Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Tackling problems in the borough's private rented sector and helping make Croydon the 'Better Place to Rent'

Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for Homes, Councillor Patricia Hay-Justice

Officer: Interim Executive Director Place, Sarah Hayward

Key decision: no

Decision:

The Leader of the Council delegated authority to the Cabinet to make the following decisions:

 

RESOLVED: To

 

1.               Note the content of the letter from the Secretary of State at Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, dated 7 June 2021, at Appendix A of the report, which sets out the decision to refuse the application submitted by the Council on 20 July 2020 for confirmation of two selective licensing schemes in the Borough.

 

2.               Note that as a consequence of the refusal decision in 1 that the two selective licensing designations made by Cabinet on the 11th May 2020 do not come into force.

 

3.               To agree that the council takes steps to review its position to the known issues in respect of conditions and anti-social behaviour in the borough’s private rented sector as detailed in section 5 of the report and to thereafter present proposals for Members’ further consideration. 

 

4.               Note the proposed timescales for data gathering and forming of options as detailed in section 6 of the report.

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal (Councillor Stuart King) informed Members that the private rented sector provided homes for 1/3 of households in the borough; with the number doubling in the previous ten years. Whilst many landlords in Croydon provided good quality accommodation, there remained a significant minority who left tenants in unacceptable living conditions.

 

Members were informed that in 2015, the council had applied for a borough wide selective licensing scheme for the private rented sector which had undertaken proactive checks to ensure landlords and agents for over 38,000 properties met key housing, environmental and safety standards. Under the scheme, the council had served over 1,000 enforcement notices and ensured 75 offending landlords were banned from holding a licence. Furthermore, the council had taken over 20 cases to court for the most serious of offences.

 

The Cabinet Member stated the scheme had enabled the council to carry out much needed proactive work in the borough in order to protect tenants and ensure that Croydon was a better place to rent. The scheme had run until November 2020 and a detailed application for a new scheme had been submitted to government for approval, however the Secretary of State refused the application in June 2021. Members were advised that there was no right for appeal and so the council had little choice but to accept the decision. However, it was stated that did not mean the council was willing to accept the continuation of poor quality housing in the borough and the report set out steps the council would take; including reviewing the options available to the council to manage poor quality housing and anti-social behaviour.

 

The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Croydon (Councillor Muhammad Ali) noted that the one of the key points in the report was in relation to the environmental impact of the selective licensing scheme which the council no longer had influence over following the rejection from the Secretary of State. It was further noted that the council had been criticised for its application and the Cabinet Member requested details of the process leading up to the submission of the application to assure residents that everything had been done to submit a meaningful application. In response, the Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal reflected that he was not aware of the Secretary of State visiting the borough to understand the impact of the scheme and whilst the Administration was confident it had submitted a strong application with a clear evidence base; there was no right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State.

 

The Cabinet Member for Families, Health & Social Care (Councillor Janet Campbell) queried what the implications were for vulnerable residents in the private rented sector given the decision to refuse a selective licensing scheme. It was noted by the Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal that within the submission that poor housing conditions were prevalent within Croydon’s private rented sector. Furthermore, it was highlighted that a number of children and disabled residents lived in the private rented sector and the previous scheme had enabled the council to be more proactive rather than reactive to support tenants.

 

Antisocial behaviour was also highlighted and the Cabinet Member reflected on the impact and trauma this could cause residents. Under the previous scheme the council had been able to carry out almost 16,000 antisocial behaviour investigations.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Leila Ben-Hassel, the Cabinet Member stated that he was not aware of the Secretary of State approving any borough-wide schemes, but that he was aware that borough-wide schemes across the country had been refused. He further suggested that had he been the Secretary of State he would have wanted to visit the borough to understand directly from officers the value of the scheme in protecting vulnerable residents. Concerns were raised that without the scheme the 75 landlords who had previously been banned would be able to start renting substandard properties once more.

 

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Homes (Councillor Lynne Hale) stated the report exposed the issue that the council did not have a plan B in place should the application be refused. Whilst she did not doubt the work undertaken by officers in developing the scheme, she stated that the Secretary of State had made the decision because it had failed to meet statutory criteria, lacked an up-to-date housing strategy and failed to provide the required quality evidence. In light of this, the Shadow Cabinet Member suggested the council needed to take responsibility for failing to submit an application which met the required standards. Furthermore, the Shadow Cabinet Member suggested the council was, itself, a slum landlord due to the conditions experienced by tenants at Regina Road and queried whether the council would take itself to court for failing to provide good quality homes. Additionally, the Shadow Cabinet Member requested details of the risk to budgets and impact on staffing following the refusal by the Secretary of State for a selective licensing scheme.

 

In response, the Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal stressed that the council had apologised for the conditions experienced at Regina Road and immediate action had been undertaken to address the issues. However, alongside the action taken by the council in relation to its own properties, action would also be taken to address poor standard in all homes and to support tenants. In terms of the financial impact, the Cabinet Member advised that this was set out in the Financial Implications section of the report. Furthermore, the Interim Executive Director Place (Sarah Hayward) advised Members that £850,000 of savings had been identified and vacant posts had not been filled.

 

The Leader of the Council delegated authority to the Cabinet to make the following decisions:

 

RESOLVED: To

 

1.               Note the content of the letter from the Secretary of State at Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, dated 7 June 2021, at Appendix A of the report, which sets out the decision to refuse the application submitted by the Council on 20 July 2020 for confirmation of two selective licensing schemes in the Borough.

 

2.               Note that as a consequence of the refusal decision in 1 that the two selective licensing designations made by Cabinet on the 11th May 2020 do not come into force.

 

3.               To agree that the council takes steps to review its position to the known issues in respect of conditions and anti-social behaviour in the borough’s private rented sector as detailed in section 5 of the report and to thereafter present proposals for Members’ further consideration. 

 

4.               Note the proposed timescales for data gathering and forming of options as detailed in section 6 of the report.

Supporting documents: