Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report setting the interim results of consultation on the adoption of civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for certain housing offences.  The Commission is recommended to consider the draft policy and procedure for a civil penalties regime and the comments from the public consultation and provide comments on the policy and procedure to the City Mayor for consideration prior to adoption  in the city.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report setting out the interim results of consultation on the adoption of civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for certain housing offences.

The Head of Regulatory Service introduced the report, noting that:

·           Interim results from the current consultation had been positive, with 16 of the 19 responses received to date being in favour of the scheme;

·           The proposed penalties would be applied with the same level of care that would be used for a prosecution;

·           Income from the penalties would be used to help cover costs and towards the operation of the service;

·           An important element of the process was that sufficient opportunity would be given for someone to make representations against receiving a penalty;

·           The scheme would cover all types rented properties, (for example, purpose-built, conversions, houses and flats) and would include housing association landlords; and

·           The introduction of penalties would be publicised once approved.

Members welcomed the proposals, but expressed concern that tenants who complained about landlords could face retaliation.  The Head of Regulatory Service advised that officers recognised this to be a concern, so legal protections and a robust regulatory capability were needed, to ensure that the penalties were seen by landlords to be a real deterrent.  It was felt that the scheme as proposed provided this. 

When a complaint was received, each case would be assessed with the first stage (where required) in the process.  This normally involved informing the landlord of work that needed doing, with enforcement action following if the work was not done. Each case would be assessed on its circumstances. 

When disrepair issues were found, a letter was sent to the relevant tenant(s) explaining this and that it was illegal for them to be evicted because they had complained.  If a landlord served an eviction notice, the landlord needed to apply to the court for a possession order and a warrant for eviction.  This could be challenged by the tenant(s) where the eviction was in retaliation to contacting the council about repair issues. 

In addition, it was noted that, if a banning order was placed on a landlord, tenancies would be secure.  In some cases, the Council could take over the management of the property and use rents received to manage that property.  Advice was available from charities and other support agencies, as well as from the Council’s Private Sector Housing Team.

It was noted that any response by the Council to a complaint had to be reasonable and proportionate.  If major repairs were needed, (for example, if the tenant had no heating or hot water), notice could be served immediately.  The landlord could be given 24 hours to take reasonable steps to, for example, get a boiler reinstated.  However, more time could be considered appropriate for a landlord to undertake less pressing work.

In response to concerns that the levels of harm defined under the proposed scheme were potentially suggested at quite high thresholds, the Team Manager – Private Sector Housing advised Members that, if landlords committed more than one offence at a time, a penalty would be applied for each offence and a landlord could face a substantial fine at lower levels of harm.  The Private Sector Housing Team was predominately a reactive service which responded to complaints by tenants. 

The Council did not hold information on how many properties were managed by agents and how many were manged by the landlord directly, but if a property was managed by an agent, they would be the first point of contact if a complaint was received.  Some agents had authority to spend up to a certain amount on behalf of the landlord, so sometimes could resolve issues without reference to the landlord.

In response to a question, it was noted that there currently were not any Leicester-based landlords on the national rogue landlords’ register.  The database of rogue landlords had only been established for about 12 months and names associated with historical offences could not be added retrospectively.  Having two civil penalties lodged against a landlord could be one of the criteria for that landlord being included in the register

AGREED:

1)    That the Executive be asked to take the comments of the Commission recorded above and the Equalities Implications set out in the report in to account when considering the proposal to adopt civil penalties for non-compliant landlords; and

2)    That the Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services be asked to provide Members with information on how the Private Sector Housing Team can be contacted.