Agenda item - PETITION AGAINST PROPOSAL FOR LICENSING OF PRIVATE LANDLORDS IN ENFIELD

Agenda item

PETITION AGAINST PROPOSAL FOR LICENSING OF PRIVATE LANDLORDS IN ENFIELD

To receive the report of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services asking the Committee to:

 

1.     Consider the issue raised by the Petition and then:

 

2.     (a)      Receive the Petition;

(b)      Note any comments from the Lead Petitioner and members of the public on the issue itself;

(c)      Note the response from officers and Members provided at the OSC meeting.

Minutes:

This item was taken as item 3 on the agenda.

 

The Chair invited the Lead Petitioner to introduce the Petition to the Committee; and confirmed that he had a maximum of 7 minutes to speak.

 

The Lead Petitioner referred to a document he had circulated at the meeting ‘Critical Appraisal of the Study on the Relationship Between ASB and Privately Rented Properties in Enfield’ which had examined the report/study provided by NKM, November 2013 ‘Understanding the Relationship Between Private Rented Properties and Anti-Social Behaviour in Enfield’ summarised in the Cabinet Report.  The Lead Petitioner made the following points:

 

·       The Lead Petitioner questioned whether or not there was a need for such a study at all as persistent ASB (Anti-Social Behaviour) had been identified as a constituent behaviour of psychological disorders. 

 

·       Legislation had already been introduced on three previous occasions in 1998, in 2003 and in March of this year to tackle ASB (and therefore there was no need for any further measures).

 

·       Housing Benefit/Social Housing were the key drivers of ASB (rather than the privately rented sector); the Lead Petitioner referred to a study undertaken in Milton Keynes which proved this point.

 

·       Contrary to what was indicated in the Cabinet report, ASB was in fact falling in the Borough.  There had been a 15% decline in all crime, including ASB, according to ONS statistics published on 24 April.  It was recognised that there was an issue with knife crime in the Borough, particularly in Edmonton, but the Police were very effective in dealing with ASB issues. 

 

·       MOPAC data had also shown that crime had generally declined between 2011 and February of this year in Enfield; there had been 1,122 crimes in the Borough in April 2011 and only 979 in February of this year.

 

·       No research questions had been asked in the study, no inclusion and exclusion criteria had been used and no intervention proposed. Further, the model for the study was probabilistic and therefore could only guess at results.

 

·       The map on page 5 purported to show the distribution of high risk HMOs.  However, practically any criteria could be used to obtain the same sort of graph.

 

At this point in the meeting, Cllr Simon reminded the Lead Petitioner that he had a further minute to conclude his presentation.

 

The Lead Petitioner consequently summarised his presentation by stating that the study did not cite any references and was not powered to make statistical statements.  Levels of crime, including ASB were falling and were less than that projected in the study.  Therefore, the research in the study used for the Cabinet report was misleading.

 

The Chair then invited Cllr Oykener to respond to these comments.

 

Cllr Oykener referred to the papers provided to the Committee and attendees. 

 

He reminded attendees that a £250 early bird discount was available if landlords paid the fee in advance of 2015.  Otherwise, a fee of £500 (and not £575) was payable.  This equated to £2.21 per week; or only 96p per week if the early bird discount was taken advantage of.  Further, this discount was fully taxable.

 

Cllr Oykener then commented that the Council had investigated the relationship between ASB and private rented houses and had seen a correlation.  It had never, however, stated that the private rented sector was the key driver of ASB per se.

 

Cllr Oykener reassured the Committee that extensive consultation had been undertaken and that 84% of consultees wished such a scheme to go ahead.  Independent experts had been used and Counsel’s view on this had been sought.

 

Cllr Oykener acknowledged that there would be differences of opinion regarding the scheme but that it was clearly reasonable for the Council to have taken a decision based on independent research and expert legal opinion.

 

Cllr Oykener further commented that he had recently attended a meeting at the London Borough of Newham (who had been running a similar scheme for a year); their experiences to date had reinforced their own prior research.

 

Cllr Oykener reiterated that the Council would continue to work with landlords to refine the scheme so that it operated in the most workable way possible.

 

Cllr Simon invited the Committee to formally RECEIVE the Petition and to proceed to the Call-In, during which a more substantive debate on the matter could be undertaken.  This was agreed.

 

Supporting documents: