Appendix 1 - Full survey results and answers/comments

In total 99 responses to the online survey were received. This was below what was expected and was disappointing considering the number of letters and e-mails that were issued and the wide advertising of the proposals. Although, as detailed in the introduction, it was expected that the majority of respondents would be owner-occupiers within the proposed wards, it was surprising that even those landlords and tenants who were fully aware of the proposals and have in the past commented on issues regarding licensing, maintenance and repair of properties, and have previously been quite vocal about mandatory licencing regimes, failed to submit any response or complete the online survey regarding the council’s proposals.

Some landlords and agents who did respond, interestingly, chose to complete the online survey as owner-occupiers, rather than as a landlord or agent. Given that some of their feedback was against the proposals it would perhaps have been expected that they would have wished to have given a greater voice to landlords and agents, rather than owner-occupiers who tend to be more in favour of licensing and additional controls on HMOs as they often feel that “their” area is made worse by the presence of large numbers of multiple occupied properties.

The results for the overall response (of 99 submitted) are detailed below. Please note that the question numbers in the summary and in the full results do not match, but this is simply due to the way that the survey was created with separate questions for each type of respondent.

Also, note that figures may be rounded up/down for some questions where there is a percentage with a fraction of a total and so in some cases the total may amount to just over or just under 100%. Where relevant, the highest number of responses has been highlighted in bold text, except where “Don’t know” was the highest. In some cases this will be the same for multiple responses.

Consultation surveys conducted by other local authorities when they were considering introducing or renewing additional HMO licensing schemes had varying response rates. For example, Hastings Borough Council in 2017 received 72 responses (45 from landlords and letting agents, 17 from owners and other interested partis and 10 from tenants), and Coventry City Council in 2020 received 137 responses, so although much lower than had been hoped for, the response rate isn’t necessarily outside of that experienced by some other local authorities.

 

1.All respondents – Title

Number/percent of all respondents (Total 99)

Mr – 49 (49.5%)

Mrs – 27 (27.2%)

Ms – 13 (13.1%)

Miss – 10 (10.1%)

Doctor – 0 (0%)

Councillor – 0 (0%)

Other – 0 (0%)

 

2.All respondents - What age band do you fall into?

Number/percent of all respondents (Total 99)

Under 18 – 0 (0%)

18-24 – 1 (1%)

25-34 – 6 (6%)

35-44 – 8 (8%)

45-54 – 16 (16.1%)

55-64 – 39 (39.4%)

65-74 – 17 (17.2%)

75 or over – 12 (12%)

 

3.All respondents - Which of the following apply to you in regard to a property you live in within Arun District?

Number/percent of all respondents (Total 99)

Tenant in a privately rented property – 14 (14.1%)

Tenant in Social Housing – 0 (0%)

Landlord – 10 (10%)

Managing Agent/Agent – 1 (1%)

Owner-occupier – 69 (69.7%)

Other – 2 (2%)

None of the above – 3 (3%)

Of the two people that replied “other” one stated they were a letting agent. The other responded that they were a homeowner and resident. It is reasonable to assume therefore that the data in regard to the respondent saying they were a homeowner can actually be categorised under the owner-occupier title.

 

Tenants renting in the Private Rental Sector (PRS) were asked a number of questions regarding the accommodation that they live in.

4.What sort of property do you live in?

Number/percent of all respondents (Total 14)

Entire house (only you or you and your family live in it) – 2 (14.3%)

Shared house (you or you and your family share the house with other individuals) – 1 (7.1%)

Self-contained flat (it has its own bathroom and kitchen facilities that only you or you and your family use) – 11 (78.6%)

Shared flat (you share bathroom and/or kitchen facilities with other people) – 0 (0%)

Other – 0 (0%)

 

5.If you ticked that you live in a shared house or shared flat, how many people live in the property?

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents (Total 1)

2 – 0 (0%)

3 – 0 (0%)

4 – 0 (0%)

5 – 0 (0%)

6 – 0 (0%)

7 – 0 (0%)

More than 7 – (1) 100%

Don’t know – 0 (0%)

It can be deduced therefore that there was only one respondent who was a tenant in a shared property and all of the other tenants in private sector housing must be living in self-contained accommodation, such as a house or flat where they do not share any facilities, either living as a single occupant or as part of a single household.

 

6.If you ticked that you live in a shared house or shared flat, does the property currently have a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence?

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents (Total 1)

Yes – 0 (0%)

No – 1 (100%)

Don’t know – 0 (0%)

As only one person responded who identified that they lived in a shared house or flat, only one answer was provided. The single response accounts for the zero figures for the other answers. The respondent stated that the property they lived in did not have a mandatory HMO licence despite it having more than seven people reported to be sharing facilities.

 

7.Are you a full-time student attending the University of Chichester?

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents (Total 14)

Yes – Bognor Regis Campus – 1 (7.1%)

Yes - Chichester Campus – 0 (0%)

No – 13 (92.9%)

 

8.Is the property you rent registered on the Arun and Chichester Landlord Accreditation Scheme?

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents who are students (Total 1)

Yes – 0 (0%)

No – 0 (0%)

Don’t know – 1 (100%)

This was a follow-up question to the previous one asking if the tenant was a student enrolled at the University of Chichester. As only one person responded identified that they were such a student in a shared house or flat, only one answer was provided. The single response accounts for the zero figures for the other answers.

 

9.Do you live or work in one of the wards proposed for the additional HMO licensing designation?

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents (Total 14)

Yes – I live in River ward – 3 (21.4%)

Yes – I work in River ward – 0 (0%)

Yes – I live in Hotham ward – 0 (0%)

Yes – I work in Hotham ward – 0 (0%)

Yes – I live in Marine ward – 7 (50%)

Yes – I work in Marine ward – 1 (7.1%)

No – I don’t live or work in any of these – 3 (21.4%)

 

10.As a tenant renting from a private landlord, have you had problems with any of the following issues? Respondents were able to choose as many as were applicable (and thus the total numbers/percentage may be higher than the 14 privately rented respondents that answered):

Damp and disrepair –  4 (28.6%)

Overcrowding – 0 (0%)

Lack of heating – 2 (14.3%)

Lack of basic amenities (bath/shower, kitchen facilities, etc.) – 0 (0%)

Lack of safety measures – 0 (0%)

Dirty and poorly maintained communal stairs and hallways – 2 (14.3%)

Rubbish and waste accumulations – 2 (14.3%)

General lack of management and supervision – 1 (7.1%)

Lack of tenancy paperwork – 0 (0%)

Poor response to requests for repairs – 3 (21.4%)

Harassment and/or illegal eviction including pressure to leave without notice – 0 (0%)

Retaliatory eviction, for example, evicted after complaining of disrepair – 0 (0%)

Other – 3 (21.4%)

None – 24 (8.6%)

Other = Fly-tipping/waste – 2 (14.2%)

Unaffordable rent increases – 1 (7.1%)

 

11.If a respondent said they had experienced issues they were asked about how they went about resolving the issue(s) and who they contacted.

Of seven responses received to this question, two replied that they contacted the landlord, two stated that they contacted the managing agent and three said that the matter had been left unresolved despite contacting their landlord or agent.

 

12. Tenants were then asked if this was successful in resolving the matter.

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents (Total 13)

Yes – 7 (53.8%)

No – 1 (7.7%)

Partially – 4 (30.7%)

Not applicable – 1 (7.7%)

The total number of responses (13) here reflects that not all respondents identified that they had encountered any issues in the previous questions.

 

13.Tenants were asked to provide additional information to the previous question. The responses received were as follows:

“Reporting fly tipping to the management company, and getting it removed. The cost of which is paid by landlords and residents”

“Good landlord that is effective in dealing with issues”

“Most double glazing needs replacing.”

“The flat is small and clearing any area of it for work is majorly dusruptive [sic] to me, esp. As I am working PT.”

“Good relationship with agents and landlords – good communication.”

 

14.When tenants were asked if the issue(s) they had encountered were at the same property that they still lived in:

Number/percent of privately renting tenant respondents (Total 12)

Yes – 10 (83.3%)

No – 1 (8.3%)

Not applicable – 1 (8.3%)

The total number of responses here reflects that not all respondents identified that they had encountered any issues in a previous question.

 

Tenants renting from a Social Housing Provider/Housing Association were asked the following questions relating to their accommodation.

No responses were received from any tenants in this tenure type. This isn’t perhaps a surprising outcome as tenants in social housing properties would be unaffected by any changes to the proposed additional HMO licensing scheme and probably considered that there was therefore no benefit in responding to the consultation. It would have been interesting to have found out whether they had experienced any issues in any previous privately rented properties that they may have lived in, and whether they have experienced any issues in their social housing property.

15.What sort of property do you live in?

Number/percent respondents from social housing tenants (Total 0)

Entire house (only you or you and your family live in it) – 0 (0%)

Self-contained flat (it has its own bathroom and kitchen facilities that only you or you and your family use) – 0 (0%)

Other – 0 (0%)

 

16.Do you live or work in one of the wards proposed for the additional HMO licensing designation?

Number/percent respondents from social housing tenants (Total 0)

Yes – I live in River ward – 0 (0%)

Yes – I work in River ward – 0 (0%)  

Yes – I live in Hotham ward – 0 (0%)  

Yes – I work in Hotham ward – 0 (0%)  

Yes – I live in Marine ward – 0 (0%)  

Yes – I work in Marine ward – 0 (0%)  

No – I don’t live or work in any of these - 0 (0%)

 

17.As a tenant renting from a social housing provider/Housing Association, have you had problems with any of the following issues? Respondents were able to choose as many as were applicable:

Number/percent respondents from social housing tenants (Total 0)

Damp and mould growth – 0 (0%)

Overcrowding – 0 (0%)  

Lack of heating – 0 (0%)  

Lack of basic amenities (bath/shower, kitchen facilities, etc.) – 0 (0%)  

Lack of safety measures – 0 (0%)  

Dirty and poorly maintained communal stairs and hallways – 0 (0%)

Rubbish and waste accumulations – 0 (0%)  

General lack of management and supervision – 0 (0%)  

Lack of tenancy paperwork – 0 (0%)  

Poor response to requests for repairs – 0 (0%)  

Harassment and/or illegal eviction including pressure to leave without notice – 0 (0%)  

Retaliatory eviction, for example, evicted after complaining of disrepair – 0 (0%)  

Other – 0 (0%)  

None – 0 (0%)  

 

18.If a respondent said they had experienced issues they were asked about how they went about resolving the issue(s) and who they contacted.

No responses were received.

 

19. They were then asked if this was successful in resolving the matter.

Number/percent respondents from social housing tenants (Total 0)

Yes – 0 (0%)  

No – 0 (0%)  

Partially – 0 (0%)

 

20.Respondents that gave additional information said:

No responses were received.

 

21.When respondents were asked if the issue(s they had encountered were at the same property that they still lived in:

Number/percent respondents from social housing tenants (Total 0)

Yes – 0 (0%)  

No – 0 (0%)  

 

Landlords were asked the following questions relating to their rented properties. (If landlords wished to answer the survey as an owner-occupier (or other title), they were required to complete a further survey).

22.Landlords were asked what sort of property they rent out in Arun District:

Number/percent of all landlord respondents (Total 10)

Entire house (let to an individual family or person) – 0 (0%)  

Shared house – 5 (50%)

Self-contained flat (– 5 (50%)

Shared flat (individuals share bathroom and/or kitchen facilities with other people) – 0 (0%)  

Other – 0 (0%)  

 

The responses indicate that half of the landlord respondents say they let out a shared house with four or more occupants and therefore could potentially fall into the  proposed scheme definition if their rented properties are also within the proposed scheme wards.

 

23.Landlords who responded that they rented shared houses or flats were then asked how many people live in the property.

Number/percent of all landlord respondents (Total 5)

2 people – 0 (0%)  

3 people - 0 (0%)  

4 people – 2 (40%)

5 people – 0 (0%)  

6 people – 1 (20%)

7 people – 1 (20%)

More than 7 people – 1 (20%)

 

24.Landlords were asked whether the shared house or flat that they rent out currently had a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence:

Number/percent landlord respondents who have shared houses (Total 4)

Yes – 3 (75%)

No – 1 (25%)

Don’t know – 0 (0%)  

The single “No” response was in regard to a HMO with fewer than five persons, and thus does not currently require a mandatory HMO licence.

 

25.As a landlord renting out a property, have you had problems with any of the following issues? Respondents were able to choose as many as were applicable (and thus the number may be higher than the total of 10 landlord respondents):

Number/percent of all landlord respondents (Total 10)

Damp and disrepair – 1 (10%)

Overcrowding – 0 (0%)  

Malicious damage caused by tenants – 4 (40%)

Rubbish and waste accumulations – 3 (30%)

Antisocial behaviour by tenant – 3 (30%)

Drug use by tenants – 3 (30%)

Other – 1 (10%)

None – 5 (50%)

As five out of the ten respondents (50%) stated that they had no problems, if the remaining figures are divided between the other five respondents, the percentage totals are double to the figures shown, for example the 1 response for damp and disrepair actually becomes 20 percent of the total responses and malicious damage caused by tenants actually becomes 80 percent of the total responses (again allowing for the fact that respondents could tick as many issues as they liked).

 

26.Respondents who replied “other” were able to provide additional information. Although only one answered “other” in the initial question, two respondents completed the follow-up question, and said:

“Poor home keeping – ventilation”

“Rubbish and waste are sometimes left by unknown residents at flats. When a tenant moves usually items are discarded outside and inside a property which we remove.”

 

27.Landlords were asked whether they were a member of a national landlord association?

Number/percent of all landlord respondents (Total 10)

Yes – (7) 70%

No – 3 (30%)

Landlords were asked whether they had heard of the Chichester and Arun Landlord Accreditation Scheme:

Number/percent of all landlord respondents (Total 10)

Yes – 8 (80%)

No – 2 (20%)

Landlords were asked whether they were registered on the Chichester and Arun Landlord Accreditation Scheme:

Number/percent of all landlord respondents (Total 10)

Yes – 2 (20%)

No – 8 (80%)

Landlords were asked whether they live or work in one of the wards proposed for the additional HMO licensing designation? (Total may be more than 10 as some landlords may work and live in a particular ward).

Yes – I live in River ward – 0%

Yes – I work in River ward – 10%

Yes – I live in Hotham ward – 20%

Yes – I work in Hotham ward – 10%

Yes – I live in Marine ward – 0%

Yes – I work in Marine ward - 0%

No – I don’t live or work in any of these – 70%

 

Managing agents/agents were asked the following questions relating to the rented properties the manage or let. (If managing agents wished to answer the survey as a resident, they were required to complete a separate survey).

As only one respondent identified themselves as a managing agent, it has to be assumed that each response where there is a total of more than 1 or there are multiple responses to the same question, means that all apply to that one individual agent, for example in question 31 below, each type of property has a single response and so it has to be deduced that the agent manages at least one of each type of these properties.

 

31.What sort of property do you manage in Arun District?

Number/percent of all managing agent respondents (Total 1)

Entire house () – 1 (25%)

Shared house () – 1 (25%)

Self-contained flat () – 1 (25%)

Shared flat (i) – 1 (25%)

Other – 1 (25%)

Although the figures represent 25% for each category, as it is based on one managing agent respondent, the figure for each sector could also be shown as 100% for each category as the answer to each is a positive one and is unlikely that each type of property is actually represented by an equal 25% share of the agent’s clients’ properties.

 

32.As a managing agent, have you had problems with any of the following issues? Respondents were able to choose as many as were applicable:

Number/percent of all managing agent respondents (Total 1)

Damp and disrepair – 0 (0%)  

Overcrowding – 0 (0%)  

Lack of heating – 0 (0%)  

Lack of basic amenities (bath/shower, kitchen facilities, etc.) – 0 (0%)  

Lack of safety measures – 0 (0%)  

Dirty and poorly maintained communal stairs and hallways – 0 (0%)  

Rubbish and waste accumulations – 0 (0%)  

General lack of management and supervision – 0 (0%)  

Lack of tenancy paperwork – 0 (0%)  

Poor response to requests for repairs – 0 (0%)  

Harassment and/or illegal eviction including pressure to leave without notice – 0 (0%)  

Retaliatory eviction, for example, evicted after complaining of disrepair – 0 (0%)  

Malicious damage by tenants – 0 (0%)  

Drug use by tenants – 0 (0%)  

Antisocial behaviour by tenants – 0 (0%)  

Antisocial behaviour in the district – 1 (100%)

Other – 0 (0%)  

None – 0 (0%)  

Managing agents were asked whether they live or work in one of the wards proposed for the additional HMO licensing designation?

Number/percent of all managing agent respondents (Total 1)

Yes – I work in River ward – 0 (0%)  

Yes – I work in Hotham ward – 1 (50%)

Yes – I work in Marine ward – 1 (50%)

No – I don’t work in any of these – 0 (0%)  

As only one managing agent identified themselves as such, it can be deduced that the overall figures above can be stated as being 100% work in Hotham and Marine wards and the fifty percent split is entirely due to the way the question is posed.

 

Residents owning and living in their own property (“owner-occupier”) were asked the following questions relating to their property.

34.Which of the following applies to you in regard to a property within Arun District that you live in?

Number/percent of all owner-occupier respondents (Total 69)

Freehold house – 52 (75%)

Freehold flat – 1 (1.4%)

Leasehold flat – 14 (20.3%)

Shared ownership house or flat – 1 (1.4%)

Other – 1 (1.4%)  (Other response = “A bungalow”)

Not applicable – 0 (0%)

Owner-occupiers were asked whether they live or work in one of the wards proposed for the additional HMO licensing designation?

Number/percent of all owner-occupier respondents (Total 69)

Yes – I live in River ward – 36 (52.2%)

Yes – I work in River ward – 1 (1.45%)

Yes – I live in Hotham ward – 10 (14.5%)

Yes – I work in Hotham ward – 2 (2.9%)

Yes – I live in Marine ward – 15 (21.7%)

Yes – I work in Marine ward – 2 (2.9%)

No – I don’t live or work in any of these – 8 (11.6%)

 

All respondents were asked a number of questions regarding the proposed additional HMO licensing scheme. The relevant part of the proposed scheme is included in the appendices to the survey results and feedback, where appropriate. All responses are out of 99 - the total number of respondents to the online survey (unless otherwise stated). Where “other” is stated this figure comprises managing agents and those that responded as “other” in the survey (6 respondents in total).

The overall response to each question from 99 respondents is shown below. In addition, the overall figure (99) has been broken down into the categories for each respondent type, and the highest number of positive/negative responses/percent for each response is shown highlighted in bold text (“don’t know”, “neither agree nor disagree” responses have not been highlighted if these are the highest score return for a question).

Note that some figures are rounded up/down to the nearest whole number where there is a percentage with a fraction of a total and so in some cases the totals may amount to just over or just under 100%.

 

36.Respondents were asked, thinking about the housing within Arun District as a whole, how much of a problem were each of the following on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest:

All respondents (99)

Overcrowding

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 14%           7% (1)        20% (2)                   12% (8)                          17% (1)

2 – 17%                               14% (2)        10% (1)                    9% (6)                         33% (2)

3 – 9%                                   7% (1)        10% (1)                   17% (12)                          0% (0)

4 – 13%                                 7% (1)        10% (1)                   15% (10)                        17% (1)

5 More of an issue – 12%         21% (3)          0% (0)                   26% (18)                          0% (0)

Don’t know – 36%                   42% (6)        50% (5)                   21% (15)                        33% (2)

 

Poor external appearance

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 10%          7% (1)          10% (1)                         8% (6)                        17% (1)

2 – 20%                               28% (4)         20% (2)                      16% (11)                      17% (1)

3 – 26%                               28% (4)         40% (4)                      20% (14)                      17% (1)

4 – 15%                                 0% (0)         20% (2)                      22% (15)                      17% (1)

5 More of an issue – 20%        14% (2)           0% (0)                      32% (22)                      33% (2)

Don’t know – 8%                     21% (3)         10% (1)                         1% (1)                          0% (0)

 

Untidy gardens/yards

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue –  6%          7% (1)           10% (1)                       7% (5)                           0% (0)

2 – 22%                             28% (4)           10% (1)                     16% (11)                       33% (2)

3 – 30%                             28% (4)           50% (5)                      26% (18)                       17% (1)

4 – 19%                               0% (0)           20% (2)                     24% (16)                       33% (2)

5 More of an issue – 14%      14% (2)              0% (0)                     26% (18)                       17% (1)

Don’t know – 8%                   21% (3)           10% (1)                       1% (1)                           0% (0)

 

Property disrepair

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 8%            7% (1)          0% (0)                          7% (5)                        17% (1)

2 – 26%                              28% (4)          40% (4)                      20% (14)                      17% (1)

3 – 27%                              21% (3)          30% (3)                      21% (15)                      34% (2)

4 – 14%                                7% (1)          10% (1)                      23% (16)                      17% (1)

5 More of an issue – 17%        14% (2)          10% (1)                      26% (18)                      17% (1)

Don’t know – 8%                    21% (3)          10% (1)                         1% (1)                          0% (0)

 

Flytipping

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 7%            7% (1)          10% (1)                         10% (7)                        0% (0)

2 – 16%                              35% (5)           0% (0)                         11% (8)                      17% (1)

3 – 23%                              14% (2)          10% (1)                         17% (12)                  50% (3)

4 – 12%                                0% (0)          20% (1)                         29% (20)                      0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 30%        21% (3)          40% (4)                         26% (18)                    33% (2)

Don’t know – 12%                  21% (3)          20% (2)                          6% (4)                        0% (0)

 

Refuse disposal

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 9%           21% (3)           0% (0)                      16% (11)                         0% (0)

2 – 27%                               14% (2)         30% (3)                     13% (9)                         50% (3)

3 – 19%                                 7% (1)         30% (3)                    20% (14)                       17% (1)

4 – 20%                                 14% (2)         20% (2)                      29% (20)                       17% (1)

5 More of an issue – 18%         21% (3)        10% (1)                     22% (14)                       17% (1)

Don’t know – 8%                       21% (3)         10% (1)                       1% (1)                           0% (0)

 

Drugs

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 5%             7% (1)         10% (1)                         4% (3)                          0% (0)

2 – 15%                                 14% (2)         20% (2)                         9% (6)                        17% (1)

3 – 20%                                 14% (2)         20% (2)                      15% (10)                      33% (2)

4 – 11%                                   7% (1)         20% (2)                      16% (11)                        0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 32%         21% (3)        10% (1)                      45% (31)                      50% (3)

Don’t know – 17%                   35% (5)         20% (2)                      12% (8)                          0% (0)

 

Antisocial behaviour

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 7%          14% (2)          10% (1)                          7% (5)                        0% (0)

2 – 14%                                14% (2)          10% (1)                         14% (10)                    17% (1)

3 – 21%                                14% (2)          20% (2)                         17% (12)                   33% (2)

4 – 18%                                14% (2)          40% (4)                        20% (14)                     0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 27%        21% (3)            0% (0)                        36% (25)                    50% (3)

Don’t know – 11%                  21% (3)          20% (2)                          4% (3)                        0% (0)

 

37.Respondents were then asked, thinking about the housing within the proposed additional HMO licensing scheme wards, how much of a problem were each of the following on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest:

River ward, Littlehampton

All respondents (99)

Overcrowding

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 9%              7% (1)       10% (1)                     4% (3)                          17% (1)

2 – 16%                                14% (2)        10% (1)                      6% (4)                          33% (2)

3 – 5%                                    0% (0)        10% (1)                    10% (7)                            0% (0)

4 – 8%                                    7% (1)        10% (1)                    16% (11)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 9%              7% (1)        0% (0)                    14% (10)                        17% (1)

Don’t know – 52%                    64% (9)        60% (6)                    49% (34)                        33% (2)

 

Poor external appearance

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 12%            7% (1)        20% (2)                         4% (3)                         17% (1)

2 – 11%                                21% (3)         0% (0)                        7% (5)                         17% (1)

3 – 22%                                  7% (1)        40% (4)                      25% (17)                       17% (1)

4 – 5%                                    0% (0)         0% (0)                      19% (13)                         0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 12%            0% (0)        0% (0)                      14% (10)                       33% (2)

Don’t know – 38%                    64% (9)        40% (4)                      30% (21)                      17% (1)

 

Untidy gardens/yards

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 5%               7% (1)       10% (1)                        4% (3)                          0% (0)

2 – 21%                                 28% (4)       10% (1)                      12% (8)                        33% (2)

3 – 14%                                   0% (0)       20% (2)                      20% (14)                      17% (1)

4 – 10%                                   0% (0)       20% (2)                      19% (13)                        0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 16%            0% (0)        0% (0)                      14% (10)                      50% (3)

Don’t know – 34%                     64% (9)       40% (4)                      30% (21)                        0% (0)

 

Property disrepair

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 11%            7% (1)        10% (1)                         4% (3)                        17% (1)

2 – 17%                                14% (2)        30% (3)                        9% ( 6)                       17% (1)

3 – 12%                                  0% (0)        10% (1)                      20% (14)                      17% (1)

4 – 10%                                14% (2)        10% (1)                      16% ( 11)                       0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 12%            0% (0)        0% (0)                      16% (11)                      33% (2)

Don’t know – 39%                    64% (9)        40% (4)                      35% (24)                      17% (1)

 

Flytipping

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 6%              7% (1)        10% (1)                          7% (5)                        0% (0)

2 – 16%                                21% (3)         0% (0)                          9% (6)                      33% (2)

3 – 9%                                    7% (1)         0% (0)                         10% (7)                    17% (1)

4 – 7%                                    0% (0)        10% (1)                        19% (13)                   0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 20%            0% (0)       30% (3)                        17% (12)                  33% (2)

Don’t know – 42%                    64% (9)        50% (5)                        38% (26)                   17% (1)

 

Refuse disposal

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 6%             7% (1)         10% (1)                         6% (4)                         0% (0)

2 – 21%                               21% (3)          0% (0)                         12% (8)                      50% (3)

3 – 6%                                   0% (0)         10% (1)                       14% (10)                     0% (0)

4 – 14%                                   0% (0)         20% (2)                        20% (14)                   17% (1)

5 More of an issue – 14%           7% (1)        20% (2)                        13% (9)                      17% (1)

Don’t know – 39%                   64% (9)         40% (4)                        35% (24)                   17% (1)

 

Drugs

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 7%             7% (1)         20% (20)                       3% (2)                          0% (0)

2 – 8%                                      0% (0)         10% (10)                       7% (5)                        17% (1)

3 – 9%                                    14% (2)          0% (0)                        7% (5)                       17% (1)

4 – 11%                                14% (2)          0% (0)                      13% (9)                        17% (1)

5 More of an issue – 26%           0% (0)        20% (20)                    32% (22)                      50% (3)

Don’t know – 38%                   64% (9)         50% (50)                    38% (26)                        0% (0)

 

Antisocial behaviour

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 6%             7% (1)         10% (1)                          6% (4)                        0% (0)

2 – 12%                                 14% (2)         10% (1)                          7% (5)                      17% (1)

3 – 15%                                   0% (0)         20% (2)                          6% (4)                      33% (2)

4 – 9%                                    21% (3)           0% (0)                         14% (10)                      0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 22%           0% (0)        10% (1)                         30% (21)                    50% (3)

Don’t know – 36%                   57% (8)         50% (5)                         36% (25)                      0% (0)

 

Hotham ward, Bognor Regis

All respondents (99)

Overcrowding

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 10%             7% (1)      10% (1)                      8% (6)                          17% (1)

2 – 8%                                   14% (2)        0% (0)                      3% (2)                          17% (1)

3 – 4%                                     0% (0)       10% (1)                      6% (4)                            0% (0)

4 – 2%                                     7% (1)        0% (0)                      3% (2)                            0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 5%               0% (0)      10% (1)                    10% (7)                            0% (0)

Don’t know – 69%                     71% (10)    70% (7)                    70% (48)                        66% (4)

 

Poor external appearance

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 10%            7% (1)        10% (1)                       7% (5)                        17% (1)

2 – 11%                                14% (2)        10% (1)                        4% (3)                        17% (1)

3 – 7%                                    7% (1)        10% (1)                        9% (6)                          0% (0)

4 – 4%                                    0% (0)        10% (1)                        7% (5)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 6   %          0% (0)         0% (0)                        9% (6)                        17% (1)

Don’t know – 61%                  71% (10)        60% (60)                    64% (44)                     50% (3)

 

Untidy gardens/yards

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 6%               7% (1)       10% (1)                        7% (5)                          0% (0)

2 – 17%                                 21% (3)       10% (1)                        4% (3)                        33% (2)

3 – 7%                                     0% (0)       20% (2)                      10% (7)                          0% (0)

4 – 2%                                     0% (0)        0% (0)                        7% (5)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 6%              0% (0)        0% (0)                        7% (5)                        17% (1)

Don’t know – 61%                 71.4% (10)     60% (60)                    64% (44)                      50% (3)

 

Property disrepair

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 10%            7% (1)        10% (1)                         7% (5)                        17% (1)

2 – 11%                                14% (2)        10% (1)                        4% (3)                        17% (1)

3 – 6%                                    7% (1)        10% (1)                        7% (5)                          0% (0)

4 – 4%                                    0% (0)        10% (1)                        7% (5)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 7%             0% (0)         0% (0)                      10% (7)                        17% (1)

Don’t know – 62%                   72% (10)       60% (60)                    64% (44)                      50% (3)

 

Flytipping

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 6%               7% (1)       10% (1)                        7% (5)                           0% (0)

2 – 13%                                 14% (2)      20% (2)                        1% (1)                         17% (1)

3 – 9%                                     7% (1)        0% (0)                      12% (8)                       17% (1)

4 – 4%                                     0% (0)       10% (1)                         6% (4)                        0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 2%               0% (0)       0% (0)                          7% (5)                        0% (0)

Don’t know – 84%                     72% (10)    60% (6)                        66% (46)                    67% (4)

 

Refuse disposal

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 8%            14% (2)        10% (1)                          7% (5)                        0% (0)

2 – 16%                                14% (2)        10% (1)                          7% (5)                      33% (2)

3 – 5%                                    0%  (0)       10% (1)                       10% (7)                       0% (0)

4 – 4%                                        0% (0)       10% (1)                          4% (3)                        0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 2%              0% (0)        0% (0)                          9% (6)                       0% (0)

Don’t know – 66%                     72% (10)     60% (6)                        64% (43)                   67% (4)

 

Drugs

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 6%              7% (1)        10% (1)                         6% (4)                          0% (0)

2 – 9%                                       7%  (1)       10% (1)                         3% (2)                        17% (1)

3 – 12%                                  14%  (2)       10% (1)                        6% (4)                       17% (1)

4 – 9%                                      7% (1)       10% (1)                        3% (2)                        17% (1)

5 More of an issue  – 3%              0%  (0)        0% (0)                      13% (9)                          0% (0)

Don’t know – 61%                    64%  (9)       60% (6)                      70% (48)                      50% (3)

 

Antisocial behaviour

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 5%            14% (2)         0% (0)                         6% (4)                         0% (0)

2 – 9%                                       7% (1)        10% (1)                         3% (2)                       17% (1)

3 – 12%                                    0% (0)        20% (2)                       12% (8)                     17% (1)

4 – 7%                                     14% (2)        10% (1)                         3% (2)                         0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 7%               0% (0)         0% (0)                         12% (8)                     17% (1)

Don’t know – 60%                    64% (9)        60% (6)                         64% (45)                    50% (3)

 

Marine ward, Bognor Regis

All respondents (99)

Overcrowding

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 11%             7% (1)      10% (1)                     9% (6)                          17% (1)

2 – 11%                                 14% (2)      10% (1)                      4% (3)                          17% (1)

3 - 9%                                    28% (4)      0% (0)                       9% (6)                            0% (0)

4 – 6%                                     7% (1)      10% (1)                      6% (4)                            0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 6%               7% (1)       0% (0)                    16% (11)                          0% (0)

Don’t know – 57%                     36% (5)       70% (7)                    56% (39)                        66% (4)

 

Poor external appearance

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 10%            7% (1)        10% (1)                         7% (5)                        17% (1)

2 – 17%                                36% (5)        10% (1)                        6% (4)                        17% (1)

3 – 9%                                  14% (2)        10% (1)                      12% (8)                          0% (0)

4 – 14%                                  7% (1)        10% (1)                        7% (5)                        33% (2)

5 More of an issue – 6%              7% (1)        0% (0)                      16% (11)                        0% (0)

Don’t know – 43%                    28%  (4)       60% (6)                      52% (36)                     33% (2)

 

Untidy gardens/yards

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 12%           14% (2)       10% (1)                        9% (6)                        17% (1)

2 – 15%                                 29% (4)       10% (1)                        4% (3)                        17% (1)

3 – 21%                                 21% (3)       20% (2)                      12% (8)                        33% (2)

4 – 2%                                     0% (0)        0% (0)                        9% (6)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 5%              7% (1)        0% (0)                      14% (10)                        0% (0)

Don’t know – 44%                     29% (4)       60% (6)                      52% (36)                     33% (2)

 

Property disrepair

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 12%           14% (2)       10% (1)                         7% (5)                        17% (1)

2 – 13%                                 21% (3)       10% (1)                        6% (4)                        17% (1)

3 – 10%                                 21% (3)       10% (1)                      10% (7)                          0% (0)

4 – 5%                                     0% (0)       10% (1)                        9% (6)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 16%          14% (2)        0% (0)                      16% (11)                      33% (2)

Don’t know – 44%                     29% (4)       60% (6)                      52% (36)                      33% (2)

 

Flytipping

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 13%         14% (2)         10% (1)                      12% (8)                         17% (1)

2 – 13%                                21% (3)        10% (1)                         3% (2)                       17% (1)

3 – 8%                                  14% (2)        10% (1)                         9% (6)                       0% (0)

4 – 4%                                    0%  (0)       10% (1)                         7% (5)                        0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 7%            14% (2)        0% (0)                       16% (11)                     0% (0)

Don’t know – 55%                    36% (5)        60% (6)                        54% (37)                     66% (4)

 

Refuse disposal

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 13%           14% (2)       10% (1)                        10% (7)                      17% (1)

2 – 17%                                 36% (5)       10% (1)                          7% (5)                      17% (1)

3 – 7%                                     7% (1)      10% (1)                       12% (8)                       0% (0)

4 – 6%                                        7% (1)      10% (1)                          7% (5)                        0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 4%               7%            (1)       0% (0)                        10% (7)                        0% (0)

Don’t know – 53%                     29% (4)       60% (6)                        54% (37)                   66% (4)

 

Drugs

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 12%           14% (2)        10% (1)                         6% (4)                        17% (1)

2 – 13%                                21% (3)         10% (1)                         3% (2)                        17% (1)

3 – 16%                                 21% (3)          0% (0)                      10% (7)                     33% (2)

4 – 10%                                14% (2)         20% (2)                        6% (4)                          0% (0)

5 More of an issue – 6%              7% (1)          0% (0)                      19% (13)                        0% (0)

Don’t know – 42%                   21% (3)         60% (6)                      56% (39)                      33% (2)

 

Antisocial behaviour

All respondents (99)     Tenants (14)    Landlords (10)  Owner-occupiers (69) Others (6)

1 Less of an issue – 10%           14% (2)        0% (0)                         9% (6)                       17% (1)

2 – 15%                                   29% (4)      10% (1)                         4% (3)                       17% (1)

3 – 9%                                        7% (1)      20% (2)                         9% (6)                         0% (0)

4 – 17%                                   14% (2)      10% (1)                        10% (7)                       33% (2)

5 More of an issue – 5%              7% (1)       0% (0)                        15% (10)                       0% (0)

Don’t know – 44%                     29% (4)      60% (6)                        54% (37)                    33% (2)

38.Respondents were asked, based on their experience or opinion, whether they thought that private landlords within the district maintain their properties to a good standard?

