It utilises a two-pronged approach to changing landlord behaviour, the very purpose of licensing, with Home Safe acting as a filter to identify the worst performing landlords in a fair, transparent, consistent and objective way from which the LA can exercise its powers of enforcement in a more effective and efficient way. We believe, along with MHCLG, that the introduction of selective licensing, by default, means some form of enforcement will follow and this approach makes that easier to do and targets those most deserving.

It also reduces the administrative burden on the LA regarding applications, which are made through Home Safe and passed to the LA once complete and correct; and inspections, with Home Safe conducting 100%, subject to occupancy and access, and issuing a report to the landlord the same day, then monitoring and managing the completion of any remedial works.

The MHCLG ‘Independent Review of the Use and Effectiveness of Selective Licensing, 2019’, in respect of licence applications received through the Delivery Partner (Home Safe) noted “the burden on the authority administrative team is reduced since they no longer have to deal with incomplete or incorrect applications”.

In respect of property inspections MHCLG noted . . . . “After each inspection an electronic report is generated with a summary page of recommendations, and photographic evidence of corrections made by the landlord can be submitted electronically where appropriate. The benefits of such a scheme is that it keeps costs down, reduces administrative burdens, and ensures that inspections are continually progressing” . . . . and . . . . “authorities using a delivery partner consistently report positive outcomes, so it may be worth consideration by an authority at the planning stage”.

Yes, with no dilution of powers whatsoever. Indeed, this approach focuses LA activity on ‘licensing’ and ‘enforcing’. It is always the Local Authority's licensing scheme and Home Safe are here to assist our LA partners in the delivery.

All properties receive at least one inspection during the licence period, however we suggest three inspections in the licence period, subject to access and occupancy (for which there is a process to monitor and manage).

Landlords receive the report on the day of the inspection.

Remedial works are monitored by Home Safe, circa 90% of which are completed satisfactorily, without any LA knowledge or involvement.

Unsatisfactory landlord behaviour is identified without LA involvement from which enforcement action can be taken in a more efficient and effective way.

LA resources are not used on generally compliant landlords but can be focused on those bordering on, or actually committing, criminal behaviour.

This approach is more likely to deliver a cost neutral scheme as time and resource is not used on ‘ignorant’ landlords but more on those most deserving who are potentially ‘criminal’.

Nothing. Home Safe’s income is from landlord membership fees due from the time the licence is issued by the LA. These fees basically replace the LA part B (compliance monitoring) fees as Home Safe will be monitoring compliance and not the LA. The part A fee (for issuing the licence) is received by the LA through Home Safe, who process the application and confirm acceptance.

There are no costs other than providing advice and guidance on issues raised following inspections in much the same way that would be incurred by the expected queries and those that happen outside of licensing schemes. These will however reduce over time through the licensing period.

Part A fees are set to cover LA costs, which could be less using Home Safe as it is Home Safe who process and approve the applications. Part B fees go to Home Safe as monthly membership fees (one off upfront fees will be considered) and any involvement from the LA with Home Safe members only comes at a point of enforcement action whereby LA fees for involvement can be recovered in that action. The introduction of civil penalties has made this easier. Consequently, schemes should be cost neutral as LA costs are covered by Part A licence fees and enforcement costs following Home Safe compliance monitoring procedures leading to enforcement action.

One of the six criteria LAs need to meet in order to introduce selective licensing is to improve property standards. Having an inspection-based scheme not only ensures you can monitor and improve property standards but also provides an easy and objective way of assessing satisfactory landlord behaviour i.e are they facilitating access for inspections? Are they conducting remedial works? etc. Moreover, there is a well-accepted link between poor property conditions/tenancy management and ASB, so the importance of property inspections in understanding and identifying unsatisfactory landlord behaviour should not be underestimated.

Once unsatisfactory landlord behaviour is discovered, and not corrected through our processes, enforcement action can be taken. If necessary, this can be through Part 1 of the Act, where you think that it's most appropriate, for the most serious of hazards or alternatively it can prompt a further request for the landlord to provide evidence they comply with all the mandatory conditions of their licence, along with any other conditions of interest, for example, the ASB condition and the condition regarding their six-monthly inspections.

Where they are unable to provide the evidence requested there is a clear and conclusive licence breach that can incur a civil penalty. This ensures any LA involvement, with Landlords licensed through the delivery partner, will have a mechanism to fully recover any costs and in some instances generate surplus revenue for use by the Private Sector Housing department.

No, they are HHSRS qualified inspectors and from backgrounds that are familiar with these environments and have similar skill sets to EHOs in terms of assessing risk. Apart from raising property standards, the point of the inspection, is to assess satisfactory landlord behaviour in a fair, transparent, consistent and objective way.

Yes, the LA approves the inspection template and sets the point at which referrals are made back to them, which is typically the point that enforcement action would be needed. There will be areas of discussion between the LA and Home Safe which may result in no enforcement action but these are expected partnership workings whereby the LA offers advice and guidance. These will naturally reduce over time through the licensing period. Subsequent inspections programmes can also be amended to reflect findings from previous rounds. Inspections can also be framed to capture additional information such as the energy efficiency of a property.

The essence of this approach is that Home Safe will manage these issues through their processes until exhausted and only refer to the Local Authority when enforcement action is the obvious next step, from which costs can be recovered as part of that action to cover their involvement.

In addition, any subsequent enforcement from the Local Authority can lead to the issuing of Civil Penalties which in turn generate revenue that can be retained by the service.

The Local Authority calculate the cost of a licence and this is separated into Part A and Part B. Whether the LA chooses to use a Delivery Partner or not should have no impact on the total cost to the Landlord.

The main differences are that when a Local Authority uses a Delivery Partner, the Part B fee would typically go to them to cover the cost of inspecting, monitoring and compliance management.

A major benefit to the Landlord community is they will get the option to pay the Part B fee by Monthly direct debit, which is an option not available when paying the LA direct.

The main benefits to the Landlord is as follows:

- Simplified Licensing Experience.

- Application support.

- independent property inspection.

- An option to pay monthly membership fees.

- Support, training and development.

- Access to discounted products and services.

This could be dealt with in two ways; firstly, the licence could simply be varied to show it is no longer issued contingent upon the landlord being a compliant member of Home Safe. The other option is to revoke the licence and re-issue at cost. If the original was issued contingent upon membership of Home Safe and that membership no longer applies then it seems reasonable to revoke that licence and issue a new and different one that has no mention of Home Safe. This would be our preference as the LA receives a fee and it will serve as a deterrent to landlords if there is a cost involved. We would also suggest it is a licence condition for the avoidance of any doubt.

Being clear about this element from the outset is critical as if it is clear that licences will be issued contingent upon membership of Home Safe then the clear message can also be given that with that membership comes certain benefits, such as monthly payments and little, or no, LA involvement. At this point it should also be made clear that should that membership cease, for whatever reason, then a varied licence will incur a charge in much the same way as a revoked licence would on issue of a new licence. The cost is to cover the LA’s new involvement, which the legislation allows, indeed expects so there is no burden on the public purse.

Licences can be varied and revoked with agreement of the licence holder. This agreement, with any associated costs, should be clear from the outset as part of a landlords obtaining a licence through membership of Home Safe.