encountered in the home are used as a basis for assessing individual hazards.

3.6 The HHSRS system deals with a much broader range of issues than the previous fitness standard. It covers

a total of 29 hazards in four main groups:

» Physiological Requirements (e.g. damp & mould growth, excess cold, asbestos, carbon

monoxide, radon, etc.)

» Psychological Requirements (crowding and space, entry by intruders, lighting, noise)

» Protection Against Infection (domestic hygiene, food safety, personal hygiene, water supply)

» Protection Against Accidents (e.g. falls on the level, on stairs & steps & between levels,

electrics, fire, collision…)


16

3.7 The HHSRS scoring system combines elements:

» the probability that deficiency (i.e. a fault in a dwelling whether due to disrepair or a design

fault) will lead to a harmful occurrence (e.g. an accident or illness)

» the spread of likely outcomes (i.e. the nature of the injury or illness).

» if an accident is very likely to occur and the outcome is likely to be extreme or severe (e.g.

death or a major or fatal injury) then the score will be very high.

3.8 All dwellings contain certain aspects that can be perceived as potentially hazardous, such as staircases and

steps, heating appliances, electrical installation, glass, combustible materials, etc. It is when disrepair or

inherent defective design makes an element of a dwelling significantly more likely to cause a harmful

occurrence that it is scored under the HHSRS.

3.9 The HHSRS generates a numerical Hazard Score, and Hazard Bands have been devised as a simple means

for handling the wide range of possible Scores. There are ten Hazard Bands, with Band J being the safest,

and Band A being the most dangerous:

» Hazard Bands A to C (i.e. Hazard Scores of 1,000 and above) are the most serious hazards, and

these are known as Category 1 (serious) hazards.

» Hazard Bands D to J (i.e. Hazard Scores below 1,000) are known as Category 2 (other) hazards.

3.10 A local authority has a duty to deal with any Category 1 hazards found and has discretionary power to deal

with Category 2 hazards. The Housing Stock Condition Survey focuses particularly on Category 1 hazards,

but describes all hazards (including Category 2 hazards in Bands D and E) for comparative purposes.

Hazards Identified by the Survey 3.11 Surveyors scored a range of HHSRS hazards and the survey form allowed for this. This identified hazards in

just 31 of the HMOs that were surveyed. This is significantly below the national average. The 2012 English

Housing Survey found one or more Category 1 Hazards present in 19% of private rented properties.

Figure 11: Hazards Identified in HMOs (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Milton Keynes

Number %

Category 1 Hazard 2 1%

Category 2 Hazard 29 15%

No Hazard 160 84%


17

3.12 The most frequent hazards that were identified were Food Safety (26%), Crowding and Space (24%), Falls

on Stairs (16%) and Falls Between Levels (13%). There were no hazards identified for Entry by Intruders.

Error! Reference source not found. shows a breakdown of the hazards that were identified during the

ousehold surveys.

Figure 12: Hazards Identified in HMOs (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Milton Keynes

Number %

Food Safety 10 26%

Crowding and Space 9 24%

Falls on Stairs 6 16%

Falls Between Levels 5 13%

Falls – General 2 5%

Flames and Hot Surfaces 2 5%

Falls on Level 2 5%

Position of Amenities 1 3%

Structural Collapse 1 3%


18


19

Summary

Statutory Minimum Standards: The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

» Hazards were found in just 31 of the HMOs that were surveyed which is significantly below the

national average.

» The most frequent hazards that were identified were Food Safety (26%), Crowding and Space

(24%), Falls on Stairs (16%) and Falls Between Levels (13%).

» There were no hazards identified for Entry by Intruders.


20

4. Internal and External Issues 4.1 The Housing Act sets of criteria that local authorities must consider when determining the introduction of

Additional Licensing. These include a number of measure that relate to the physical condition of properties:

» Those whose external condition and curtilage (including yards and gardens) adversely impact

upon the general character and amenity of the area in which they are located.

» Those whose internal condition, such as poor amenities, overcrowding etc. adversely impact

upon the health, safety and welfare of the occupiers and the landlords of these properties are

failing to take appropriate steps to address the issues.

4.2 During the survey of HMOs ORS Surveyors made both visual inspections and questioned tenants about a

range of factors that can contribute to internal and external levels of disrepair:

» Whether any internal repairs are needed (observed).

» Whether any external repairs are needed (observed).

» Whether the HMO is over-crowded (observed).

» Poor internal condition of the property (tenant).

» Poor external condition of the property (tenant).

» Poor internal quality of the property (tenant).

» Lack of amenities in the property (tenant).

» Health and safety concerns in the property (tenant).

» Overcrowding in the property (tenant).

Internal and External Repairs 4.3 Surveyors found the need for no internal repairs in over four fifths (81%) of HMOs that were surveyed. The

need for major repairs was only identified in 5 properties.

Figure 13: Internal Repairs Needed in HMOs (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Internal Repairs

Needed

Milton Keynes

Number %

Major Repairs 5 3%

Minor Repairs 30 16%

None 156 81%


21

4.4 Surveyors found the need for no external repairs in over four fifths (80%) of HMOs that were surveyed. The

need for major repairs was only identified in 2 properties.

Figure 14: External Repairs Needed in HMOs (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

External Repairs

Needed

Milton Keynes

Number %

Major Repairs 2 1%

Minor Repairs 37 19%

None 152 80%


22

Internal and External Condition 4.5 When asked if the poor internal condition of their property was a problem the majority of tenants (87%)

stated that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that poor internal condition of their property was a

very big problem, and just 6 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 15: Poor Internal Condition of the Property (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Poor Internal

Condition

Milton Keynes

Number %

Very big problem 0 0%

Fairly big problem 6 3%

Not a very big problem 18 10%

Not a problem at all 166 87%

Don’t know 0 0%

4.6 When asked if the poor external condition of their property was a problem the majority of tenants (92%)

stated that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that poor external condition of their property was a

very big problem, and just 8 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 16: Poor External Condition of the Property (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Poor External

Condition

Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 0 0%


23

4.7 When asked if the poor internal quality of their property was a problem the majority of tenants (89%)

stated that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that poor internal quality of their property was a very

big problem, and just 4 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 17: Poor Internal Quality of the Property (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Poor Internal Quality Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 0 0%


24

Over-Crowding 4.8 Surveyors found no evidence of over-crowding in the majority (89%) of properties. Just 6 properties were

felt to be over-crowded with the possibility of over-crowding in a further 15 properties – although it was

not possible to confirm this.

Figure 18: Over-Crowding at the Property (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Over-Crowding Milton Keynes

Number %

Yes 6 3%

Possibly 15 8%

No 170 89%

4.9 When asked if over-crowding at their property was a problem the majority of tenants (95%) stated that it

was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that over-crowding at their property was a very big problem, and

just 3 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 19: Over-Crowding at the Property (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Lack of Amenities Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 0 0%


25

Other Concerns 4.10 When asked if lack of basic amenities in their property was a problem the majority of tenants (92%) stated

that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that the lack of basic amenities at their property was a very

big problem, and just 3 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 20: Lack of Amenities at the Property (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Lack of Amenities Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 0 0%

4.11 When asked if a health and safety concerns in their property was a problem the majority of tenants (92%)

stated that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that a health and safety concern was a very big

problem, and just 3 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 21: Health and Safety Concerns (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Health and Safety

Concerns

Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 0 0%


26

Anti-Social Behaviour 4.12 When asked if noisy neighbours or loud parties were a problem in their street the majority of tenants (98%)

stated that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that noisy neighbours or loud parties was a very big

or fairly big problem in their street, and just 3 tenants felt that it was not a very big problem.

Figure 22: Noisy Neighbours or Loud Parties (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Noisy Neighbours or

Loud Parties

Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 1 0%


27

4.13 When asked if rubbish, fly tipping or litter were a problem in their street the majority of tenants (86%)

stated that it was not a problem at all. No tenants felt that rubbish, fly-tipping or litter was a very big

problem in their street, and just 3 tenants felt that it was a fairly big problem.

Figure 23: Rubbish, Fly-Tipping or Litter (Source: Milton Keynes HMO Stock Condition Survey 2014)

Rubbish, Fly-Tipping

or Litter

Milton Keynes

Number %





Don’t know 0 0%


28

Summary

Internal and External Issues

» Surveyors found the need for no internal repairs in over four fifths (81%) of HMOs that were

surveyed.

» Surveyors found the need for no external repairs in over four fifths (80%) of HMOs that were

surveyed.