Number/percent of respondents:

“Yes” response:

All respondents (99) - 24 (23.5%)

Tenants (14) – 4 (28.8%)

Landlords (10) – 8 (80%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 8 (11.6%)

Other (6) – 0 (0%)

“No” response:

All respondents (99) - 55 (55%)  

Tenants (14) – 5 (35.7%)

Landlords (10) – 1 (10%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 45 (65.2%)

(Other (6) – 3 (50%)

“Don’t know” response:

All respondents (99) - 21 (21.4%)

Tenants (14) – 5 (35.7%)

Landlords (10) – 1 (10%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 16 (23.2%)

Other (6) – 3 (50%)

 

If a respondent answered “no” to this question they were able to provide additional details.

Tenant responses

“We are lucky that our own property at XXXXX Court,  is fairly well maintained,  but other HMO, in our area look very poor externally. They may have overflowing bins, accumulation of discarded items such as settees in external areas.”

Properties look in poor condition”

“Houses look ill-kept with visible damage to exterior.”

“I only know about my block of flats.  There is no cleaning or maintenance of the communal areas.  The internal lighting has had a problem with the timeswitch for about two years.  The front door jams or the lock doesn't secure properly at times.  No-one from landlords or agents comes near save for annual inspections.”

“I have moved around littkehampton [sic] and i have reason to dispute tge [sic]standards of kandlords [sic] past and present in various places. Mine is quite good, but i appreciate that more works need doing at a greater cost to many properties than are possible I imagine. Some local landlords are reprehensible.”

 

Landlord responses

“I have been into various properties where the conditions are sub standard.”

“Gardens tend to be untidy often with refuse outside.  There is insufficient space for wheelie bins and car parking.”

“There are many converted properties in the area that house multiple occupants, the buildings are in disrepair, rubbish is frequent, drinking on the street in these areas is also a problem.”

“Don’t think they get repairs done.”

Drive down XXXXXXX Avenue where pretty much every house is an HMO or flats and look at the state of them.”

“Look at XXXXXXXX, Another HMO eyesore.”

“Damp, decoration, repairs”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“Poorly fitting windows, damp and mould, poor external appearance, rubbish left”

“Some, not all of the flats in local area look run down on the exterior with overgrown gardens and rubbish in sight (more than weekly waste).“

“Why would they? They want to make money only.”

“Tenants take no responsibilty. Homeowners have to endure anti-social behaviour on behalf of landlords. Landlords need to be made vicariously liable and own their tenants behaviour.”

“Several properties with rubbish dumped in the front yard. Doors and windows in disrepair.”

“experience of HMO at XXXX Road, always rubbish out front and back, house in dis repair and landlord not interested”

Lots clearly don't care what their properties look like”

“Too many sub lettings and multiple bins outside houses”

“Exterior paintwork often in poor standard, flytipping of rubbish in the gardens by tenants goes untreated.”

“Untidy, disrepair, rubbish and discarded furniture.”

“They all do the bare minimum.”

“HMO opposite has not been decorated on the outside for many years, the front garden is a mess as is the side passage with slight viewing access to garden which seems to be full of rubbish. Dread to think about the inside as private pest control teams visit regularly for various issues including bed bugs when mattresses are removed.  Male tenant from bottom right flat as you look at the front urinates in right hand alcove in public view as do his male visitors.”

“They don't care about property only cara [sic] about profit”

“One house in the next street to where I live was "over-let" (I checked this with the estate agent when it was finally sold) and it was in an appalling state of repair. Now its very nice, but it seems it has been easy for some landlords to behave in a very irresponsible way. Have also read of problems in local paper.”

“In our street alone we have at least four HMOs. All of them are untidy and have constant visits from the police, ambulance and council.”

“XXXXXX IS EXAMPLE. ASBESTOS AT ROOF LEVEL. Inadequate roof guttering and narrow down pipes lead to blockages causing overflow onto brickwork and communal entrance @ground floor level. Consequently most of 14 flats have damp & mould internally. Managing Agents ignored previous requests stating building regulations.. built in 1960’s-70’s/ Mix of mostly renters fear complaining in case of eviction notice. One neighbour found impossible to get hold of Letting Agent. Tier of command is ‘buck-passing’ on maintenance issues.Ie renter only supposed to contact Letting Agent who may,,,eventually contact leaseholder.. who may, or may not contact Managing Agents. Free holder of block reaps regards but is ghostly & unknown!!”

“Mainly observational. You can see the poorly maintained properties in my area.”

“I often see rental accommodation buildings in Bognor in complete decay.”

“They don't care what. Type of tenants they have.”

“Judging by the fridge/freezer simply dumped onto the pavement (nearby) and kicked about. Then the placing of unwanted and left over items from the tenancy also on the kerb with a simple sign saying "free to collect", I think this answers everything.”

“The properties show a lack of investment in maintenance, properties look 'run down' and if repairs are made they can be a botch job.”

“Unkempt front gardens with rubbish strewn. External areas badly maintained.”

“homes in the area I reside have issues with damp, mould.”

“Once they put tenants in their properties they do not maintain them.”

“External appearance appears poor.”

“The neighbour's house was unsightly from the outside, as well as unkempt hedges and gardens.”

“Regarding my immediate HMO’s, landlords don’t ever attend property, most don’t even live locally.”

“Poor external maintenance and upkeep.”

“I am an owner occupier and also a landlord owner for a residential property in Hotham. There is a great deal of scruffy property in the area, some of which is rental property, some of which may be privately owned. There are also rental properties that are kept neat and tidy.”

“I don’t have personal experience of this area but in the experience I do have of landlords they are often absent and those that are not absent have little interest or incentive to maintain their properties to a good standard and are only interested in the income they can generate.”

“My mother privately rents a flat in river ward which is not really fit for habitation. Windows are draughty and blown, multiple plug sockets do not work, holes in ceiling, no central or storage heaters, no security on front door... Private landlord does not want to know, or spend any money to improve property.”

“The outside area of my property is a builders yard not quite the seating area as sold”

“Many of the landlords have a large 'portfolio' of properties. It seems they only care about the income from the property and not the property itself. The same applies to Estate Agents, they do not do periodic checks and if there is a problem they sweep it under the carpet!!”

“No. 45 next to us is privately owned and in a very poor state of repair and has a pile of mixed refuse in the rear garden. The window in the front door was smashed last year and hasn't been replaced, the front garden is litter strewn and overgrown. We understand from tenants that the kitchen and toilet are in a very poor and unhygienic state. No 41 is operated by XXXXXX and is in a very poor state of repair. It is currently let out to a family with young children for £700 a week and yet no external work has been carried out since we have lived at our current address. Internally, flooring and wall surfaces are dirty and there are substantial gaps between floorboards and skirting. some rooms are damp. There is a hazardous brick wall between this property and no 39 which is in danger of collapse. Many other properties in this road are badly affected by damp.” 

“I have seen multiple rented properties with shabby exteriors, unkept gardens and junk left in the gardens.”

“I have heard very bad things about properties in Bayford Road and on South Terrace/seafront area, properties in disrepair, landlords who do not care. Some obviously privately rented properties in the area look in very poor repair, with rubbish piled outside them for years.”

“Generally poor maintenance of fronts of premises including front gardens used to store refuse bins. One 'studio flat' I visited was poorly decorated the shower was poorly maintained and heating radiator was falling off the wall and leaking. There is no facility to dispose of obsolete white goods, mattresses, beds and other items of furniture so they end up in the front gardens, or left on the pathway both rear and front of the premises. In order to answer this question fully I would need access to all rented property in the River Ward.”

“Houses let in state of disrepair.  Gardens neglected. One house that I have personally seen, the interior is damp and mouldy, lighting neglected and skirting boards rotted and removed leaving holes. Roof tiles missing resulting in birds nesting in roof.  Bins left on the pavement and overflowing.”

 

 “Other” respondent responses

“Many of the HMOs I see daily are in the queen street area Arundel Road. They are always unkempt with furniture and waste constantly in front gardens despite continuous complaints nothing is every addressed properly. Tenents [sic] move in and out on a great frequency and just dump their furniture on the street or in the garden. This then gradually gets dragged around the streets and broken up and strewn around making the whole area look like a dump. This is never addressed and despite landlords being required to ensure they manage this they never do and the council does nothing. If you phone and complain the council just send a van and pick up the dumped fridge or the like at the taxpayers expense. This is not a solution the landlords need to be held to account and closed down if they dont manage the property properly within the government requirements.”

