Memorandum by The National Union of Students
(NUS) (DHB 39)
INTRODUCTION
The National Union of Students (NUS) represents
over five million students in higher and further education in
the UK. NUS estimates that at least six hundred thousand students
rent accommodation within the private sector, the vast majority
of whom live in a property of multiple occupation (HMO). Although
there is undoubtedly some good quality accommodation available
within this sector, there is evidence to indicate that some students
are living in very poor sub-standard accommodation that is detrimental
to the health and consequently their studies.
1. HMOS DEFINITION
NUS is concerned that by excluding from legislation
any properties that consist of less than three storeys and which
are occupied by less than five people, this part of the Bill leaves
the majority of students who live in the private rented sector
without the legislative protection they need.
— The largest proportion (30%) of the
estimated 600,000 students who rent properties in the private
sector live in groups of four. An analysis of our housing survey
also reveals that 48.5% of students live in groups of five or
more, which means that the majority (51.5%) live in groups of
four or less.
— As for the size of properties in
which students live, our survey indicated that 74% of students
live in houses that consist of only two storey. However, this
percentage rate was much higher (87%) for students who live in
groups of four or less.
NUS calls for:
— The government to define HMOs as
habitations with two storeys or more, which are occupied by four
or more adults.
2. HMO LICENSING
NUS is concerned that by excluding from legislation
any properties that consist of less than three storeys, and which
are occupied by less than five people, a vast number of students
will live in accommodation which does not adhere to minimum health
and safety standards. The case of Sheffield vs Barnes—amongst
other rulings—has created an unacceptable condition, especially
for students living in shared houses. As a consequence of the
judgment, some local authorities have been prevented from taking
action to ensure improved standards in such accommodation because
of fear of legal action from landlords. At the centre of this
has been the blurred definition of an HMO.
NUS calls for:
— A clear definition of HMOs enshrined
in secondary legislation, in order to prevent any legal loopholes.
Exemptions
NUS believes that buildings or part of buildings
should not be exempt from the definition of HMOs if they are occupied
only by persons whose purpose is to undertake a full-time course
of further or higher education at an educational establishment
or other (see Draft Housing Bill March 2003 p126, $165
(5) (a)). This would leave out a vast number of students: in 2001
for example, university-owned accommodation offered over 265,000
bedspaces to students. Full-time students pay the same as other
people, so excluding them is treating them as second-class citizens.
— The Scottish parliament has recognised
the need to be able to assure Scottish parents that, when their
children leave home to become students, the shared accommodation
in which they are likely to stay is of a reasonable standard and,
most importantly, safe. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act
1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000 explicitly
includes shared accommodation occupied by students during term
time.
It is sometimes assured that so-called larger
HMOs are a higher health and safety risk than those of less than
three storeys. The NUS Housing and Health Survey 2001 indicates
that such a conclusion is not so easy to come to in the case of
student-shared houses.
— slightly more than half (50.5%) of
all students sharing in groups of four or less stated their house
experienced problems with damp, four out of ten evidence of mould,
and 52% reported that repairs had not been carried out by the
landlord.
— One of the most worrying findings
of the survey was the fact that 47% of students reported that
their landlord had not complied with existing gas safety regulations,
as required by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations.
— One in five houses is not fitted
with a smoke detector, half of properties housing four or less
people do not possess security locks on all windows and doors,
and 14% of students who live in groups of four or less believe
that their health has suffered as a result of living in these
properties.
The Scottish parliament has recognised that
the smallest HMOs can be as badly managed, dangerous and inadequate
as larger HMOs. In 2003, the threshold for the definition of HMOs
is three or more and will eventually go down to two or more.
NUS calls for:
— Buildings or part of buildings occupied
only by persons who occupy them for the purpose of undertaking
a full time course of further or higher education at an educational
establishment or other to be included in the definition of HMOs.
NUS believes that any building or part of a
building should not be exempt from the definition of HMOs if that
building is controlled or managed by the educational establishment
in question or another person (see Draft Housing Bill, March 2003
p126, $165, (5), (b)).
