Is this the end of shared homes in Southwark?

[ivanhoeshmivanhoe]

Hi all,

I just wondered if anyone here is familiar with the (fairly) new HMO regulations put in place on shared homes in Southwark?

Basically, we are 4 young professionals living in a shared house near the station. We have a fantastic landlord and a beaut of a house. It's a bit old and crumbly, but that's why we love it. However, Southwark Council, in a bid to put pressure on rogue landlords, is requiring any home with 3 or more unrelated people renting it, to be converted into some awful, fireproofed, commercial-style property that has more in common with a halls of residence than it does a family home.

For the unintiated: Not only would our landlord need to pay for all this, but he would need to register our house as a HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) and would need to pay for a licence to be issued and each time the licence was up for renewal (anything from 1-5 years) would need to pay a sum PER BEDROOM and also pay for extensive fire and risk assessments to be done.

And guess what.... he DOESN'T need to do ANY of this if a family moves in!!!

This means that tonnes of perfectly happy shared homes are now being served notices because the landlords simply can't be arsed with the trouble/expense. In our case, our landlord doesn't want to turn his property inside out. He loves the original features, does our man.

Now surely there'll be loads of empty large homes in Southwark crying out for families to rent them?? You'd have to be a fairly wealthy family to rent our home - wouldn't you just BUY if you had that money?

It also means that now 1-2 bedroom properties are going to feel the squeeze and the prices for those will go up, as young professionals in Peckham, Camberwell etc are turfed out.

Has anyone, landlord or tenant, been affected by this!?!?!?!

[ianr]

Are you not a single household? What is the actual power (statute or subsidiary legislation) that they are seeking to exercise?

[uncleglen]

It's not just Southwark. They are clamping down everywhere. In East London for instance where there are large numbers of properties being rented out to many people (my sister says 4 couples rented 1 house from her estate agency). A 2 bedroom flat was rented out to a young woman and her baby. She has a husband but he only visits her at weekends. She has her friend living in one room and the living room is curtained off into 2 bedrooms and rented out.....she receives housing benefit...

You said it yourself-it's more like a halls of residence with a bunch of mature students and no cleaner....

[KidKruger]

Somehow you all need to 'get related'.

[ivanhoeshmivanhoe]

The new policy came into effect last year, but a lot of tenants are only being affected now because their tenancy is up for renewal and they're finding out that the landlord doesn't want to spend ?1000s on fireproofing the home and paying for a HMO licence.

More info here: http://www.londonpropertylicensing.co.uk/southwark-council-approve-new-landlord-licensing-schemes.

On the face of it, it sounds great, right? Bugger those crafty rogue landlords who supply sub-standard accommodation to tens of people living in their home.

But we are a perfectly happy household with 4 working, young professionals. Our landlord understandably would rather pay NOTHING for housing a family, than the heightened costs for letting us stay there.

[cerv]

This doesn't sound right to me, are you sure they've understood everything correctly? I'm no longer in a shared place but I always remember the magic number a landlord didn't really want to hit was 5 separate people/rooms as it was at that point they needed to be a lot more on the ball with fire escapes and things like that. I know of friends living in bigger properties that only have 4 names on the lease but actually have 5 living there to get around it.

* Edit - just googled and found the following on http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2951/standards_for_houses_in_multiple_occupation_hmo

"An HMO is required to be licensed with the Local Authority if it is three or more storeys in height and is occupied by 5 or more tenants, of which at least 2 households share one or more basic amenities including kitchen, bathroom or WC. It is the landlord/manager?s responsibility to apply to the Council to license a property."

[ivanhoeshmivanhoe]

Oh yes sorry, I should have clarified - Southwark Council have reduced the threshold from 5 to 3 now.

So we would need to be 2 people affording this beautifully large house. Which we could do (and just have 2 other tenants pay us under the table) except apparently the council are stepping up raids/prosecution, so obviously our landlord really doesn't want to risk it.

[bobbsy]

Could you lease in one or two peoples names only, and then sublet to the other two? My understanding (which may be incorrect) was that this applied if the landlord rented each room on a separate arrangement (usually nets more money) rather than one lease with multiple people on it...?

[ivanhoeshmivanhoe]

cerv Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This doesn't sound right to me, are you sure

> they've understood everything correctly? I'm no

> longer in a shared place but I always remember the

> magic number a landlord didn't really want to hit

> was 5 separate people/rooms as it was at that

> point they needed to be a lot more on the ball

> with fire escapes and things like that. I know of

> friends living in bigger properties that only have

> 4 names on the lease but actually have 5 living

> there to get around it.

>

> * Edit - just googled and found the following on

> http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2

> 951/standards_for_houses_in_multiple_occupation_hm

> o

>

> "An HMO is required to be licensed with the Local

> Authority if it is three or more storeys in height

> and is occupied by 5 or more tenants, of which at

> least 2 households share one or more basic

> amenities including kitchen, bathroom or WC. It is

> the landlord/manager?s responsibility to apply to

> the Council to license a property."

This guidance is from July 2015. The new regulations, which reduced the occupancy number to 3, came into force in 2016.

[ivanhoeshmivanhoe]

I'm sorry guys, but no... the scandal is real...

We COULD technically put 2 people on the tenancy and have the other 2 sublet, but that would be illegal and would mean that if the council found out, our landlord and our agent would be liable for prosecution. Neither want that.

I am talking about ONE tenancy, with one estate agent. Southwark Council have reduced the number of unrelated people necessitating a HMO from 5 to 3. So any homes with 3 unrelated people living in it will basically cost a landlord a shed loads of money to maintain.

