Landlords are accusing councillors of a licensing consultation charade aimed at introducing a register of shared houses by the back door.
Bedford Council has launched a consultation aimed at making every private house in multiple occupation HMO) landlord in the borough sign up for a licence.
The measure affects any private landlord letting a shared house to three to five tenants – HMOs for six or more tenants already have to apply for a mandatory licence.
Landlords say the consultation is fixed because the wording of the papers already states the scheme will start in April 2013 and that any objections will be ignored.
Speaking for private landlords in the borough, the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) has sent the council a 12-page rebuttal of their plan, claiming legal procedures for setting up additional licencing for small HMOs have been breached.
“The consultation document fails to address the key precondition in the Housing Act for designation of an additional licensing in an area – namely ineffective management by a significant number of private HMO landlords is leading to problems,” says the letter to the council.
“Clearly the council is not addressing these issues properly and failure to understand the key question means consultation is not framed to meet the requirements of the Housing Act.”
The RLA believes that a blanket ban is not appropriate because the council cannot show that private landlords are at the root of borough wide problems relating to antisocial behaviour or poor housing standards.
Landlords in other areas have launched legal challenges against HMO licensing – notably Oxford, where the council had to delay implementing a city-wide scheme in the face of protests from landlords and letting agents.
“We would strongly suggest the council looks at the alternative strategies, like a voluntary approach working with all stakeholders, including local residents linked with accreditation,” said the RLA.
“Extending the scheme to the whole borough is of particular concern. The problems do not justify the imposition of additional HMO licensing. The resulting bureaucratic procedures and costs would be totally disproportionate. We, therefore, ask the council to reconsider its proposal.”