» When asked if the poor internal condition of their property was a problem the majority of

tenants (87%) stated that it was not a problem at all.

» When asked if the poor external condition of their property was a problem the majority of


» When asked if the poor internal quality of their property was a problem the majority of tenants

(89%) stated that it was not a problem at all.

» Surveyors found no evidence of over-crowding in the majority (89%) of properties. Just 6

properties were felt to be over-crowded.

» When asked if over-crowding at their property was a problem the majority of tenants (95%)

stated that it was not a problem at all.

» When asked if lack of basic amenities in their property was a problem the majority of tenants


» When asked if a health and safety concerns in their property was a problem the majority of


» When asked if noisy neighbours or loud parties were a problem in their street the majority of


» When asked if rubbish, fly tipping or litter were a problem in their street the majority of tenants



29

5. Environmental Surveys Summary of findings

Environmental Survey 5.1 This chapter draws together the key findings of the Environmental Surveys that were undertaken in the

areas where household surveys were undertaken.

5.2 Overall the surveyors did not find any significant environmental problems within the study area other than

isolated instances of fly-tipping, litter and minor issues with highways and footways. These often mirrored

the isolated instances of sub-standard HMOs that would be expected in any study such as this. As such it is

felt unnecessary to provide a detailed breakdown of the environmental survey for each of the streets that

were surveyed and instead the photographs on the following pages that were taken by the Surveyors from

ORS during the fieldwork period in July 2014 give an indication of some of the minor issues that were

observed.


30

Summary of Environmental Survey Findings

Overgrown frontage on Conniburrow Boulevard Overgrown open-space off Gurnards Avenue

Frontages on Vellan Avenue

Open-space at Bransgill Court

Frontages on Conniston Way

Frontages on Kirkstall Place


31

Frontages on Helford Place

Frontages on North Eleventh Street

Frontages at Bascote

Fly-Tipping at Beadlemead

Open-space at Brownbaker Court

Frontages at Gurnards Place


32

Frontages at Helford Place

Frontages at Lampitts Cross

Frontages at Perran Avenue

Fly-Fipping at Tolcarne Avenue


33

6. Recommendations 6.1 Based on the findings of this study and report this chapter outlines key recommendations specific to the

Council. Overall the outcomes of the Stock Condition Surveys and Environmental Surveys concur with the

outcomes of the HMO Study that was competed by ORS for the Council in 2013 and indicate that there is

no evidence to support the introduction of Additional Licensing for HMOs in Milton Keynes. This is based

on the criteria set out in the 2004 Housing Act which states that in making a designation for Additional

Licensing a Local Housing Authority should be able to show that it considers a “significant proportion of the

HMOs of that description in the 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.”

Overall HMO Sector

6.2 It is evident from the analysis of data from the Census that there has been significant growth in the private

rented sector, including HMOs, in Milton Keynes. This has significant implications for the Council in terms of

maintaining overall housing conditions in the HMO sector, housing need and housing demand.

6.3 Specifically whilst the evidence at this time does not suggest a designation of Additional Licensing in Milton

Keynes, the Council should continue to monitor the environmental quality of the area, and in particular

those problems that Additional Licensing could address such as property frontage issues.

6.4 More generally for the Council, the growth in the HMO sector indicates a continuing (and potentially

increasing) demands upon resources.

Control and Licensing

6.5 As stated in the paragraphs above the outcomes of the Stock Condition Surveys and Environmental

Surveys, coupled with the outcomes of the HMO Study that was completed in 2013, do not provide

evidence for a designation for Addition Licensing in Milton Keynes.

6.6 Overall it would appear that current control measures by the Council are good and being implemented by

responsible landlords across the majority of HMOs in Milton Keynes. However, as you would expect in any

area, there will always be a small number of isolated properties in need of enforcement action and this is

an ongoing issue nationwide.

Hazards

6.7 The Council has a duty to deal with any Category 1 Hazards that are found and has discretionary power to

deal with Category 2 Hazards. Overall the condition of stock in both areas was very good but there are a

very small number of Category 1 and 2 Hazards. The Council should continue to work closely with landlords,

letting agents and property management companies to address these problems through the current

regulation and enforcement system.


34

Internal and External Condition of Properties

6.8 Overall Surveyors found the need for no internal or external repairs in over four fifths of HMOs that were

surveyed, but most of these were for minor repairs. The Council should continue to work closely with

landlords in Milton Keynes to address any issues relating to the need for repairs where landlords are

unwilling or unable to undertake these repairs.

Environmental Survey 6.9 Overall the Surveyors did not find any significant environmental problems within the study area other than

isolated instances of fly-tipping, litter and minor issues with highways and footways. These often mirrored

the isolated instances of sub-standard HMOs that would be expected in any study such as this. As such it is

recommended that work is undertaken to coordinate the activities of the Council’s Housing, Highways and

Waste Management Services to educate landlords and tenants about litter and fly-tipping issues, and make

any appropriate improvements to highways and pavements where these are required.


35

Appendix A Housing Legislation and Requirements

Housing Acts and other Legislation

Section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended) placed a duty on local authorities to consider the

condition of the stock within their area, in terms of their statutory responsibilities to deal with unfit

housing, and to provide assistance with housing renewal. Section 3 of the Housing Act 2004 replaced this

with a similar duty to keep housing conditions under review.

The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 came into effect on the 19

July 2003 and led to major change in the way local authorities can give financial help for people to repair or

improve private sector homes. Before the Order, the Government set clear rules which controlled the way

financial help could be given and specified the types of grant which could be offered. The Order set aside

most of these rules (apart from the requirement to give mandatory Disabled Facility Grants). It now allows

Local Authorities to adopt a flexible approach, using discretion to set up their own framework for giving

financial assistance to reflect local circumstances, needs and resources.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), published guidance under Circular 05/2003. In order to

use the new freedom, a local authority must prepare and publish a Private Sector Renewal Policy. The

policy must show that the new framework for financial assistance is consistent with national, regional and

local policies. In particular, it has to show that the local priorities the strategy is seeking to address have

been identified from evidence of local housing conditions including stock condition.

The Housing Act 2004 received Royal Assent in November 2004. The Act makes a number of important

changes to the statutory framework for private sector housing, which came into effect in April 2006:

The previous fitness standard and the enforcement system have been replaced by the new Housing Health

and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

The compulsory licensing of higher risk houses in multiple occupation (HMO) (three or more storeys, five or

more tenants and two or more households).

New discretionary powers including the option for selective licensing of private landlords, empty dwelling

management orders and tenancy deposit protection.

Operating Guidance was published on the Housing Health and Safety Rating System in February 2006. This

guidance describes the new system and the methods for measurement of hazards, as well as the division of

Category 1 and 2 hazards. Guidance has been issued by the ODPM on the licensing provisions for HMOs,

which describes the high risk HMOs that require mandatory licensing and those that fall under additional,

voluntary licensing.

As the Rating System has now replaced the fitness standard, this report deals with findings based on

statutory hazards, not unfitness.


36

Mandatory Duties

Unfit houses (Housing Act 1985) - to take the most satisfactory course of action – works to make

property fit, closure/demolition or clearance declaration.

With effect from April 2006 replaced by:

Category 1 hazards, Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (Housing Act 2004) – to take

the most satisfactory course of action – improvement notices, prohibition orders, hazard awareness

notices, emergency remedial action, emergency prohibition orders, demolition orders or slum

clearance declaration.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (Housing Act 1985) - to inspect certain HMOs, to keep a register of

notices served, to require registration where a registration scheme is in force.

With effect from April 2006 replaced by:

HMO Licensing by the Authority (Housing Act 2004) of all HMOs of three or more storeys, with five

or more residents and two or more households. Certain exceptions apply and are defined under

sections 254 to 259 of the Housing Act 2004.

Overcrowding - (Housing Act 1985) - to inspect and report on overcrowding

Now in addition:

Overcrowding – (Housing Act 2004) – to inspect and report on overcrowding as defined under

sections 139 to 144 of the Housing Act 2004 along with statutory duty to deal with any Category 1

overcrowding hazards found under the HHSRS.

