Housing standards, and the capacity of local authorities to enforce them, are rightly, but for all the wrong reasons, in the headlines at the moment. Certainly with regard to Category 1 and 2 HHSRS damp and mould hazards - to the extent that the Secretary of State at DLUHC, Michael Gove MP, has just written to all local authority leaders and chief executives directing them to provide housing enforcement data (going back 3 years) including civil penalties imposed and successful prosecutions pursued by the end of November or explain why they have not collected such information. This direction includes such data that relates to the private rented sector as well as the social. The Building Research Establishment recently calculated that the cost to the NHS of treating illnesses connected to damp homes was £38 million per year.

With this in mind, it’s instructive to look at what local authorities can achieve, in the private rented sector, via prosecutions and their attendant penalties. So, here are the top 5 housing enforcement cases of 2022 (though not specifically covering damp and mould as stand alone issues):

• £293,000 - Waltham Forest Council

A private landlord applies to Waltham Forest Council for 2 property licences but ends up being ordered by a court to pay fines and costs for historic housing and planning offences. When sentencing, the judge stated that the landlord’s offending “undermines the whole system of planning control”. The main offences here involved planning breaches but the point is - those breaches were brought to light because this landlord came under the scrutiny of council officers whilst processing his applications for the 2 selective licences to cover the property he had illegally converted into 2 flats almost 10 years earlier. £251,000 of the total cost to the landlord was in the form of a confiscation order for illegally gained income. The fine of £16,000 was reduced to £12,000 due to the landlord pleading guilty.

• £268,000 - Southwark Council

The landlord was ordered, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, to pay back £230,000 in illegally gained rent, pay a £13,000 fine and the council’s costs of £25,000 for cramming 12 tenants into flats meant for a maximum of 6 people.

• £135,000 - Camden Council

A letting agent, its sole director and the landlord/owner of an unlicensed HMO fined £80,000 and £40,000 respectively along with joint costs of £15,000 after a visit by council HMO enforcement officers visited the property and found it to be overcrowded, in poor condition and with significant fire safety hazards. The council said the prosecution was “a necessary last resort”.

• £130,000 - Wrexham Council

The landlord lived abroad but had set up 3 property management companies to manage his HMOs in Wrexham. The court found there was a systemic failure to monitor maintenance and there was no evidence of any property inspections having been carried out and there was a clear risk of harm to the tenants in the properties - leading to a total of 17 housing offences, a fine of £114,000 and costs of £16,000.

• £57,000 - Slough Council

The landlord was described in court as “a slum landlord” and convicted in his absence of 11 offences - 10 breaches of HMO management regulations and 1 offence of operating an unlicensed HMO at £5000 fine per offence plus costs and a victim surcharge.

There are many more such cases in the public record and in our news archive including a case where the landlord was described as the “worst of the worst”; a frightening case of illegal eviction where the landlord and her associates received a prison sentences and she had to pay £200,000 in legal costs; and cases involving rent repayment orders, banning orders and compensation payments to tenants.

The conclusion? Housing enforcement is essential - obviously these cases and more go to show that housing standards enforcement is essential where compliance isn’t simply grudging, it’s non-existent and, often, also actively evaded. Selective licensing and HMO licensing help local authorities in that they can be proactive in achieving compliance with standards whereas ordinary Housing Act enforcement is largely reactive and dependent on a trigger complaint from a tenant or member of the public

Some landlords are, for want of a better word, playing a lottery - the % risk of being caught against the % chance of getting away with it. Local authorities using the whole regulatory toolkit provided under the law, including property licensing, can effectively adjust the balance of that % to the benefit of tenants, good landlords, professional letting agents and …. Communities.

Looking for up to the minute updates on all selective licensing and PRS news? Follows us on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn