Urgent Action Required on HMOs?

This story is only too familiar to those of us who've dealt with planning enforcement and one reason why I can't feel any confidence in an approach, like the additional licensing scheme that will rely on ongoing monitoring and enforcement.

I'd be grateful if those colleagues who joined me could remind me of the exact number of enforcement officers Mr Dorfman told us were employed. Wasn't it two for the whole borough? Am I misremembering that?

I think you are right Hugh when you say  that "As I understand it Haringey have chosen an approach that will seek to manage quality but will do little to control the growth of HMOs."

In the meeting I detailed the problems of living next to an HMO and the amount of intervention from various agencies (police, fire service, social services etc) and council departments and teams (anti-social behaviour, noise control, environmental health, refuse, building control etc etc) that an HMO can involve. I have had a great deal of support from all of these agencies however after 4-5 years of continuing work and great expense (on my account and also to the public purse) the house is still an HMO. Unless the council have the power to enforce the regulations we are on a hiding to nothing.

A major problem is that Haringey has only two enforcement officers for the whole of the borough and with the best will in the world they must be inundated with cases. Faced with a landlord who has no respect for regulations or the law, has multiple properties, and who knows every trick in the book and is making an absolute fortune from cramming as many people as possible into a house, it becomes a never ending battle. 

At the moment landlords know that even if they flout the law chances are that they will win. Unless more enforcement officers are appointed as a matter of urgency (I know the new licensing scheme is supposed to generate money possibly for more staff) and a more aggressive attitude is adopted towards all rogue landlords then I can only see the situation escalating.

The new licensing scheme will hopefully improve conditions in existing HMOs, if it is able to be enforced, however the basic problem is still limiting the increasing number of HMOs. Though there are regulations limiting the percentage of HMOs in an area we were told that these are not enforceable and when cases go to court on these grounds the council invariably looses. Why is this? Is this the same for other boroughs? I came away from the meeting feeling that there was nothing to stop anyone turning their property into an HMO tomorrow and then licensing it when the new regulations come into force.

Sounds like the clock is ticking.

Michael, I wonder if a note to Dorfman would be worth considering?

Hi Hugh, I have already done that. I've also raised the points Michelle raised in her entery prior to our Corporate HMO meeting on 28 July with relevant officers. At the meeting Cllr. Brabazon raised them again. As soon as I hear from officers I'll let you know.

On another note, the discussion document you have a copy of is now being updated. I'll forward it to you as soon as it's done. You'll be able to share the updated version with everyone. What you have at the moment is partly inaccurate and outdated.

Also, your feedback entry from our meeting on Tue. 26 July, item 4 is not accurate. Number 5 is not for Marc to decide any way. I've asked Marc to send you an e-mail and clarify his points.

I hope this is helpful.

Hugh, as you'd expect, I very much welcome Nilgun's request to Haringey officers to correct and update the document you were sent - apparently in confidence.

Factual accuracy is always important. Though of course, all published documents inevitably need updating. Especially when they deal with a fast moving issue like the conversion of family homes into single room hutches dwellings.

As for sharing it widely, as I've suggested to Nilgun the best way to make sure that large numbers of people can access and read Council papers - which of course they have already paid for out of their own tax money - is to put them on a public website.

My Freedom of Information Act Request - for all the papers and minutes from the HMO Working Group - is due to be answered  by 26 August. I'm confident that as the Council is utterly committed to openness and transparency they will be posted on What Do They Know website well before that date.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

Thanks Nilgun. If Mr Dorfman said something other than I reported in number 4, I'll be genuinely happy to be corrected. Being right isn't part of my agenda. In many respects on this one, I desperately want to be wrong.

Thank you also for pointing out that it is not Mr Dorfman's place to express a view on whether the Council wants to restrict HMOs in Harringay. Is that an issue therefore that you're able to make a statement on?

Anything we can do to move this on quickly would, I'm sure, be significantly appreciated by the good folk of Harringay (both Harringay & St Ann's wards).

Hi Michael, here's the response I've received. Pls. send me an e-mail if you have further info to open the case.

Dear Cllr Canver,

This case was first looked into as a conversion to 4 flats which was confirmed in 2006. an application for a Cert of Lawfulness was refused in December 2007 and an Enforcement Notice served. This EN was not complied with and a prosecution bundle was prepared and sent to legal instructing them to commence prosecution action. The owner contacted the Council and complained with the Notice. The owner lives in Cyprus and so a SV was arrange with one of her representatives which confirmed that the Enforcement Notice was complied with The owner accepted a simple caution in lieu of prosecution and paid out legal costs to date in August 2008. This case was closed shortly afterwards.

Further complaints were received in 2010 and the matter was re-investigated. A Planning Contravention Notice was served to find out if matters had changed and the owner replied that t her knowledge it remained a single house. A site visit was arranged in March 2011 and the house was not converted consisting of 5 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The agent said 5 persons lived there. It therefore is currently sued as a small HMO which is allowed under PD rights as not more than 6 people are residing there. Accordingly this case was closed and I have had no further dealings or news with regard to 12 Warham Road.

 Myles