The provision of adaptations and facilities to meet the needs of people with disabilities (Housing

Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996) - to approve applications for Disabled Facilities

Grants for facilities and/or access

Energy Conservation (Home Energy Conservation Act 1995) - to have in place a strategy for the

promotion and adoption of energy efficiency measures, and to work towards specified Government

targets to reduce fossil fuel use. This should contain assessment of

The cost of proposed energy conservation measures

The extent of decreases in nitrogen and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere

The extent of decreases in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

The number of jobs created from the measures taken

Requirements of authorities under the Act


37

Under revised Guidance (March 2013) all English authorities need to prepare further reports (by 31 March 2013) setting out the energy conservation measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in its area.

Authorities should have regard in their reports to:

(i) measures that take advantage of financial assistance and other benefits offered from central Government initiatives, such as the Green Deal, ECO and Renewable Heat Incentive or other initiatives, to help result in significant energy efficiency improvements of residential accommodation; and

(ii) measures which an authority has developed to implement energy efficiency improvements cost-effectively in residential accommodation by using area based/street by street roll out involving local communities and partnerships (e.g. social housing partners, voluntary organisations and town/parish councils).

Reports should set out any existing timeframe for delivery and national and local partners they propose to work with in effecting such measures to support local accountability.

Progress reports to be made at 2 yearly intervals, starting March 2013, and to publish these electronically on their website with a link to be forwarded to the Secretary of State.

HMO Requirements

The legal minimum standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are contained in Statutory

Instrument 2006 No 373, with amendments contained in Statutory Instrument 2007 No 1903. These

standards apply to all HMOs, whether or not they need to be licensed.

The standards set out in Statutory Instrument 2006 No 373, schedule 3 stipulate the following:

» An adequate means of space heating must be provided in each letting and in bathrooms,

whether shared or not

» Kitchens and bathrooms must be adequately ventilated, including extractor fans in kitchens

» Kitchens, bathrooms and toilets must be of adequate size and layout and be suitably located

in the HMO in relation to the lettings

» All baths, showers, wash hand basins and sinks must be fitted with taps supplying cold water

and a constant supply of hot water

» For up to 4 occupiers, there must be at least one bathroom and toilet (which can be in the

bathroom). This has been amended by Statutory Instrument 2007 No 1903 to say that there

must be an adequate number of bathrooms, toilets and wash hand basins for personal

washing for the number of persons sharing those facilities, and where reasonably practicable

there must be a wash hand basin with appropriate splash back in each unit.

» For five or more occupiers, there must be at least one bathroom for every 5 sharers, and a

separate toilet for every 5 sharers. This has been amended by Statutory Instrument 2007 No

1903 to say that there must be an adequate number of bathrooms, toilets and wash hand

basins for personal washing for the number of persons sharing those facilities, and where

reasonably practicable there must be a wash hand basin with appropriate splash back in each

unit.


38

» Adequate size and layout kitchen for the number of sharers, containing sinks with draining

boards, cooking equipment, worktops, storage cupboards, for food and crockery and utensils,

fridge/freezers (combined or separate), and electrical sockets

» Adequate refuse disposal facilities

» Adequate fire precautions including fire doors and fire blankets as appropriate

HMOs should also be assessed against the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and the appropriate

enforcement action should be taken, where necessary, to ensure any deficiencies are rectified.

The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation England 2006 and Licensing and Management of

Houses in Multiple Occupation and other houses (miscellaneous provisions) (England) Regulations 2006.

Regulation 8 and Schedule 3 govern the following requirements for heating, space, light and ventilation in

HMOs.

Heating

The normally accepted standard is a central heating system (preferably gas fired), or fixed heaters (electric

heaters should be hard wired, not plugged into the room sockets). Portable electric fires, convector heaters

or oil filled radiators, gas cylinder powered heaters or paraffin heaters are not acceptable.

Space

Letting rooms should be not less than 10m2 for a single letting, which can be reduced to 7m2, if there is a

communal lounge. Double rooms should be 15m2 and 11m2 respectively.

Natural Light and Ventilation

Clear glazing equivalent in area to 10% of the floor area of the room should be provided in each letting.

Openable windows equivalent in area to 5% of the floor area of the room should be provided in each

letting. Doors to open air cannot be included in the reckoning.

Fire Safety

Fire safety provisions and equipment should be provided as appropriate to the accommodation in line with

the domestic fire safety standard:

Fire Alarms

Fire can break out in even the most safety conscious household, and should this happen, toxic smoke can

very quickly spread throughout the house. It is most important, therefore to alert the occupants as soon as

possible that a fire has broken out in the house. The most effective way of providing this early warning is to

fit electrically operated fire detection and alarm systems.

These can range from single, battery operated smoke alarms which are widely available from only a few

pounds to quite sophisticated mains operated systems linked to a remote monitoring service who will alert

Fire and Rescue should the alarm be actuated in the property. Both the Council and Fire and Rescue

recommend a system of smoke and heat alarms which are mains operated and have a battery backup.

Smoke alarms must be interlinked, either by physical inter-wiring or by a wireless signal, so that when one

alarm detects a fire, all the alarms in the building will sound.

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/housing/repairs_and_maintenance/health_an_safety_rating_system.aspx


39

In single family homes and low risk houses in multiple occupation the normal standard would be to provide

smoke alarms in the circulation space (hall, stairs and landing) and heat alarms in the kitchen. In most other

types of HMO additional alarms are located inside the lettings.

Means of Escape

In all cases there should be a clear escape route from all parts of the house to open air. This is usually the

landing, staircase and hallway to the front door. These routes must be kept clear of obstruction and a

lockable door should be able to be opened from the inside without using keys. In all but the low risk Houses

in Multiple Occupation, doors onto the escape route should be to an approved fire resisting standard.

Windows are not accepted as means of escape however ground and first floor windows must be openable

to allow exit or access for rescue should the normal escape route not be available.

Firefighting Equipment

It is recommended that all kitchens are provided with a fire blanket, kept in an easily accessible position. It

is also generally recommended that this is supplemented by a 2Kg Dry Powder extinguisher in or near to

the kitchen (the extinguisher may be needed to cover other hazards on the ground floor). In HMOs it is

normal to fit a 2Kg Dry Powder extinguisher on each landing.

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/housing/houses_in_multiple_occupation/hmo_standards.aspx

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/housing/houses_in_multiple_occupation/hmo_definitions.aspx

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/housing/houses_in_multiple_occupation/hmo_definitions.aspx


40

Appendix B The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

Summary of the 29 HHSRS Hazards

1. Damp mould growth

Health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growths, including mental and social well-being health threats associated with damp, humid, mouldy conditions.

Health effects: Allergies; asthma; effects of toxins from moulds; fungal infections

2. Excess cold

Threats to health from sub-optimal indoor temperatures. Healthy indoor temperature is approximately

21C.

Health effects: Respiratory (influenza, pneumonia & bronchitis); cardiovascular conditions (heart attacks

and strokes); thermoregulatory system impairment; etc.

3. Excess Heat

Threats due to excessively high indoor air temperatures.

Health effects: Dehydration; trauma; stroke; cardiovascular, respiratory & genitourinary disorders.

4. Asbestos (and MMF)

Presence of, and exposure to, asbestos fibres and manufactured mineral fibres (MMF) within dwellings.

Health effects: Pleural disease; lung cancer; mesothelioma

NOTE: Attempting to remove asbestos which is in good condition and not likely to be disturbed is

significantly more hazardous than not removing it. Work on asbestos should be done by a contractor

licensed by the Health and Safety Executive.

5. Biocides

Threats to health from chemicals used to treat timber and mould growth.

Health effects: Risk from inhalation; skin contact; ingestion.


41

6. Carbon monoxide and fuel combustion products

Hazards due to the presence of excess levels in the atmosphere of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide or sulphur dioxide and smoke within the dwelling.

Health effects: Dizziness; nausea; headaches; disorientation; unconsciousness; respiratory disorders;

bronchitis and breathlessness.

7. Lead

Health threat from lead ingestion. Lead sources: paint, water pipes, soil, fumes from leaded petrol.

Health effects: Lead poisoning; nervous disorders; cognitive development issues; blood production

8. Radiation

Health threats from radon gas and its daughters, primarily airborne, but also radon dissolved in water;

Concern expressed about possible health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs); Leakage from microwave

ovens (rare).

Health effects: Lung cancer caused by radon gas.

9. Uncombusted fuel gas

Threat from fuel gas escaped into the atmosphere within the dwelling.

Health effects: Asphyxiation

10. Volatile organic compounds

Diverse group of organic chemicals, including formaldehyde, that are gaseous at room temperature and

found in a wide variety of materials in the home.

Health effects: Allergies; irritation to eyes, nose, skin and respiratory tract; headaches; nausea

11. Crowding & space

Hazards associated with lack of space for living, sleeping and normal household/family life.

Health effects: Psychological distress & mental disorders; increase hygiene risk & risk of accidents; personal

space and privacy needs compromised

12. Entry by intruders

Difficulties in keeping a dwelling secure against unauthorised entry and the maintenance of defensible space.

Health effects: Fear of burglary occurring; stress and anguish caused by burglary; injuries caused by

intruder.


42

13. Lighting

Threats to physical and mental health associated with inadequate natural/artificial light, including psychological effects associated with the view from the dwelling through glazing. Health effects: Depression and psychological effects due to lack of natural light, eyestrain from glare and inadequate light.

14. Noise

Threats to physical and mental health due to exposure to noise inside the dwelling or within its curtilage.

Health effects: Psychological and physiological changes resulting from sleep disturbance; poor

concentration; headaches; and anxiety.

15. Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse

Poor design, layout and construction, such that the dwelling cannot be readily kept clean and hygienic; access into, and harbourage within the dwelling for pests; inadequate and unhygienic provision for storing and disposal of household waste. Health effects: Gastrointestinal disease; infection; asthma; allergies; food spoilage; disease from rats and birds; physical hazards.

16. Food safety

Threats of infection from inadequacies in provision and facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food. Health effects: Gastrointestinal disease; diarrhoea; vomiting; stomach upsets; dehydration.

17. Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage

Threats of infection and threats to mental health associated with personal hygiene, including personal and clothes washing facilities, sanitation and drainage. Health effects: Gastrointestinal disease; dysentery; skin infections; depression.

18. Water supply for domestic purposes

The quality and adequacy of the water supply within the dwellings for drinking and domestic purposes,

including threats to health from contamination by bacteria, protozoa, parasites, viruses and chemical

pollutants.

Health effects: Dehydration; fatigue; headaches; dry skin; bladder infections; gastrointestinal and

respiratory disorders; Legionnaires’ disease.

19. Falls associated with baths etc.

Falls associated with a bath, shower or similar facility.


43

Health effects: Physical injuries; cuts; lacerations; swelling; bruising.

20. Falls on the level

Falls on any level surface such as floors, yards and paths, including falls associated with trip steps,

thresholds or ramps where the change in level is less than 300mm.

Health effects: physical injury; bruising; fractures; head, brain and spinal injuries.

21. Falls associated with stairs and steps

Falls associated with stairs, steps and ramps where the change in level is greater than 300mm. It includes

falls associated with internal or external stairs or ramps; It includes falls over balustrading associated with

stairs, steps or ramps.

Health effects: Physical injury; bruising; fractures; head, brain and spinal injuries.

22. Falls between levels

Falls from one level to another, inside or outside a dwelling, where the difference in levels is more than

300m. E.g. falls from balconies, landings, out of windows, over garden retaining walls etc.

Health effects: Physical injuries.

23. Electrical hazards

Hazards from shock and burns resulting from exposure to electricity, including from lightning strikes.

Health effects: Shock

24. Fire

Threats from exposure to uncontrolled fire and associated smoke at a dwelling. It includes injuries from

clothing catching alight, which appears to be common when people attempt to extinguish such a fire

Health effects: Burns, being overcome by smoke or gas, death.

25. Hot surfaces and materials

Threats of burns – injuries caused by contact with a hot flame or fire, with hot objects or hot non-water

based liquids; scalds – injuries caused by contact with hot liquids and vapours. Includes burns caused by

clothing catching alight.

Health effects: burns; scalds; permanent scarring; death.

26. Collision and entrapment

Risks of injury from trapping body parts in architectural features, e.g. trapping fingers in doors; and

colliding with objects such as architectural glazing, windows, doors, low ceilings, walls.


44

Health effects: Injuries through collision or entrapment involving doors and windows, e.g. cuts from glass,

shutting door on part of body.

27. Explosions

Threat from the blast of an explosion, from debris generated by the blast and from the partial or total

collapse of a building as the result of an explosion.

Health effects: While the likelihood of an explosion is small, injuries can include: physical injuries, crushing;

bruising; puncture; fractures; head, brain and spinal injuries; scalding if involves hot water.

28. Position and Operability of Amenities etc.

Threats of physical strain associated with functional space and other features at dwellings.

Health effects: Strain and sprain injuries.

29. Structural collapse and falling elements

Threat of dwelling collapse or of a part of the fabric being displaced or falling due to inadequate fixing,

disrepair or the result of adverse weather conditions.

Health effects: Physical injuries.


45

Appendix C List of Abbreviations

BRE Building Research Establishment

CERT Carbon Emissions Reduction Target

CESP Community Energy Savings Programme

CLG Department for Communities and Local Government

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COA Census Output Area

DECC Department for Energy and Climate Change

DFG Disabled Facilities Grant

DHS Decent Homes Standard

DWP Department for Work and Pensions

EDMO Empty Dwelling Management Order

EHCS English House Condition Survey

EHS English Housing Survey

GIS Geographical Information System

HHSRS Housing Health and Safety Rating System

HIA Home Improvement Agency

HMO House in Multiple Occupation

LPG Liquefied petroleum gas

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PSA Public Service Agreement

PSHSCS Private Sector Stock Condition Survey

PV Photo Voltaic

RPs Registered Providers

RRO Regulatory Reform Order

RSL Registered Social Landlord

S257 HMO Section 257 House in Multiple Occupation

SAP Standard Assessment Procedure

SEH Survey of English Housing

TCS Thermal Comfort Standard

Milt

on

Key

ne

s H

MO

Sto

ck C

on

dit

ion

&

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Su

rvey

s

Pre

sen

tati

on

of

Fin

din

gs

Sep

tem

ber

20

14

Ian

Wo

od

war

d

Op

inio

n R

ese

arch

Se

rvic

es

ANNEX B TO ITEM 9

Ove

rvie

w o

f th

e s

urv

ey

»O

RS

un

de

rto

ok

a St

ock

Co

nd

itio

n S

urv

ey t

o f

urt

he

r in

form

wh

eth

er

the

Co

un

cil s

ho

uld

ext

en

d A

dd

itio

nal

Lic

en

sin

g to

imp

rove

sta

nd

ard

s o

f H

MO

’s.

»R

and

om

sam

ple

of

19

0 H

MO

’s.

»C

arri

ed

ou

t o

ver

fou

r w

ee

k p

eri

od

in J

uly

20

14

co

veri

ng

a ra

nge

of

ho

usi

ng

con

dit

ion

ind

icat

ors

incl

ud

ing

haz

ard

s, in

tern

al a

nd

exte

rnal

co

nd

itio

ns,

fir

e s

afet

y an

d e

ntr

y b

y in

tru

de

rs.

»O

bta

ine

d v

iew

s fr

om

te

nan

ts o

n p

rop

ert

y m

anag

em

en

t.

»A

lso

an

En

viro

nm

en

tal S

urv

ey.

Cri

teri

a fo

r A

dd

itio

nal

Lic

en

sin

g

»Ex

tern

al c

on

dit

ion

an

d c

urt

ilage

(in

clu

din

g ya

rds

and

gar

de

ns)

ad

vers

ely

im

pac

ts u

po

n t

he

ge

ne

ral c

har

acte

r an

d a

me

nit

y o

f th

e a

rea

in w

hic

h t

hey

are

lo

cate

d.

»In

tern

al c

on

dit

ion

, su

ch a

s p

oo

r am

en

itie

s, o

verc

row

din

g et

c. a

dve

rse

ly im

pac

t u

po

n t

he

he

alth

, saf

ety

and

we

lfar

e o

f th

e o

ccu

pie

rs a

nd

th

e la

nd

lord

s o

f th

ese

p

rop

ert

ies

are

fai

ling

to t

ake

ap

pro

pri

ate

ste

ps

to a

dd

ress

th

e is

sue

s.

»La

ck o

f m

anag

em

en

t o

r p

oo

r m

anag

em

en

t sk

ills

or

pra

ctic

es

are

oth

erw

ise

ad

vers

ely

imp

acti

ng

up

on

th

e w

elf

are

, he

alth

or

safe

ty o

f re

sid

en

ts a

nd

/or

imp

acti

ng

up

on

th

e w

ide

r co

mm

un

ity.