Our estate agent is finding that loads of tenants are being served notices now and landlords are simply selling their homes if they're unable to fill it with a family. Our estate agent has lobbied to the countil to no avail.

[bobbsy]

Ok, my misunderstanding - I had thought a HMO was individually let rooms (multiple individual leases).

[ianr]

> This guidance is from July 2015. The new regulations, which reduced the occupancy number to 3, came into force in 2016.

It's all a bit different from my own house/flat sharing days, and a distortion of the common meaning of 'household'. My reading is that they already had the discretion to treat HMOs that didn't meet the mandatory (5 people, three storeys) conditions, and that they then started exercising it, with approval, under the Additional Licensing provisions. http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12625/declaration_of_designation_01_january_2016

Are the required conditions daunting enough for most landlords not to bite the bullet? They seem to include much that is already incumbent on any responsible landlord anyway. The licence application cost of a five-year licence is the equivalent of a pound a week per tenant. There has to be one council inspection within that period (not necessarily at the time of application) and they will advise on any defects that they want remedied.

I see btw that, at the same time, some areas of Southwark were designated in which properties rented to just a single individual or family were made subject to Selective Licensing, which contains a requirement to comply with prescribed fire safety guidance. There's a map showing them at http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200077/private_rented_housing/973/property_licensing.

[Loz]

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its head again.

"Let's clamp down on landlords!"

Some few months later: "Waddaya mean there's a massive shortage of rental properties?"

[IlonaM]

Have you sought legal advice? You might get try the Shelter Advice Line - they have telephone advice and advice by email - they might have some ideas:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/how_we_can_help/housing_advice_helpline

'Housing advice helpline

Call Shelter's free housing advice helpline on:

0808 800 4444

It's open 365 days of the year from 8am ? 8pm on weekdays and 8am ? 5pm on weekends.

Our housing experts will advise you, no matter what your housing situation. Our helpline does get busy, but keep trying if you can't get through.

Calls are free from UK landlines and all major UK mobile operators.

Our webchat service is usually open 9am ? 5pm, Monday to Friday.

You can also talk to a face-to-face advisor in one of our Shelter advice centres ? service opening hours vary.'

[alice]

perhaps this will release more houses for families, rooms in such shared houses push up total rents.

anyway

re-reading government site such expensive landlord requiremnets are only for 'large hmos

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupation

[uncleglen]

Even average sized houses are being extended top and bottom and converted into 2 or even 3 flats by property developers from out of the area. It is up to the local residents to put in objections when the yellow form goes up.

[TheCat]

Dont worry, living in a share house with 3 others will grow pretty old, pretty quick...and in a few years you'll look back and wonder how you ever thought it was a good idea....

[Jules-and-Boo]

multi-tenants also cause Landlord's insurance to sky-rocket

[nxjen]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dont worry, living in a share house with 3 others

> will grow pretty old, pretty quick...and in a few

> years you'll look back and wonder how you ever

> thought it was a good idea....

I'm afraid for many it's likely to be a long term experience as buying beoomes increasingly out of reach for the average Londoner.

[DuncanW]

It's a circular argument though, surely. As a big part of the reason house-prices are so expensive in London is the current attractiveness of buying to let.

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Dont worry, living in a share house with 3

> others

> > will grow pretty old, pretty quick...and in a

> few

> > years you'll look back and wonder how you ever

> > thought it was a good idea....

>

> I'm afraid for many it's likely to be a long term

> experience as buying beoomes increasingly out of

> reach for the average Londoner.

[alice]

a house has to be 130m sq minimum to convert to flats and that excludes dead space. average house is around 100msq

[Burbage]

cerv Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "An HMO is required to be licensed with the Local

> Authority if it is three or more storeys in height

> and is occupied by 5 or more tenants, of which at

> least 2 households share one or more basic

> amenities including kitchen, bathroom or WC. It is

> the landlord/manager?s responsibility to apply to

> the Council to license a property."

This is right.

Furthermore, under section 252 (2) (b) of the Act, a household may be considered a household if "their circumstances are circumstances of a description specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the appropriate national authority", so the DCLG (I guess) might be able to clarify on this issue, but only if it's really a problem.

And, under section 254 (2) (e), the gimmick of only one tenant paying rent won't work as the condition apply if "rents are payable or other consideration is to be provided in respect of at least one of those persons' occupation of the living accommodation".

It's possible this is an oversight on the part of legislators, though given Blair seemed to have shared a flat with almost everyone but Prescott, this seems unlikely.

Given what rents are, I'm surprised that a few grand spent on sensible fire safety measures would drive any serious landlord out of the market. It's not as if they've got to make them wheelchair-accessible, as any other business would have to. So I suspect a good few landlords, especially those who've worked out that HMRC might be looking at who's got a licence, are using the change as an excuse to get out before they get caught.

If it really does turn out to be a problem, I'm sure the legislators will respond in the fulness of time. In the meantime there is just one legal solution to the OP's landlord's situation, but as it would involve one civil partnership and two adoptions, it's unlikely to work out cheaper than a bunch of intumescent strips.

[alice]

what are you saying? that good landlords aren't paying tax?

[Burbage]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> what are you saying? that good landlords aren't

> paying tax?

No, certainly not, and I'm sorry if I've inadvertently given offence. I would, of course, never wittingly say anything that admitted the existence of something so unimaginable as a good landlord.

[Loz]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Given what rents are, I'm surprised that a few

> grand spent on sensible fire safety measures would

> drive any serious landlord out of the market.

Beware of the difference between turnover and profit. Rents may be high, but average yields in London are pretty low.