“Houses with tenants are scruffy and rundown. The gardens and surrounding areas are full of rubbish. The local area in river ward feels unsafe, mainly due to residents of HMOs.”

“They don't do routine maintenance. They don't fix things very quickly.”

 

39.Respondents were asked whether they thought that properties within River ward, Littlehampton and Hotham and Marine wards in Bognor Regis are better or more poorly maintained than those within the district as a whole?

Number/percent of respondents:

“Better maintained” response:

All respondents (99) – 9 (9%)

Tenants (14) – 1 (7.1%)

Landlords (10) – 2 (20%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 4 (5.8%)

Other (6) – 1 (16.6%)

“More poorly maintained” response:

All respondents (99) – 29 (29.6%)

Tenants (14) – 4 (28.5%)

Landlords (10) – 0 (0%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 30 (43.4%)

Other (6) – 3 (50%)

“Don’t know” response:

All respondents (99) – 61 (61.2%)

Tenants (14) – 9 (64.2%)

Landlords – 8 (80%)

Owner-occupiers (69) 35 (50.7%)

Other (6) – 2 (33.3%)

 

40.Respondents were asked whether they thought that private landlords act responsibly in letting, managing and maintaining their properties within the district?

Number/percent of respondents:

“Yes” response:

All respondents (99) – 23.5%

Tenants (14) – 3 (21.4%)

Landlords (10) – 8 (80%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 9 (13%)

Other (6) – 3 (50%)

“No” response:

All respondents (99) – 50%

Tenants (14) – 2 (14.2%)

Landlords (10) – 1 (10%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 44 (64%)

Other (6) – 2 (33.3%)

“Don’t know” response:

All respondents (99) – 26.5%

Tenants (14) –  9 (64%)

Landlords (10) – 1 (10%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 16 (23%)

Other (6) – 1 (16.6%)

 

If a respondent answered “no” to this question they were able to provide additional details. These are shown below:

Tenant responses

“See my answer to question 22, regarding items left for weeks in front gardens,  overflowing bins etc.”

“Properties not looked after in general.”

 

Landlord responses

“I have seen evidence of overcrowding, unlicensed houses, greedy landlords taking advantage.

 

Owner-occupier responses

“Overcrowding and poor state of repair.”

“Looking at the local examples as previously mentioned.”

“Don’t think they get repairs done.”

“The owner of XXXXX has on several occasions failed to provide sufficient bins for all the residents which has resulted in waste being left strewn on the pavement for the elderly to negotiate. On one occasion, they left a load of asbestos sheets kerbside for over a week.”

“In most instances, the landlord just wants the money. They do not care what the residents who have invested into their home are left to look at.”

“Not contactable, taking a long time to respond to urgent needs.”

“Private landlords in HMO properties just try to squeeze in as many lets as they can in single properties this brings the wrong sort of residents into the town causes an imbalance and spoils the town driving people away. Additional liucensing [sic] will only help if it reduces the number of HMO's there should be no more we have too many. Landlords of non HMO properties are not an issue.”

“They abuse the system taking in tax payer money and don’t provide a good service.”

“By the number of planning applications, all they want is income. Whole properties need to be taxed differently again.”

“Local residents tell me that management agencies for larger rented properties are very slow to respond to residents concerns.”

“The landlord of the HMO in our road is involved in a lot of the issues.”

“Judging by the outside of most of the HMO properties, I would say they don't care.”

“The appearance is appalling with no pride taken.”

“As previously answered - HMO's are largely blighting our neighbourhoods, and causing anti-social issues.”

“As soon as the landlords take over a property they usually become an eyesore and often a hub for drug use and antisocial behaviour.”

“In my experience the landlords show no interest until they stop receiving the rent money or they find out the property is being abused / damaged. XXXXX Road, XXXX Road, XXX road.”

“In our case the Landlord employed a Russian lady to supply tenants and manage the flats doing no quality repairs or work, just bodging.”

“They don't care.”

“Some landlords will always try and get away with poor standards but its not fair to say that all are like that. There needs to be a much better system of accountability, checking and punishment for those who break what should be the Law.”

“One landlord on our street at number XXXXX Road lets anyone stay there. In the past week we’ve had a potential rapper [sic], an assault over a stolen mobile phone and a tenant watching children in their garden.”

“Exemplified in my answer at Q.14. (“XXXXXX IS EXAMPLE. ASBESTOS AT ROOF LEVEL. Inadequate roof guttering and narrow down pipes lead to blockages causing overflow onto brickwork and communal entrance @ground floor level. Consequently most of 14 flats have damp & mould internally. Managing Agents ignored previous requests stating building regulations.. built in 1960’s-70’s/ Mix of mostly renters fear complaining in case of eviction notice. One neighbour found impossible to get hold of Letting Agent. Tier of command is ‘buck-passing’ on maintenance issues.Ie renter only supposed to contact Letting AGent who may,,,eventually contact leaseholder.. who may, or may not contact Managing Agents. Free holder of block reaps regards but is ghostly & unknown!!”). Tardy buck passing. Higher charges for poor so-called repairs  made over past 2 years and no remediation of bigger issue of overflowing narrow gutterings, blocking of narrow down pipes and no inspection for damp and mould internally of flats -14 .. all 1 bedroom. 4 flats at top level are studio flats. 3 floor Brick exterior block but built on concrete in 1960’s 70’s.  This would not be allowed in Germany.”

“Difficult to answer the question as I am sure the majority of private landlords maintain their properties adequately. However there is clear observational evidence that a minority do not.

Within XXXXX Rd I feel that once let the landlord has difficulty in evicting unsuitable tenants due to the length of court proceedings & bailiffs arriving. With planning permission in place on all HMOs , local residents being consulted, residents would feel more involved & Arun Council could maintain partnership working with landlords to the satisfaction of local communities.”

“Lots of anti social tenants and lots of tenants in same house.”

“See answer to question 15. Also, seeing the roof on a building opposite me disintegrate slowly and with the estate agents informed but not bothered, and with another property on the street (certainly until recently) having water running down the inside walls regularly, I think I am justified.”

“Many landlords do act responsibly but those that have not tend to stand out more and overshadow the good ones. there are many examples of poorly maintained HMO's with problem tenants around and they tend to dominate opinion. The good ones tend to be unnoticed.”

“The problem is lack of knowledge who is actually residing in this properties.”

“I am sure some do but I feel many are absent/ living away landlords.”

“Little concern for anti social behaviour,  drug abuse and property maintenance.”

“Assume that no tenants' references are taken as to who is allowed to live there.”

Refer to previous answer” (“Regarding my immediate HMO’s, landlords don’t ever attend property, most don’t even live locally.”)

“neighbors [sic] landlord left tenant without heating for 6 weeks in middle of winter, garden wall fell down and landlord took 2 years to rectify.”

“Outside houses (front ‘gardens/yard full of rubbish. Window sills in disrepair, loud music”

“It is a mixed picture. Many landlords do maintain the properties well, but within Hotham there seem to be a large number who do not.”

“As far as I know or can tell some do but most don’t. If they did there would not be the problem there is and which you are trying to do something about. I think this is a national problem.”

“Answered above - no responsibility for elderly or otherwise) tenants who end up spending more on heating as property windows and doors etc are not up to an economical standard.”

“many private landlords have never visited nor maintained their property in our area, I cannot comment on other areas.”

“Poor or non existent maintenance, overcrowding, tolerance of anti social behaviour amongst tenants. No support provided to tenants with severe substance abuse and mental health needs.(This is, of course, also a reflection of the Authorities placing people in this unsupervised and unmonitored provision.)”

“In my experience I have been disturbed by a HMO tenant being arrested, only to have that tenant come back and cause the same issues in the same HMO.  This means the landlords are not considering the impact problem tenants may have on the surrounding residents.  I feel there is a real issue with landlords concentrating problem tenants in the same building.”

“Landlords are allowing people with clear drug and alcohol-related problems to rent their properties with no regard for the surrounding areas.”

“See above.  This is exploitation of people in difficulties and a money making exercise at the expense of the local authority.”

41.Respondents were asked whether they thought that landlords of properties within River ward, Littlehampton and Hotham and Marine wards in Bognor Regis are better or worse at managing and maintaining their properties than those within the district as a whole?

Number/percent of respondents:

“Better at managing their properties” responses:

All respondents (99) – 9 (9.2%)

Tenants (14) – 1 (7.1%)

Landlords (10) – 2 (20%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 4 (5.8%)

Others (6) – 1 (16.6%)

“Worse at managing their properties” responses:

All respondents (99) – 29 (29.6%)

Tenants (14) – 4 (28.5%)

Landlords (10) – 0 (0%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 30 (43.4%)

Others (6) – 3 (50%)

“Don’t know” responses:

All respondents (99) – 61 (61.2%)

Tenants (14) – 9 (64.2%)

Landlords (10) – 8 (80%)

Owner-occupiers (69) – 35 (50.7%)

Others (6) – 2 (33.3%)

 

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed that the proposed licence scheme locations are appropriate. Maps of the three proposed scheme wards can be found in Appendix 2.

All respondents (99)      

All respondents (99) Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

River ward

Strongly agree                    31.6% (32)    7.1% (1)         20% (2)          40.5% (28)          0% (0)

Agree                                 12.2% (12)     14.2% (2)       10% (1)          13% (9)               0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree        8.2% (8)       7.1% (1)         0% (0)            8.7% (6)         16.6% (1)

Disagree                                 6.1%  (6)       7.1% (1)         20% (2)          2.9% (2)         16.6% (1)

Strongly disagree                25.5% (25)     21.3% (3)      40% (4)          21.7% (15)       50% (3)

Don’t know                            16.3% (16)     42.8 % (6)      10% (1)          13% (9)          16.6% (1)

           

Hotham ward

Strongly agree                     23.5% (23)    14.2% (2)       20% (2)          29% (20)             0% (0)

Agree                                    11.2% (11)    14.2% (2)       10% (1)          13% (9)               0% (0)

Neither agree/ disagree        9.2% (9)        7.1% (1)         0% (0)        8.7% (6)          16.6% (1)

Disagree                                  4.1% (4)         7.1% (1)       10% (1)          1.4% (1)         16.6% (1)

Strongly disagree                14.3% (14)    14.2% (2)       20% (2)          14% (10)        16.6% (1)

Don’t know                          37.8% (38)    42.8% (6)       40% (4)          33.3% (23)        50% (3)

 

Marine ward

Strongly agree                    26.5% (27)      7.1% (1)       20% (2)          33.3% (23)          0% (0)

Agree                                  12.2%            (12)    14.2% (2)       10% (1)          13% (9)               0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree       11.2% (11)    28.4% (4)         0% (0)          10% (7)          16.6% (1)

Disagree                               4.1% (4)         7.1% (1)       10% (1)          1.4% (1)         16.6% (1)

Strongly disagree               17.3% (17)       7.1% (1)       20% (2)          18.8% (1)       16.6% (1)

Don’t know                          28.6% (29)    35.5% (5)       40% (4)          23% (16)           50% (3)

 

Specific responses provided were requested to the last question, and the following responses were received:

Tenant responses

“HMO's cause overcrowding and issues with parking. I am unable to find a parking space due to HMO's down stocker Road.”

“I live in a very densely populated area within Marine ward. Many houses which were built as single family homes, have now been converted into several flats. Evidence would suggest this leads to extra rubbish, fly tipping   parking issues and anti socal behaviour. Despite this, a former nursing home at XXXXXXX, Bognor Regis, located next to our building,  comprising 4 former large Victorian Houses, is being converted into 38 bedsits. The planning application was refused back in 2020, but allowed on appeal. An independent inspector ludicrously reported that in his opinion, cramming 38 more households into an already overcrowded area, would have no significant impact on issues such as anti social behaviour  and parking problems. I can only think that the inspector must have visited the are during the day, when most people are out at work, and was therefore unable to make a realistic assessment.”

“I don't feel that supplying homes of HMO will be properly monitored and are only for landlords profits.”

“The proposed licensing scheme would be appropriate in addressing concerns of inadequate HMO housing and the consulation [sic] provides good reasoning for this that I agree with.”

“The problems of anti social behaviours and poorly kept properties are or were mainly at council run housing  areas where there seems to be lack of respect for the area in general leading to an area looking run down and shabby but this has been getting better recently as money has been invested in council run properties , private landlords are beginning to follow it appears.”

“The area is already extremely neglected and host to a number of anti social behaviours. The proximity to the town centre and it's public houses contributes to alcohol related crime and disorder. This is not helped by the lack of police presence. The high street is already dilapidated and often an intimidating place, due to the large presence of homeless persons and inhabitants of the many hostels and mental health establishments in the area, who circulate the pubs and empty shops. The proposal does not appear to give consideration to the families living in the Area, of which there are many, given the number of schools in the immediate and surrounding areas.”

“I am not sure what the proposals will accomplish, having a lifetime experience of landlords and tenancies, and the degree of variable capacity to manage them. I question strongly new and voracious companies and agencies and private specukative [sic] landlords as being any better. I suspect we will find the opposite.”

“There are more and more pressures being put on landlords and the private sector. there is a shortage of housing and rentals for students and non students. With increased mortgage rates landlords are already in a position where they either sell or continue renting at a loss. putting more restrictions in will not attract people to invest in the area- many landlords will buy empty or run down properties and upgrade them. introducing this will have an affect [sic] on the number of properties available for people who cannot afford to rent smaller properties in the private sector that are more expensive.

Introducing this will just stop the growth. Why do you not visit the properties that are in disrepair and ensure landlords/ agents are looking after the properties that are currently HMOs. Put in anti social behaviour plans, your agents are not out in the field enough - if you don't want these issues you need to be out in the wards, speaking to people and looking at the rubbish build up etc. and getting it sorted in by putting orders in place and not letting tenants, agents or landlords get away with it- its about managing the properties and behaviours of people - putting in the licencing will reduce the number of HMOs but will not deal with all the other issues you state in this survey. “

 

Landlord responses

“The principle of improving the standard of housing is a good one but the costs are extreme.  At a time when costs are increasing for landlords all this will do is add to the problem and cause more landlords to sell up, causing rents to increase further due to lack of supply, or simply put the rents up to cover the costs which I would have to do.  The accreditation scheme works well because it is free.  This scheme is not promoted well enough amongst landlords and there should be incentives to take up the scheme.  The sad fact is that Bognor will lose more decent landlords than rogue ones if this scheme is adopted.  The rogue ones will continue to circumnavigate the rules while the decent ones will get fed up and sell up.”

“I believe as a private landlord a licensing scheme will support tenants and landlords maintain a better level of accommodation, especially stops overcrowding of property.”

“Avenues for remedying disrepair in properties already exist under existing legislation regarding Environmental Health and Habitable Homes. Implementing additional licensing puts further burden on HMO Departments and understaffed council departments. The financial burden to compliant landlords for licensing is significant, and additional licensing punishes compliant landlords with this financial burden. Those who operate poor standard accommodation are unlikely to engage with the licensing scheme.  Brighton has since scrapped it's additional licensing scheme as it was not fit for purpose. Arun should be cautious in their approach and consider other ways of monitoring housing standards that do not disproportionally affect compliant landlords over non-compliant landlords.”

“There should be standards that are adhered to. However, excessive regulation & additional costs for Landlords need to be avoided in making this happen.”

“As a registered HMO Landlord with an immaculate property, I'm disappointed to see Many illegal unlicensed properties in disrepair which need to be made legal and better supervised by ADC.”

“The questions really don't make sense.  How do I know if other landlords maintain their properties or if there is a lot of overcrowding.  HMO licensing is in my opinion a way for the local council to make money.  If there is overcrowding/anti social behaviour or disrepair this can be dealt with by environmental health.  HMO licences also increase building insurance costs.”

“The problems you have identified are beyond the control of Landlords. Licensing Landlords will NOT alter these 'problems'. It is a con to increase revenue for the council. I would suggest ADC honestly engage with ALL involved with an open mind and a logical rather than emotional knee jerk approach. Lets work together for mutual benefit rather than alienating aech [sic] other. Tenants require support and advise. This advice should be politically neutral and scientifically factual, legally correct and morally right ie .... Landlords are NOT evil, Windows need to be opened, You need to leave when the court orders you to, you can't live there if you dont pay your rent.”

“Our building is managed by the Freehold company which consists of us the Landlords/Leaseholders.”

“My disagreement is not with the idea of licensing in general but more specifically as it to relates to so-called section 257 HMOs. We own a number of properties in River Ward in particular which would fall within this regime. We own:

1. individual self-contained leasehold flats in properties where the freehold is owned by another party with the management carried out by a managing agent 

2. leasehold self-contained flats in properties where we share the ownership of the freehold with other leaseholders and share the management with the other leaseholders.

3. self-contained leasehold flats in blocks where we share the ownership of the freehold with other leaseholders and the building management is carried out by managing agents

4. Self-contained flats in blocks where we own the freehold of the property and maintain the building ourselves.

5. self-contained leasehold flats where the management of the building has been taken from the freeholder under a RTM arrangement and a managing agent is employed.

This means that we have direct experience of all the above arrangements.

In all cases we are already highly regulated and there is nothing in the proposed additional licensing that would add anything extra to what we are already required to do. For example: the Fire Regulatory Reform order already applies to the common parts of such buildings and requires us to carry out regular Fire Risk Assessments and to provide adequate detection and warning systems. We are required to carry out regular Electrical Installation Condition reports and to comply with any recommendations given. There may be some situations (is the number known?) where agents or freeholders do not comply with their obligations but in my view and experience, the Council already has sufficient powers to deal with all matters suggested by the proposed scheme. It seems to me that the proposed licence fee in the case of Section 257 HMOs is no more than a tax on those who do work hard to comply with their obligations to fund the Council’s efforts at seeking those who do not.

