However you phrase it - “social value”, “place making”, “safer streets”, “stronger communities” “regeneration”, “levelling up” or simply the more transactional “bang per buck” - the destination is the same ….. better outcomes for residents.

A clue to the identity of the “destination” suggested above can be found in the stated responsibilities of the councillors providing statements on a local authority’s behalf after a successful private rented sector enforcement case or announcing why a proposed new selective licensing scheme is deemed to be a necessary or beneficial initiative. These individuals often have responsibility for regeneration, community safety, environment, housing, strategy, development or enforcement mentioned in their job title (or some combination of any of these). These titles evidence the bigger picture that any local authority is looking at and the private rented sector is just one part (however important a part) of that overall picture.

This bigger picture can be easy to forget (or to miss altogether) for anyone not involved in running a Borough or a District - a complex juggling act at the best of times …. and these aren’t exactly the best of times.

Of course, councils are helped by the fact that they have an infrastructure and a legislative underpinning determining what they can’t do, what they must do, what they can do and how they should do what they must or can do (the difference between having a legal duty to act and having a discretionary power to act). And then, standing behind these is the legitimacy provided by the democratic mandate embodied in elected members. Out of this mix, ultimately, comes accountability.

Councils (in a Darwinian “adapt or die” sense) though are no longer monolithic institutions and accountability can be achieved and evidenced from a variety of sources and by a variety of means. As we’ve mentioned in previous articles, councils and agencies that they are associated with such as police, fire & rescue and primary care trusts are able to bid for pots of money from central government for targeted initiatives in their areas. So for instance, either a council or a police force can apply for money from the safe streets fund to help tackle anti social behaviour. However, the latest round of safer streets fund bidding (which only recently opened) is now also open to civil society organisations who wish to bid for funding - for example, to help tackle violence against women and girls by providing “active bystander” training so that people who witness violence or harassment taking place in the street can have the confidence to intervene. But, community organisations can also apply for funding from this stream for local initiatives aimed at diverting young people living in a locality from becoming involved in anti-social behaviour.

If a council can encourage and guide a local civil society group to apply for such funding it could go some distance in making a community feel they themselves also have a direct stake in the success of wider council place making initiatives (such as selective licensing, regeneration or health and well being) rather than them simply being passive subjects of council plans.

The Government has also recently increased the level of grant funding available for organisations (local and regional) wishing to provide advice and assistance to what are called “litigants in person” - people who, if a welfare, family or housing dispute is likely to go to court, would be representing themselves rather than having the wherewithal to instruct a solicitor. The funding is delivered by the Justice ministry in partnership with the Access to Justice Foundation and a mid scheme assessment in December 2021 showed that the funding scheme had enabled initiatives that saw a majority of cases resolved without the need for the parties to go to court. The organisations providing such advice support are often deeply embedded into the council, health/social care, community safety/wellbeing network and this type of network is thus very effective, in outcome terms, at burden sharing in straightened times.

One piece of the jigsaw could, however, be said to be missing. If councils can, in innovative ways, work successfully alongside other agencies and local support or community organisations to maximise available resources for initiatives that will, measurably, help to build stronger communities then what about private landlords; where do they come into the picture?

It has to be admitted that the main hurdle is that private landlords are a large but disparate group of individuals but that doesn’t mean that a council shouldn’t be able to get a decent number of landlords engaged in local initiatives - especially if such initiatives can be shown to protect the landlords’ assets (and, hopefully, also increase the value of the assets). Councils need to do more than just put information for landlords on their webpages. They need to engage with landlords and agents in, let’s say, a more entrepreneurial way. Webinars, surveys, training/education or other benefits need to be actively “sold” as something worthy of participation in and not just advertised. Not enough landlords are fully aware of energy efficiency initiatives that they (and their tenants) could benefit from and this is a fairly large cohort that councils should be targeting with both information and invitations. Within a licensing designation a council has pretty much a captive audience of landlords - at worst, the majority of landlords will take no notice of council blandishments and thus “prove” to residents that the landlord community as a whole isn’t interested in the betterment of the community space their property is located in. At best, landlords will feel they are getting something in return for their licence fee that makes engagement with the council worth the time and effort.

The housing act 2004 and government guidance on both licensing and enforcement operate on the basis that licensing is part of a wider PRS toolkit available to councils and that councils will also work with “other persons” in achieving the objectives of a licensing scheme. Those “other persons” could include landlords as a community - not just as lip service but as a measurable outcome of a successful, holistic approach to licensing.