Agenda item

Councillor Doug Taylor (Leader of the Council) advised those present that arrangements had been made for the meeting to be filmed and relayed to an overflow room.

Councillor Taylor further advised that two deputations were to be received by the Cabinet in respect of the proposal to introduce Additional and Selective Licensing into the Borough. Each deputation would be given five minutes to put forward their representations. It was also noted that the Council had received a petition (the wording of which was attached as appendix 8 to the report) which would be one of the matters that Cabinet would take into account in reaching its decision tonight. In keeping with the Council’s normal process, the signatories were being verified and upon completion of this process, the petition would be dealt with in accordance with the Council’s petition scheme.

Following the deputations, the Cabinet would consider Report No.230 – Proposal to Implement a Borough-wide Additional and Selective Licensing Scheme for Private Sector Landlords (as detailed in Minute No.7 below). Note: Whilst the order of the agenda was varied, the minutes follow the order of the printed agenda.

Councillor Taylor welcomed those present and invited the deputations to present their views to the Cabinet. The following arose:

Deputation by Mr Graham Collier (accompanied by Mr Graham Roberts, Rachel Circus and Constantinos Regas).

Mr Collier presented a full and detailed deputation to the Cabinet outlining his objections to the proposals and questioning the justification of the proposed scheme. He questioned the perceived link between anti-social behaviour and private rented sector housing and quoted from Report No.230 to support his views. He expressed a view that the basis of the scheme was unreliable and statistically invalid. Attention was drawn to the Council’s public health and wellbeing website pages in respect of levels of social deprivation and the correlation that could be seen with anti-social behaviour. He stated that the scheme unfairly stigmatised both private sector landlords and tenants with the accusation that the private rental sector was a major source of anti-social behaviour in Enfield. Mr Collier felt that the scheme risked many perverse outcomes and outlined for Members his views in this respect.

In conclusion Mr Collier asked that the Council arrange further consultations with a group involving landlords and managing agents to produce a workable scheme. There were many individuals in the Enfield rental sector who would be happy to give assistance to the Council.

Deputation by Mr Philip McGriskin (representing the National Landlords Association)

Mr McGriskin presented a full and detailed deputation to the Cabinet. It was noted that the National Landlords Association (NLA) membership had approximately 300 individual landlord members in Enfield. A full and extensive submission had already been made to the Council as part of the consultation undertaken. Mr McGriskin extracted some of the main points from the response which had already been submitted. The points included the following:

·       The evidence provided to support the introduction of licensing.

·       The specific resources that the Council would allocate.

·       Probable consequences of the proposed scheme

·       Selective licensing was seen as ineffective in dealing with anti-social behaviour.

·       A guidance document was requested for landlords dealing with anti-social behaviour

·       The additional resources that the Council would need to provide for enforcement measures

·       The NLA would be willing to work with the Council on a number of issues.

·       The existing legislation and powers of the Council – outlined in full.

·       A request for the Council’s equalities and diversity assessment for undertaking referencing for tenants.

·       The current process open to landlords to enforce the law against a tenant causing anti-social behaviour.

·       The NLA urged the Council to develop a strategy that could also include action against any tenants that were persistent offenders.

Councillor Taylor thanked the deputations for their presentations and invited Councillor Ahmet Oykener (Cabinet Member for Housing) and Sally McTernan (Assistant Director Community Housing Services) to respond.

Councillor Oykener reported that there had been a significant rise in the number of properties in the private rented sector over the last 10 years. The Council wished to support the development of a good quality private rented sector and positive tenancy management. Councillor Oykener had been very concerned to note a number of inaccurate statements which had been posted on-line in opposition to the proposed scheme. The claims which had been made were outlined to Members and the correct factual information provided to them. The maximum fee over a five year period would be £500 with an early bird discount of £250. The Council would not profit from the scheme and the licence fee would only cover costs involved. The same fee would be applied for all properties. A single fee would apply for the five year period. The scheme would provide appropriate support for responsible landlords. He was concerned that the proposed scheme had been repeatedly misrepresented.