»Si

gnif

ican

t an

d p

ers

iste

nt

pro

ble

m o

f an

ti-s

oci

al b

eh

avio

ur

affe

ctin

g o

the

r re

sid

en

ts a

nd

/or

the

loca

l co

mm

un

ity

and

th

e la

nd

lord

s o

f th

e H

MO

s ar

e n

ot

taki

ng

reas

on

able

an

d la

wfu

l ste

ps

to e

limin

ate

or

red

uce

th

e p

rob

lem

s.

(20

13

Stu

dy

ad

dre

ssed

ASB

Issu

es)

Sam

ple

Ad

dre

sse

s

Age

an

d t

ype

of

ho

usi

ng

sto

ck

Inte

rnal

an

d E

xte

rnal

Co

nd

itio

ns

- Su

rvey

Milt

on

Key

ne

s

Nu

mb

er

%

Maj

or

Rep

airs

5

3

%

Min

or

Rep

airs

3

0

16

%

No

ne

15

6

81

%

Milt

on

Key

ne

s

Nu

mb

er

%

Maj

or

Rep

airs

2

1

%

Min

or

Rep

airs

3

7

19

%

No

ne

15

2

80

%

Inte

rnal

an

d E

xte

rnal

Co

nd

itio

ns

- Te

nan

t

Ho

usi

ng

He

alth

an

d S

afet

y R

atin

g Sy

ste

m

»Th

e le

gal m

inim

um

sta

nd

ard

fo

r h

ou

sin

g is

me

asu

red

thro

ugh

a H

azar

d R

atin

g Sy

ste

m w

hic

h c

ove

rs 2

9 h

azar

ds

acro

ss 4

mai

n c

ate

gori

es

ou

tlin

ed

bel

ow

.

»P

hys

iolo

gica

l Re

qu

ire

me

nts

(e

.g. d

amp

& m

ou

ld g

row

th,

exce

ss c

old

, asb

est

os,

car

bo

n m

on

oxi

de

, rad

on

, etc

.)

»P

sych

olo

gica

l Re

qu

ire

me

nts

(cr

ow

din

g an

d s

pac

e, e

ntr

y b

y

intr

ud

ers

, lig

hti

ng,

no

ise

)

»P

rote

ctio

n A

gain

st In

fect

ion

(d

om

est

ic h

ygie

ne

, fo

od

saf

ety

,

pe

rso

nal

hyg

ien

e, w

ate

r su

pp

ly)

»P

rote

ctio

n A

gain

st A

ccid

en

ts (

e.g

. fal

ls o

n t

he

leve

l, o

n s

tair

s &

ste

ps

& b

etw

ee

n le

vels

, ele

ctri

cs, f

ire

, co

llisi

on

)

Haz

ard

s

M

ilto

n K

eyn

es

Nu

mb

er

%

Cat

ego

ry 1

Haz

ard

2

1

%

Cat

ego

ry 2

Haz

ard

2

9

15

%

No

Haz

ard

1

60

8

4%

Ove

r-C

row

din

g an

d F

ire

Saf

ety

M

ilto

n K

eyn

es

Nu

mb

er

%

LD2

Ala

rm

91

4

8%

Wir

ed A

larm

9

0

47

%

Bat

tery

Ala

rm

5

3%

No

Ala

rm

4

2%

An

ti-S

oci

al B

eh

avio

ur

- Te

nan

t

Pro

pe

rty

Man

age

me

nt

»Te

nan

cy A

gre

em

en

t: T

he

vast

maj

ori

ty (

89

%)

of

lan

dlo

rds

pro

vid

e a

ten

ancy

agr

eem

ent,

wit

h ju

st 4

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

say

ing

they

did

n

ot

hav

e a

wri

tten

ten

ancy

agr

eem

ent

and

7%

wh

o d

id n

ot

kno

w.

»R

en

t d

ep

osi

t b

acke

d b

y G

ove

rnm

en

t sc

he

me

: Th

e m

ajo

rity

(7

2%

) o

f te

nan

ts h

ave

thei

r d

epo

sits

pro

tect

ed u

nd

er a

go

vern

men

t b

acke

d d

epo

sit

sch

eme

. Ju

st 3

% s

aid

th

at t

hey

wer

e aw

are

that

th

eir

dep

osi

t w

as n

ot

pro

tect

ed a

nd

14

% w

ere

un

sure

.

»P

oo

r m

anag

em

en

t b

y th

e L

and

lord

: Ju

st 3

res

iden

ts (

1.6

%)

felt

th

at

po

or

man

agem

ent

of

thei

r H

MO

by

thei

r la

nd

lord

was

a f

airl

y b

ig

pro

ble

m, w

ith

th

e va

st m

ajo

rity

rep

ort

ing

po

or

man

agem

ent

no

t to

b

e a

big

pro

ble

m (

7.9

%)

or

no

t a

pro

ble

m a

t al

l (9

0.5

%).

Envi

ron

me

nt

Surv

ey –

Lim

ite

d Is

sues

Init

ial C

on

clu

sio

ns

»Th

ere

has

be

en

sig

nif

ican

t gr

ow

th in

th

e H

MO

se

cto

r in

Milt

on

K

eyn

es.

Th

is h

as s

ign

ific

ant

imp

licat

ion

s fo

r th

e C

ou

nci

l in

te

rms

of

mai

nta

inin

g o

vera

ll h

ou

sin

g co

nd

itio

ns

in t

he

HM

O s

ect

or,

ho

usi

ng

ne

ed

an

d h

ou

sin

g d

em

and

.

»Th

e e

vid

en

ce a

t th

is t

ime

do

es

no

t su

gge

st a

de

sign

atio

n o

f A

dd

itio

nal

Lic

en

sin

g in

Milt

on

Key

ne

s, b

ut

the

Co

un

cil s

ho

uld

co

nti

nu

e t

o m

on

ito

r th

e e

nvi

ron

me

nta

l qu

alit

y o

f th

e a

rea,

an

d in

p

arti

cula

r th

ose

pro

ble

ms

that

Ad

dit

ion

al L

ice

nsi

ng

cou

ld a

dd

ress

su

ch a

s p

rop

ert

y fr

on

tage

issu

es.

»O

vera

ll th

e c

urr

en

t co

ntr

ol m

eas

ure

s b

y th

e C

ou

nci

l are

go

od

an

d

be

ing

imp

lem

en

ted

by

resp

on

sib

le la

nd

lord

s ac

ross

th

e m

ajo

rity

of

HM

Os

in M

ilto

n K

eyn

es.

As

you

wo

uld

exp

ect

in a

ny

are

a th

ere

will

al

way

s b

e is

ola

ted

pro

pe

rtie

s in

ne

ed

of

en

forc

em

en

t ac

tio

n a

nd

th

is

is a

n o

ngo

ing

issu

e n

atio

nw

ide

.

Than

k Yo

u

An

y Q

ue

stio

ns?


Consultation in relation to exploring the feasibility of introducing Additional and Selective Licensing in Milton Keynes

Executive Summary

Opinion Research Services

January 2014

ANNEX C TO ITEM 9



Consultation in relation to exploring the feasibility of introducing Additional and Selective Licensing in Milton Keynes

Executive Summary by Opinion Research Services

Opinion Research Services

The Strand Swansea SA1 1AF 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected]

As with all our studies, findings from this survey are subject to Opinion Research Services’ Standard Terms and Conditions of Contract.

Any press release or publication of the findings of this survey requires the advance approval of ORS. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation

© Copyright January 2014



Opinion Research Services | Milton Keynes Council – Additional and Selective Licensing Consultation January 2014

3

The ORS Project Team Project Design, Management and Reporting

Steve Jarman

Katie Amesbury

Hannah Champion

David Harrison

Jane Moore

Fieldwork Management

Kirsty Millbank

Leanne Hurlow

Data Analysis

Richard Harris

Joe Marchant

Timothy Driscoll


4

Acknowledgements ORS would like to thank Linda Ellen and Jane Harrison at Milton Keynes Council for their help

and assistance in developing the project. We would also like to thank the residents, landlords

and other stakeholders who took part in the survey and contributed towards the other

elements of consultation, without whose valuable input the research would not have been

possible.


5

1. Executive Summary 1.1 Opinion Research Services were appointed by Milton Keynes Council (MKC) to undertake a

consultation programme with a wide range of stakeholders in Milton Keynes including residents,

landlords, councillors, parish and town councils, HiMO tenants, landlord groups, resident

associations and internal partners within the Council.

1.2 The consultation programme sought to seek views and gather evidence to support the potential

extension of mandatory licensing for the private rental sector and in particular Houses in Multiple

Occupation (HiMO’s) in Milton Keynes in order to improve the overall quality of life for local

residents.

1.3 The consultation programme included both quantitative and qualitative methodological

approaches that ORS felt would enable the project objectives to be met. These included

exploration of the following issues:

» A review of secondary data;

» Satisfaction with current property conditions, property management

arrangements, and tenant and landlord relationships;

» Satisfaction with the neighbourhood that their accommodation is in; and

» Concerns about levels of crime and ASB.

1.4 The consultation programme comprised the following strands:

» A review of secondary data;

» An open survey for residents, landlords and other stakeholders to complete;

» A closed survey with a sample of residents in wards with high levels of private

rented properties and high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour;

» A deliberative forum with members of the Milton Keynes Private Landlords

Association; and

» Depth interviews with key stakeholders and officers from the Council.

1.5 While this Executive Summary seeks to give a balanced assessment of the discussion outcomes,

readers are referred to the detail of the full report for a more comprehensive account of the views

expressed – in particular, for an account of people’s priorities, assumptions and reasons for these

views.

1.6 Please note that this Executive Summary DOES NOT include any interpretation of the findings of

the study or any recommendations for Milton Keynes Council on taking forward any proposals for

the introduction of Additional or Selective Licensing.


6

Main Findings

Review of Secondary Data

1.7 Over the past decade Milton Keynes has seen an increase in population of over 20%. This is

significantly higher than for other surrounding local authorities. This represents an increase of

some 41,761 persons. The latest Mid-Year Estimate (2012) has increased the population by a

further 3,579 to 252,400.

1.8 As with much of the South East of England, the housing market in Milton Keynes has seen

significant change over recent years. A key feature of this change across the region has been a

growing and adapting role for the private rented sector. Between 2001 and 2011, Census data

shows that the number of households in Milton Keynes increased by 15,221, or a growth of 18.3%.

The private rented sector, however, increased by 259.6% in that period with the number of

households in that tenure increasing from 6,579 to 17,066. The sector now makes up 17.3% of

housing stock in Milton Keynes, a rise from 7.6% in 2001. This has come at the expense of the

home ownership where the market share has dropped from 70.4% in 2001 to 57.7% in 2011, and

also a small drop in the social housing sector from 20.4% to 18.0%.

1.9 There are higher concentrations of private rented properties around the central area of Milton

Keynes in the wards of Campbell Park, Lindford South, Middleton, Bradwell, Woughton, Walton

Park and Wolverton. In addition there are pockets of high proportions of private rented

accommodation in Olney, Sherington and Newport Pagnell.

1.10 As of 28th November 2013 Milton Keynes Council had licenced a total of 205 HiMO’s. They have

identified a further 25 properties that may need a licence under the current mandatory licensing

requirements. In addition Milton Keynes Council have identified a further 401 potential HiMO

properties that do not require a licence under the current mandatory scheme but may need a

licence if Additional or Selective Licensing is introduced. It should be noted that this may be an

under-estimate as work undertaken by ORS in 2010 has shown there could be as many as 700

additional HiMO’s across Milton Keynes that are not covered by the current requirement for

mandatory licensing.

1.11 Work undertaken by ORS for Milton Keynes Council in 2010 also showed the following:

» HiMO’s are predominantly to be found near the centre of Milton Keynes.

» Over 80% of respondents from HiMO’s are employed, with less than 5% of this

group working outside of Milton Keynes.

» That the majority of HiMO’s in Milton Keynes were occupied by young working

households and appeared to be fulfilling a vital role in providing accommodation

for young workers who would otherwise struggle to afford to live in the area, and

would not be eligible for Council accommodation.


7

» Around two thirds (66%) of those living in a HiMO have been living in their current

property for less than a year with less than 10% having for 2 or more years. This

indicated that there was a high turnover of households living in HiMO’s. For

comparison, only around 1 in 8 households (13%) across the whole of Milton

Keynes had moved within the last 12 months at the time of the interviews.

1.12 Data has been obtained from Milton Keynes Council on the number of recorded incidents of crime

and anti-social behaviour (ASB) for the year July 2012 to July 2013.

1.13 In relation the All Crime per 1,000 Population there are 5 wards with a rate higher than that for

Milton Keynes as a whole – which is 86.9. These are Campbell Park1 (262.4), Woughton (147.7),

Bletchley and Fenny Stratford (141.4), Wolverton (102.9) and Bradwell (92.2).

In relation to ASB per 1,000 Population there are 6 wards with a rate higher than that for Milton

Keynes as a whole – which is 22.7. These are Woughton (56.2), Campbell Park (50.6), Eaton Manor

(39.8), Wolverton (28.1), Bletchley and Fenny Stratford (27.9) and Denbigh (26.0). This compares

to a rate of 18.4 for the Thames Valley Police area as a whole and 40.1 for England and Wales.

1.14 In relation to an overall Composite Crime Ranking Indicator the scores ranged from 35 in

Sherington up to 246 in Campbell Park. The 6 wards with the highest composite scores were

Campbell Park (246), Woughton (236), Bletchley and Fenny Stratford (228), Wolverton (200),

Bradwell (192) and Linford South (170).

A comparison made at a ward level to identify whether there is a correlation2 between incidences of

ASB and the proportion of private rented properties and incidences of ASB and the proportion of

social rented properties (Council and RSL) shows there to be a far stronger correlation between

ASB incidents and proportion of social housing (R2=0.6693) than that for the correlation between

ASB and private rented properties (R2=0.1101).

1.15 A comparison was also made at an LSOA level to identify whether there is a correlation between

incidences of ASB, private rented properties and social rented properties (Council and RSL) and

this also shows a far stronger correlation between ASB incidents and social housing (R2=0.4823)

than that for the correlation between ASB and private rented properties (R2=0.0142).

1.16 Data was also obtained from Milton Keynes Council on recorded incidents of ASB from tenants of

Council properties between July 2012 and July 2013. This shows that 1 in 3 complaints were

received about Council tenants in the Bletchley area.

1 It should be noted that the Campbell Park ward includes the city centre shopping area, as well as a high number of

pubs, nightclubs and other entertainment venues, and that high levels of crime and ASB cannot be reliably attributed to housing without further analysis being undertaken. 2 Correlation is defined as the degree of a relationship between 2 sets of variables. A score closer to 1.0 indicates a

very strong positive relationship and a score closer to 0.0 indicates a very weak relationship. However it must also be noted that a positive correlation does NOT necessarily indicate causation.


8

1.17 Analysis of data on environmental complaints received by Milton Keynes Council in 2012-13 shows

that the highest numbers of complaints were in relation to noise. Accumulations of refuse, public

health issues, smoke and problems associated with vermin and health and safety issues were also

common. When looked at on a year-by year basis the overall trends show that in most cases the

numbers of complaints fell between 2009 and 2013.

1.18 The wards with the highest number of the most common complaints were Wolverton, Campbell

Park, Woughton, Bradwell and Bletchley and Fenny Stratford.

1.19 Where it has been possible to identify whether a complaint has been received in relation to a

property that is known to be a HiMO the most common were noise from music, noise from

people, noise from parties and accumulations of refuse. The majority of complaints were received

in relation to properties in Campbell Park, Bradwell and Middleton which accounted for over four

fifths of all complaints related to HiMO’s. The ratio of complaints from HiMO’s compared with the

ratio of all other complaints for the remaining housing stock in Milton Keynes suggests that

complaints are 3 times more likely to be received from HiMO’s than other properties (1:11

compared to 1:32).

1.20 Data obtained from DEFRA on fly-tipping incidents shows that the total number of incidents in

Milton Keynes dropped by 2,195 between 2011-12 and 2012-13 from 5,726 to 3,531. In addition

the number of instances of fly-tipping on Council land also fell by 2,296 from 5,597 to 3,301.

1.21 Compared to surrounding local authority areas Milton Keynes has a marginally higher proportion

of Housing Benefit claimants in the rented housing sector with almost three fifths of those living in

rented properties claiming as at February 2013. There has also been a steady rise in the number of

claimants between November 2008 and February 2013 from 16,643 to 20,816.

Resident, Landlord and Stakeholder Questionnaires

1.22 A total of 717 responses were received for the open questionnaire and a further 127 responses

were received for the closed questionnaire.

1.23 A total of 527 responses to the open questionnaire were received from landlords, with a further

106 coming from individuals and 84 from those with another interest in Milton Keynes.