— NUS believes that among numerous
examples of good practice throughout this sector of the accommodation
market, there will always be exceptions. The most dramatic and
recent example of poor university accommodation is the hall of
residence belonging to the University of Wales at Aberystwyth,
which burnt down. Whilst the cause of the fire was a fault in
the adjoining building, it does underline the fact that student
halls of residence are not immune from accidents.
— NUS also had reports of universities
spending thousands of pounds in legal fees in order to prevent
local authorities from enforcing safety standards, whilst others
have threatened students with disciplinary action if they attempt
to contact environmental health officers to report inadequate
facilities. According to a new HEFCE guideline, universities cannot
invest further amounts on housing and conferencing facilities.
As a consequence, in some universities student accommodation facilities
have been in shortage. For example, in Manchester this year, 300
students lived in a condemned building for three months because
the university had run out of accommodation for them. Without
legislation, students are as vulnerable in university-owned accommodation
as in the private sector.
NUS calls for:
— building or part of a building not
to be exempted from the definition of HMOs is that building if
controlled or managed by the educational establishment in question
or another person (see Draft Housing Bill, March 2003 p126, $165,
(5), (b)).
Cost of the licence
— NUS believes that the cost of the
licence should be capped to a level acceptable to landlords, otherwise
the cost might be passed on to tenants. If students meet inflated
rent prices, they will be required to get into more debt, or work
longer hours in part-time jobs. NUS is opposed to students being
placed in more debt.
— Expensive licences may also deter
prospective landlords and landlords to put their properties on
the letting market, thus causing problems with the supply of rented
housing. Landlords could also go underground for fear of paying
their licence.
— NUS believes licence prices should
not vary too widely according to where you live. In Scotland,
local authorities have discretion in charging. While permitting
flexibility, this has resulted in wide discrepancies in charging:
prices range from £103 in Aberdeen to £1,700 in Glasgow[16]NUS
recognises the need for flexibility, but is concerned that councils
in financial difficulty may abuse a system that is too flexible.
— We also think that institutional
halls of residence should not be charged the full price of the
licence, in order to ease the financial burden on universities.
NUS proposes to follow the Scottish example, where institutional
halls of residence pay a discounted licence fee.
NUS agrees that a "one size fits all"
licence fee is not appropriate. NUS recommends a sliding scale
licence fee, which takes into account the nature of the owner,
eg private or public, and the number of bed spaces offered.
3. TENANCY DEPOSITS
SCHEMES
NUS deeply regrets that the government did not
reiterate its view in this draft of the Housing Bill that the
current arrangements in the UK for tenancy and other tenancy fees
are not working, as it previously acknowledged in the Tenancy
Money Consultation Paper. This will impact on financial circumstances
and welfare of a significant proportion of students living in
privately rented accommodation, either with their own family or
in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs).
Legislation on deposits
NUS is concerned that some students have difficulty
in getting back their deposits at all. There is also a problem
with deposits being returned late to students and this has a direct
effect on their debt levels and ability to budget. Students who
go to college or university a long way from home are particularly
vulnerable, as unscrupulous landlords can take advantage of the
fact that any complaint has to be dealt with from a distance.
This is especially true for international students.
— According to the Survey of English
Housing (SHE) 2001-02, 20% of households who had a private tenancy
ending in the previous three years, said that part or all of the
deposit from their most recent tenancy was unreasonably withheld.
This represents a considerable amount of money, considering that
in England around £790 million is currently being held in
deposits. NUS, alongside Shelter, is calling for provisions to
regulate and safeguard tenants' deposits to be added to the Bill.
— Statutory schemes to safeguard tenants'
deposits and landlords' property are common in many parts of the
world. It is known that there is provision in place—ranging
from basic legislation to mandatory protection schemes—in
Germany, France, Belgium, parts of Spain, in Australia, New Zealand
and Canada.
NUS calls for:
— Legislation to regulate and protect
tenants deposits. Around 100 MPs have already signed Early Day
Motion 843 calling for this.