Sally McTernan (Assistant Director Community Housing Services) in support of Councillor Oykener and in response to the deputations raised a number of points. It was noted that the comments received during consultation had informed the process. A number of specific responses were given to the issues which had been outlined in the deputation on behalf of the National Landlords Association including: The Council had considered all of the evidence available and was satisfied that a correlation between the presence of anti-social behaviour and the private rented sector had been established to a reasonable standard. The Council had a strategic approach to tackling anti-social behaviour and had made links to the relevant strategies. Licensing was an important augmentation to the existing toolkit. The costs would be proportionate and tax deductible materialising into a small additional overhead which could be as low as 58p per week for those paying the highest rate of tax. Clear standards would be set but landlords would be reminded of their obligations regarding tenancy and property management and support offered to landlords who are managing issues associated with their properties; comprehensive guidance will be developed. Enforcement would be intelligence led and the cost would not be met by the licensing fee. The Council would welcome working with the National Landlords Association to further develop a number of matters such as tenant information packs. The Council was aware and used its existing powers but in spite of this there remains stubborn and persistent anti-social behaviour of certain types across the borough. Further discussion would take place regarding references for tenancies. There is an expectation that landlords will work in partnership to tackle anti-social behaviour. The Council has an expectation that landlords will take action to enforce tenancy agreements and conditions; support will be provided to landlords as appropriate, including having a place as part of the multi-agency response dealing with anti-social behaviour. The Council welcomed the comments which had been made during the consultation and the issues which had been raised through the deputations to Cabinet.

Councillor Taylor then invited questions from Members and the following issues arose in discussion:

1.               Councillor Ayfer Orhan questioned whether any organisations in the Borough were in support of the proposed scheme. It was confirmed that support had been expressed during the consultation. The Chief Executive of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau in Enfield had publicly stated their support of the proposals today.

2.               Councillor Christine Hamilton sought an explanation of the evidence of the links with anti-social behaviour and the private rented housing sector. It was noted that a range of performance information both historic and current had been reviewed, in addition an independent research company had been commissioned to identify any correlation – Neighbourhood Knowledge Management (NKM). The Council had considered a wide range of evidence.

3.               Questions were raised by the deputees in relation to the impact of the inspection requirements and the resources that would be necessary to manage this aspect of the scheme. In response, the financial modelling assumptions were outlined to those present including the inspection assumptions and the resources that would be required.

4.               Clarification was provided on the proposed licence fee and the support that would be available to landlords and tenants. The Council’s powers to deal with anti-social behaviour were noted together with the expectations that the Council would have of registered landlords to enforce their tenancy agreements.

5.               Councillor McGowan noted the offer of those landlords present to work with the Council to develop the scheme. The experience that they could bring to the process was noted. The need to streamline the registration process as much as possible was highlighted.

6.               It was noted that those present did not represent the “Stop Enfield” campaign.

7.               Mr Regas raised specific concerns regarding the statistical evaluation within the report and questioned the correlation with anti-social behaviour. He stated that a validated technique had not been used and should not therefore be relied upon. Mr Regas felt that the proposed scheme was flawed.

8.               It was noted that consultation had taken place and that issues and suggestions raised had been taken on board. The further involvement of landlords in the development of the scheme design would be welcomed.

9.               In summary, Councillor Oykener expressed his thanks to the deputees for their input and offer of further involvement. The Council would continue to work with landlords to develop a positive way forward. The Council had listened to the issues raised during consultation with a majority of residents expressing support for the scheme.

In conclusion, Councillor Taylor reported that as part of the scheme it was noted that the petition, subject to satisfactory verification would be referred to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that the date of the meeting would be advised in due course.

Members then considered Report No.230 as detailed in Minute No.7 below.