1.24 It should be noted that, whilst percentages are used in the summary of responses, the number of

responses from Other Interests and Individuals are too low to be statistically robust and therefore

give an indicative picture of the views from these groups.

1.25 Whilst there were issues where there was agreement on certain issues there were also some

significant difference between the views of landlords, other interests and individuals who

responded to the open survey and individuals who responded to the closed survey on a number of

issues.


9

1.26 When asked about their views and experiences of crime and anti-social behaviour in their local

area there would appear to be a degree of inconsistency between landlords/letting agents and the

other interest groups, individuals and Household Survey respondents about the level of problems.

1.27 Generally, a very low proportion (10% or less) of landlords and letting agents feel that each of the

issues are a problem in their local area. In contrast, more than two fifths (46%) of Household

Survey respondents reported that rubbish, fly tipping or litter lying around is a problem in their

local area, as do around 3 in 10 other interest (32%) and individual (28%) respondents.

1.28 When asked if they had experienced any problems landlords/letting agents have had less personal

experience of the problems compared to the other respondents groups, with a higher proportion

of Household Survey respondents having experienced problems.

1.29 More than three fifths of Household Survey respondents and two fifths of individual respondents

to the Open Questionnaire have experienced rubbish, fly tipping or litter lying around in their local

area in the last 2 years, compared to only 23% of landlords/letting agents.

1.30 Two fifths or more (45%) of Household Survey respondents and a third of respondents to the

Open Questionnaire have experienced noisy neighbours or loud parties and teenagers hanging

around on the streets (40%), compared to only just over 1 in 10 of landlords/letting agents.

1.31 When asked about their views on the private rented sector in Milton Keynes there was a degree of

variation between the different respondent groups and questionnaire types on a number of

issues. While 3 in 10 Household Survey respondents and more than a fifth of other interest and

individual Open Questionnaire respondents agree that private rented properties cause a lot of

anti-social behaviour or nuisance in Milton Keynes, only 2% of landlords/letting agents feel this

way.

1.32 The majority of Household Survey respondents (86% or 86 respondents) agree that landlords and

letting agents should take firmer action against nuisance or anti-social behaviour compared to

around half of other interest and individual Open Questionnaire respondents, and less that 1 in 3

landlords/letting agents.

1.33 Just a quarter of Household Survey respondents agree that private rented properties in Milton

Keynes are well managed, compared to more than half of other interest and more than three

fifths of individual Open Questionnaire respondents, while the majority (90%) of landlords/letting

agents agree with this statement.

1.34 When asked to what extent they feel that issues to do with privately rented properties in Milton

Keynes are a problem only very small proportions of landlords/letting agents feel that any of the

issues listed are a problem in Milton Keynes. Conversely, Household Survey respondents feel that

the poor management, condition and quality of privately rented properties, and rogue/bad

landlords are a problem.

1.35 Around a third of Open Questionnaire respondents and Household Survey respondents have

experienced problems with tenants, compared to a fifth of landlords/letting agents. The main


10

problems that individual respondents experienced were noise (loud music being played at anti-

social hours) and rubbish (fly-tipping, rubbish causing pests).

1.36 The main problem that all individuals have experienced with landlords is not having maintenance

of property dealt with properly i.e. poor repair work/needs updating.

1.37 Almost half of private landlords and letting/managing agents are a member of the Association of

Residential Letting Agents (ARLA), while more than a fifth are a member of the National Landlord

Association (NLA).

1.38 Almost all Open Questionnaire and Household Survey respondents who are private or social

housing tenants reported that their landlord or letting agent provided them with a written tenancy

agreement when they moved into their property (98%, respectively).

1.39 When asked for their views on the introduction of further licensing of private rented properties in

Milton Keynes very few landlords and letting agents agreed with any of the statements that would

typically be considered to be positive outcomes of a licencing scheme (i.e. ensuring properties are

well maintained and managed, making areas more attractive and reducing anti-social behaviour).

Conversely, most landlord and letting agents agreed with those statements that could be

considered to be a broadly negative outcomes of such schemes (i.e. increasing rents, landlord

costs and bureaucracy).

1.40 When looked at for the other respondent groups three quarters or more agree that private

property licensing will increase the power of the Council over property owners wanting to rent

their properties, and that private property licensing will ensure that privately rented properties

are well maintained and managed. Over three quarters felt that private property licensing will

increase rents.

1.41 The majority of landlords/letting agents (83%) think that the current charge of £885 to landlords

for the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation is too high, whilst only a fifth of Household

Survey respondents think it is too high.

1.42 Only 5% of landlords/letting agents agree with Milton Keynes Council’s proposal to require the

landlords of all privately rented properties to apply for a licence. Conversely, the majority (80% or

93) of Household Survey respondents agree with the proposal to require the landlords of all

privately rented properties to apply for a licence.

1.43 The Open Questionnaire shows that over two fifths of landlords/letting agents and half of

individual respondents do support the proposal to require the landlords of HiMO’s with 3 or more

tenants who share a kitchen or bathroom or section 257 HiMO’s to apply for a licence, whilst the

majority (86% or 101) of Household Survey respondents agree with the proposal.

1.44 When asked why they disagreed with any further licensing the highest proportion of respondents

groups said that the proposals are ‘just another money making scheme/additional tax/increased

cost for landlords/will generally increase costs’ and ‘proposals will mean rental prices will go

up/cost will be passed onto tenants’.


11

1.45 Only a fifth of landlords/letting agents agree with Milton Keynes Council’s proposals on general

licence conditions, conversely, the Household Survey shows that four fifths of respondents agree

with proposals on general licence conditions.

1.46 The Open Questionnaire shows the majority of landlords/letting agents, other interest groups and

individuals agree with the proposal to deliver property licensing on a ‘worst first’ approach, while

the Household Survey shows that more than four fifths are in agreement.

Landlord Forum

1.47 A total of 48 people attended the workshop with the Landlord Forum - 33 were individual private

landlords, and 12 were representatives from a range of letting agents. In addition there were 2

representatives from the Milton Keynes Private Landlords Association and 1 representative from

the National Landlords Association.

1.48 After the initial analysis of the outcomes from each of the round table discussions at the workshop

a number of common themes and questions were identified:

» How will the income generated by any licensing scheme be used?

» That from the viewpoint of landlords and letting agents there is limited experience

of ASB at private rented properties in Milton Keynes.

» How will Milton Keynes Council and Social Landlords deal with ASB from Council

and Social Rental tenants?

» Landlords and Letting Agents did not see how licensing would deal with ASB.

» That Landlords and Letting Agents felt that legislation and measures are already in

place for the Council and Police to deal with ASB and rogue landlords.

» That Landlords and Letting Agents did not believe that additional or selective

licensing will deal with problems of rogue landlords.

» That Landlords and Letting Agents felt that the costs of any scheme would be

passed on to tenants through increases in rent.

» That there is evidence from schemes in other parts of the UK that the introduction

of additional or selective licensing has been problematic in relation to the costs of

establishing and administering the schemes and in terms of decreased property

values in those areas where schemes have been introduced.

» That the introduction of additional or selective licensing is leading to increases in

property insurance and making it hard for people to obtain mortgages.

» That the introduction of additional or selective licensing would lead to Landlords

and Letting Agents becoming reluctant to take on problem tenants and that these


12

would subsequently become the responsibility of the Council or social rental

sector to house.

» That the introduction of additional or selective licensing will force private

landlords out of the rental market resulting in additional pressures on Council and

social housing providers.

» That Landlords and Letting Agents questioned whether the existing non-

mandatory Landlord Accreditation Scheme could be a viable alternative if it were

promoted more.

1.49 In addition prior to the Workshop a copy of a letter was circulated to those who were attending.

The letter was from a legal company and set out a number of issues relating to the introduction of

selective licensing throughout Milton Keynes. The letter also asked for Landlords and Letting

Agents to contribute a sum of £100 per property to help raise funds for any potential legal

challenges should the decision be taken to go forward with any further licensing scheme.

Stakeholder Interviews

1.50 As part of the overall project looking at whether there are opportunities to explore additional or

selective licensing in Milton Keynes Opinion Research Services (ORS) undertook a series of 11 in-

depth telephone interviews with a range of stakeholders.

1.51 After the initial analysis of the outcomes from each of the interviews a number of common

themes and questions were identified:

» Support for the proposals was very limited, and interviewees were concerned that

licensing would add unnecessary complexity and cost. It could result in landlords

withdrawing from the market at a time of housing shortage. Interviewees also

noted that licensing would require enforcement to be effective and that this

would require additional resources.

» There was no support for selective licensing to deal with ASB in general family

housing, interviewees found no connection between ASB and private rented

accommodation, they suggested that the mix of population found in social

housing was more likely to give rise to ASB, whereas private landlords vetted their

tenants.

» There was very limited support for additional licensing to deal with ASB in HiMO’s,

interviewees considered that the Council had sufficient powers already, and that

landlords with problem tenants would move them on.

» There was very limited support for selective licensing to deal with poor

management of general family housing; interviewees commented that most


13

housing in Milton Keynes was relatively new, and that there were existing powers

available.

» There was limited support for additional licensing to deal with poor management

of HiMO’s. Those who supported the proposal suggested that it would be an

opportunity to improve fire safety measures.

» Interviewees commented that licensing would be ineffectual without

enforcement. Interviewees also supported knowledge sharing and mentoring as a

means of improving standards.

» There was no support for selective or additional licensing to deal with problem

landlords. Interviewees commented that those who flouted existing regulation

would ignore any new regime.

» There was support for incentives to raise standards.

Written Submissions

1.52 In addition to responses to the postal and online questionnaires a total of 9 written submissions

were received as part of the consultation exercise. These were received from Netherfields

Residents Association; Wolverton and Greenleys Town Council; Newport Pagnell Town Council; 3

Private Landlords; Milton Keynes Private Landlords Association; the Residential Landlords

Association and the National Landlords Association.

1.53 ORS has read all of the written submissions and none have been disregarded even if they were not

expressed in a formal way. After the review of the written submissions a number of common

themes and issues were identified:

» That legislation is already in place for the Council and the Police to deal with

problems associated with anti-social behaviour, poor property conditions and

rogue landlords.

» That Milton Keynes Council working more closely with landlords and tenants to

create an environment of ‘self-regulation’ would be more successful than

introducing additional or selective licensing.

» That the introduction of additional or selective licensing would have a detrimental

impact of the availability of private rental accommodation in Milton Keynes, and

also on property prices and the ability to get a mortgage or other funding for

improvements.

» That there is evidence from other local authorities that have introduced additional

or selective licencing that it has done little to reduce anti-social behaviour, and has

incurred significant additional costs.


14

» That it will reduce the funds available for landlords to maintain and improve their

properties.

» That there is no evidence base to support the introduction of additional or

selective licensing.

» That there are limited instances of anti-social behaviour from private rented

tenants and that the problems are caused by social rented tenants or those living

in HiMO’s that are already licensed.

» That additional or selective licensing will inevitably result in increased rents and

that this would lead to an increase in evictions and put further pressures on the

Council to house people on low incomes.

» That the costs of enforcing the scheme would need to be met from other Council

budgets. Specific reference was made to the case of Hemming v Westminster City

Council (2013) which in summary ruled that a Council can only charge for HiMO or

selective licensing for the “actual and direct administrative costs of investigating

the background and suitability of the landlord applicant, and the cost of

monitoring the compliance by licensed landlords with the terms of their licences.”

» That landlords cannot be held directly responsible for the behaviour of their

tenants citing the case of O’Leary v London Borough of Islington (1983) which

ruled that “it cannot be said that a landlord is vicariously liable for his tenant’s

crimes and a consistent line of authority holds that landlords are not responsible

for the anti-social behaviour of their tenants.”

» That the costs that will inevitably be incurred over and above those raised by

licence fees would be better used dealing directly with rogue landlords in the

shorter term rather than over the 5 year licence period.

» That rogue landlords will continue to operate ‘under the radar’ and that the

introduction of licensing will do nothing to deal with this whilst penalising the

majority of good landlords.

» That Milton Keynes Council have not demonstrated any consideration of other

courses of action available them to deal with the problems – as set out by section

57(4) of the 2004 Housing Act.

» That there is support from the National Landlord Association to work with Milton

Keynes Council to deal with a range of issues including Tenant Information Packs

and the accreditation of private sector landlords.

1

ANNEX D ADDITIONAL LICENSING IN THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR HMO DEFINITION The full definition of a HMO can be found in the Housing Act 2004 under section 254. However in general terms:

A HMO can be a building or part of a building such as a flat that:-

Is occupied by 3 or more persons who;

Do not form a single household; and

Share one or more amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/254

The definition of a ‘household’ is persons that are members of the same family. A household can consist of 1 or more persons that are all related. The full definition can be found in the Housing Act 2004 under section 258. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/258

Schedule 14 of the Housing Act 2004 specifies those buildings which are not HMOs, these include:

Sch14. P7. Building occupied by two persons would not be classed as a HMO. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/schedule/14

Mandatory HMO Licensing The full definition of a Licensable HMO can be found in the Housing Act 2004 under Part 2. However in general terms HMOs that fall within the mandatory licensing scheme are:

buildings that are three storeys or more;

are occupied by five or more persons; and

are occupied by persons living in two or more single households. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/2

Designation of areas subject to additional licensing The full designation for additional licensing can be found in the Housing Act 2004 under Part 2 sections 56 to 60. However in general terms: Local Authorities have the power to require additional licensing of HMOs which are outside of the mandatory licensing scheme by making a designation. Additional licensing may be exercised in relation to the whole or part of their district; and may also be restricted to particular categories of HMO. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/2/crossheading/designation-of-additional-licensing-areas



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/schedule/14

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/2

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/part/2/crossheading/designation-of-additional-licensing-areas

2

Current inspection regime for a licensed HMO under the existing mandatory scheme

Inspect at least once every 5 years

Check occupancy does not exceed overcrowding standards

Check complies with management regulations

Check condition of property

Issue Licence

Attach licence conditions

Specify number of tenants

Take enforcement action as and when necessary

Ensure landlord complies with all conditions of the licence Current inspection regime for a HMO that does not require a licence

Inspect at least once every 5 years

Check occupancy does not exceed overcrowding standards

Check complies with management regulations

Check condition of property

Take enforcement action as and when necessary Additional powers for properties that currently are not required to be licensed but would require a licence under an additional licensing scheme

Issue Licence

Attach licence conditions

Specify number of tenants

Ensure landlord complies with all conditions of the licence

Areas Total HMOs Licensed HMOs HMOs Not LicensedAshland 1 0 1

Bancroft 2 0 2

Beanhill 2 0 2

Bletchley 41 5 36

Blue Bridge 1 0 1

Bolbeck Park 1 0 1

Bradville 7 1 6

Bradwell 3 0 3

Bradwell Common 33 8 25

Broughton 24 8 16

Campbell Park 4 0 4

Central Milton Keynes 30 21 9

Coffee Hall 10 0 10

Conniburrow 96 58 38

Crownhill 2 0 2

Downhead Park 2 0 2

Downs Barn 6 1 5

Eaglestone 22 0 22

Fenny Stratford 1 1 0

Fishermead 98 39 59

Fullers Slade 4 0 4

Furzton 1 1 0

Giffard Park 12 0 12

Grange Farm 7 6 1

Great Holm 1 0 1

Great Linford 2 0 2

Greenleys 2 0 2

Hanslope 1 0 1

Heelands 6 1 5

Kingsmead 1 0 1

Loughton 4 4 0

Medbourne 4 2 2

Middleton 5 0 5

Monkston 2 0 2

Monkston Park 11 10 1

Moulsoe 1 0 1

Neath Hill 4 0 4

Netherfield 10 6 4

New Bradwell 4 0 4

Newport Pagnell 6 0 6

Oakhill 9 8 1

Oldbrook 62 16 46

Olney 2 0 2

Oxley Park 1 0 1

Peartree Bridge 25 11 14

Pennyland 13 0 13

ADDITIONAL LICENSING IN THE PRIVATE HOUSING SECTOR

ANNEX E TO ITEM 9

Shenley Church End 9 7 2

Shenley Lodge 3 0 3

Simpson 1 0 1

Springfield 9 1 8

Stacey Bushes 1 0 1

Stantonbury 8 4 4

Stony Stratford 1 0 1

Tinkers Bridge 12 0 12

Two Mile Ash 1 0 1

Walnut Tree 1 0 1

Wavendon 1 0 1

Wavendon Gate 1 0 1

Westcroft 3 1 2

Willen 2 0 2

Willen Park 5 0 5

Woburn Sands 1 0 1

Wolverton 12 0 12

Grand Total 657 220 437

stock condition survey for houses in multiple occupation

Documents