Private Sector
Return To The HMD Archive Index
June 1998
HMO Licensing Scheme
The Government announced its intention to introduce primary legislation for a new mandatory national licensing scheme in England, Scotland and Wales for houses in multiple occupation, rather than - as previously planned - a code of practice.
The Government consulted later in the Summer of 1998 on how the licensing system should work and how standards on fire and other health and safety risks should be achieved. A separate consultation paper on proposals for HMO licensing in Scotland was also issued.
Those authorities who have already adopted HMO registration schemes containing control provisions, are likely to have similar powers under the proposed licensing schemes.
October 1998
Voluntary Rent Deposit Scheme
Housing Minister Hilary Armstrong announced proposals aimed at helping private tenants who face problems in getting rent deposits back at the end of their tenancy. She said that she intended to meet organisations representing private landlords and tenants to invite them to set up a voluntary rent deposit scheme to safeguard tenants’ deposits.
The move responded to the problem of disputes arising when tenants seek to recover deposits that were intended to meet the costs of damages during the life of a tenancy. The Minister aimed to make it clear that failure to agree to a voluntary scheme could lead to the introduction of enforcement legislation.
November 1998
Ombudsman: Delay in Enforcement
Action Against HMO
In his report on the investigation of six complaints against Westminster CC, concerning the poor conditions suffered by the complainants living in a house in multiple occupation and which were known of by the Council but effective action to tackle them was delayed, Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly found maladministration causing injustice.
In his report he highlighted a decision taken by the Council which, in effect, reduced the extent to which expenditure by Environmental Services would be recharged to the Housing Committee. According to an officer's report, this reduction would remove the capability to undertake any pro-active/programmed work in the private sector housing field.
The Ombudsman's noted that the Council had knowledge of cockroach infestation at the HMO from at least January 1992 and that it was not until two councillors commenced a campaign to expose the poor conditions there in October 1995 that the Council commenced action and issued the owners of the hotel with five notices under three different Acts.
The Ombudsman concluded that, on balance, the reason enforcement action was taken after October 1995 but not before was because of the pressure exerted by the two councillors and other media publicity. The delay in taking effective action to deal with the breaches of environmental and housing legislation at the hotel amounted to maladministration.
In deciding that the maladministration caused the complaints injustice, the Ombudsman took into consideration what would have happened if enforcement action had been served several years earlier - as he concluded it should have been. In his opinion, the complainants would have been either rehoused as homeless, or accommodated in another temporary hotel letting. As most of the other temporary hotel lettings were of a better quality than the one being suffered by the complainants, they lost the opportunity to benefit from better conditions which earlier enforcement action might have achieved.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay £1,000 to each of the complainant households with children and £500 to the one complainant who did not have children living with him at the hotel.
Investigation Nos. 95/A/4105, 96/A/2529, 2541, 2583, 2585 and 2630 (Westminster CC).
June 1999
News in Brief
September 1999
News in Brief
Return To The HMD Archive Index