— NUS favour the idea of same day deposit
return, as successfully implemented by UNITE. Under current arrangements,
tenants have no cheap or speedy redress through current legal
procedures. Statistics on small claims relating to unjustifiably
withheld deposits are not kept, but it is known that in 2001 the
average length of time taken to hear a small claim was 28 weeks[17]
Issuing a claim for the average deposit of £510 would cost
the claimant £380, with a possible further £45 payable
to issue a warrant of execution (to enforce the claim). Apart
from these issues of time and expense claimants may fall on procedural
issues, or be unable to enforce judgement[18]
— NUS believes the results of the Tenancy
Deposit Scheme should be used for drawing up mandatory legislation.
The two-year plot Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) was set up in March
2000. Funding for a further two years was agreed in February 2002.
The pilot TDS offers two types of schemes. Firstly, a custodial
scheme, whereby a third party holds the deposit. Secondly, an
insured scheme in which the landlord or letting agent pays an
insurance premium to ensure that the deposit will be repaid to
the tenant should the Independent Housing Ombudsman (IHO) find
in their favour if there is a dispute. It can be claimed that
the custodial scheme works in terms of presenting a transparent
process that is satisfactory to tenants[19]
NUS calls for:
— Results of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme
to be taken into account for the setting up of a mandatory national
deposit scheme, to ensure the speedy and fair recovery of deposits
by the tenants.
Disputes over deposits
Loss of part or totality of the deposit through
lack of clarity over issues such as cleaning is a common scenario
for students. Also, landlords do not always make clear what is
to be retained from the deposit in case of deterioration.
— As shown during the pilot TDS, landlords
and agents showed considerable interest in the dispute resolution
function of the scheme and published decisions were likely to
help shape of good practice in the long run.
— Tenants strongly supported the principles
of an independent adjudicator being available to resolve disputes.
NUS calls for:
— Disputes over deposits to be handled
by a national independent adjudication scheme, such as the currently
piloted independent Housing Ombudsman.
— Each tenant in HMOs to be dealt with
separately in terms of deposits and disputes over returns.
Statutory clarification of reasonable terms
NUS supports shelter's recommendations that
legislation should clarify the circumstances under which a landlord
can or can not make a claim on a deposit. NUS calls for costs
arising from the landlord's standard re-letting procedure, not
to be claimable, eg refreshing the decor or professional cleaning.
Inventories
NUS calls for:
— Legislation to require landlords
to supply and check inventories on properties before the contract
is signed, and legislation to assist negotiations in circumstances
when a landlord wishes to make a claim on the deposit.
Other tenancy-related fees
NUS calls for:
— Legislation to prohibit the charging
of other tenancy fees, eg for the provision of inventories, renewal
of a fixed-term contract or for work carried out as part of the
letting service.
4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Landlords unfit to rent properties should be
prevented by legislation from doing so. With the introduction
of new criminal records bureau, a system exists whereby relevant
convictions are easily established. NUS suggests that the government
considers whether or not perpetrators of violent and/or sexual
crimes are appropriate individuals to be renting property to vulnerable
groups such as students. This is a cautionary note based on our
members' evidence, and made with recognition to the Rehabilitation
of Offenders' Act.
Alongside Shelter, NUS calls for:
— A nationwide system at regulation
to ensure that all landlords are fit and proper.
Landlords should be compelled to comply with
licensing requirements through extra incentives such as tax breaks
for home-improvements. Such tax-breaks will win the support of
landlords for a licensing scheme and favour environment friendly
repairs, such as insulation.
5. CONCLUSION
NUS urges the government:
— to define HMOs as properties of two
storeys or more and which are occupied by four or more adults
and to enshrine this in secondary legislation;
— to include buildings or part buildings
occupied only by persons who occupy them for the purpose of undertaking
a full-time course of further or higher education in the definition
of HMOs;
— to introduce a sliding scale fee,
which takes into account the nature of the owner and property;
— to legislate to regulate and protect
tenants' deposits; and
— to introduce a nationwide system
of regulation to ensure all landlords are fit and proper.
NUS
May 2003
16 Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee
Report 29 November 2000 Back
17
The Court Service Judicial Statistics 2001. Back
18
Tenancy Money: Probity and Protection A Consultation Paper November
2002 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Back
19
Housing Research Summary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
Number 175, 2002. Back
|