The proposed fee is disproportionately high and is comparable to those charged in London Boroughs and much higher than similar schemes in other provincial towns. How was this figure calculated? What is the breakdown of cost to the Council?

There seems to be some idea that the Freeholder will bear the cost of the proposed licence. This is not the case. The extra cost will be passed on the leaseholders via the service charge accounts. Where an individual flat is let out, the landlord, having already been burdened by Section 24; rising mortgage rates; the proposed provisions of the Renters’ Reform bill amongst others will have no choice but to pass on the extra cost to tenants; ie rents will go up even further. Alternatively, as is true in our case, this might be the last straw and landords [sic] will simply choose to exit the PRS, thereby reducing the number of affordable properties available to rent thus increasing rents even further and making the situation much worse for tenants.

At the presentation given at the Landlords’ Forum there was a suggestion that the proposed cost would equate to just £7.00 per month when taken over the five-year life of the proposed licence. This completely ignores the extra cost that will be incurred directly where a managing agent is employed – they will certainly add hefty fees on top of any sum charged by the Council – and skips over the fact that the whole of the cost would need to be paid in one lump sum just to obtain the proposed licence.

Those owner occupiers within blocks that would be required to be licensed because of the two thirds stipulation would be disadvantaged by the extra service charges they would be required to pay when compared with those in similar blocks. Questions 19 and 21 only gave the possibility to rate performance as better or worse than; not comparable with. I did not feel I could answer these questions properly.”

“I disagree with the proposed introduction of Section 257 HMO legislation for the following reasons:

The majority of landlords are looking after their properties, adhering to all the regulations and requirements contained in the Section 259 and if there is a problem would quickly address issues without licencing. The minority that aren’t maintaining their properties correctly can be dealt with under existing legislation and charged accordingly to cover costs. The proposed license fee for Littlehampton is excessively high in comparison to other areas This additional cost and no doubt other costs that will appear come at the worst time with most Landlords having to deal with vastly increased interest rates, EPC regulation upgrades, overall higher maintenance costs, Section 24 tax and all the rental reform bill costs that will be coming into effect shortly. The freezing of LHA is also having a massive impact plus Insurance costs have also skyrocketed in Littlehampton due to flooding.  As Landlords we can’t and don’t want to pass on all these costs to tenants and haven’t done so, so far but will have no choice but to increase rents as properties are going to be running at a loss.  This Licensing will contribute to the pressure to keep raising rents.  It will encourage the selling of rental properties and as nearly all potential buyers are now owner occupiers, the rental stock will reduce further. In blocks where there are a mix of owner occupiers, and some are let out, the Section 259 will create bad feeling with owner occupiers who will not be happy about being asked to contribute to this cost.  Managing agents will also add an administration levy on top of the Section 259 license cost which will increase Landlord costs even more. Overall, I am against the proposed introduction of the S259 licensing because most Landlords adhere to the requirements and those that don’t can be dealt with under current legislation.”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“We need proper housing.”

“Any measures which aim to improve standards of health, safety and security and which protect tenants have to be a good idea.”

“The whole issue of HMOs is so complicated its difficult to know how to respond. All Freeholders and Leaseholders and Owners should be required to meet set and reasonable standards. Also, Occupants should be expected to behave in a responsible way.”

“I agree with any scheme to improve the maintenance and repair of HMOs as these have been some of the worst culprits in turning our area very scruffy.”

“more control should be put on the HMO's. Half are not recorded.”

“Those living in HMO's seem to have worse living conditions to those with assured short term letting contracts.”

“Because properties should be regulated to give people humane living conditions however poor they are. Because landlords are making enormous sums of money without spending any on property maintenance or safety in HMOs.”

“It is unfair to tenants and other residents to let the current profiteering by landlords continue.”

“There is a significant amount of HMO properties in the area and a significant number appear to be of poor standard.”

“We need to stop HMOs. It’s causing a shortage of decent sized family homes that won’t ever change back.”

“Think it could add to the anti-social behaviour already evident in the town.”

“Not confident that anyone will deal with the issues regardless of the change in legislation.”

“I am concerned about the number of new HMOs appearing in Littlehampton High Street, shops being changed into HMOs etc. I think it is a good idea to hold landlords to account and make then ensure the properties are well maintained and fit for use. The properties that are poorly maintained have an affect [sic] on other properties in the area and also may contribute to some anti social behaviour.”

“I live in River Ward and the experience is incrementally convincing me I need to move elsewhere.”

“I believe there is a lack of care amongst many (not all) estate agents / landlords for their charges. If care and support is not given willingly and easily then regulation and legislation should be used. All people have the right to a safe and healthy environment to live in where and when reasonably possible.”

“I think that the landlord must be 100% responsible for the actions and behaviour of their tenants, whether private tenants or housed by the Council BUT I think that if the tenants are placed there by the Council, the Council should take steps to only install tenants who are responsible and their behaviour is in keeping with the neighbourhood and be prepared to eject any tenants who do not conform to these standards.”

“Nothing persuades me that this initiative is about investing in River Ward or Littlehampton and improving conditions because of a desire to provide better for tenants, quite the contrary it is about raising money to do things the Local Government already has the powers to do.  The report when reading it is slanted and does not cover any of the disadvantages of the additional cost which will be borne by the tenants either through increased rents or eviction.  This will make finding a home more difficult.  The area may become gentrified however that does not serve the renters. This survey is not unbiased either and that is reflected as it does not allow a 'the same' choice which in my opinion as a whole taking into account other less affluent areas the River Ward is equal to.  Also the survey questions are not the questions that licensing tackles so the survey is disingenuous. Any instances in River Ward of overcrowding,  is not to do with HMO it is more to do with failure of long term of local government to carryout their duties. Indeed the data when looked at does not reflect an overcrowding problem requiring additional cost to be born by landlords.

The cost of the service is ridiculously high suggesting that at £100 per hour 18 hours would be spent on the license and survey.  So another indication this is more about raising money..

Government has fundamentally failed to provide affordable housing and is concentrating on private sector instead of proving life long homes. certain condition's have no legal basis - for example PAT testing annually is not a requirement, so Landlords are being forced to comply with  standard which are not legislated for. The problems associated with refuse is a Arun management problem and lack of facilities not a residents problem. Problems associated with parking have been made worse by Local Government decisions and parking regulation which make little or no sense, have been badly thought through Local Government street signage and road markings do more to take asway from the ambience of the area than untidy yards. Local Government has had a massive investment in the town centre and fails to keep it clean and maintained so it already looks depressingly neglected. Problem with drugs, I smell drugs at the beach in town walking down the street, by the river, in Worthing and outside the council offices, drugs are a failure to police this most horrific and pandemic and nothing to do with overcrowding and everything to do with leadership failure. Blame the tenant blame the landlord and pull in the cash.”

“We have enough HMOs in this area already.”

“As a resident of River ward, Anti-social appears behaviour is more problematic with the ward than most other parts of the arun district. Resident Parking is next to impossible, especially in the summer months with beach goers avoiding paid parking in the beach carparks and there is no resident parking scheme in place within the ward forcing residents to park sometimes several roads away from their homes whilst juggling shopping and young children.  fly tipping is also fairly prevalent in the area especially in the alleys behind houses.  overcrowding and/or adding more residents into the area will exasperate the problems stated above.”

“HMO's are in poor repair - we get noise and disturbances in the night. Police are having to frequently attend a number of HMO's in Arundel Road to deal with disturbances and issues.”

“HMO's are in poor repair - we get noise and disturbances in the night. Police are having to frequently attend a number of HMO's in Arundel Road to deal with disturbances and issues.”

“I would prefer not to see any additional HMOs in this area for the reasons previously mentioned.”

“I have seen planning permission’s posted on properties.”

“River Ward is an important area for visitors to Littlehampton and we need to ensure that it is attractive. We also have a duty to renters to protect their rights to live in clean, safe accommodation.”

“I think whatever you do should cover all wards and areas.”

“We don't need another license cost of that will be cover by the tenants not by Freeholder owners.”

“There's an increasing number of properties being let for "a quick buck" with little concern for maintenance or neighbourliness.”

“Something needs to be done in our area.”

“Due to the expanding nature of the Chichester University Bognor Campus within our local area. Also increased numbers of student car parking issues on our local roads.”

“Some of the beautiful older properties in Marine Ward are becoming hovels due to unwise rent-outs (and disrepair).”

“Because HMO's in this area are out of control.”

“Too many HMO's. Not enough parking, refuge points currently. No consideration to EV's. Proposals always sell 'bike stores'; what a joke.”

“I live in River Ward. 5 HMO's in one road is too many. Family houses are being snapped up by landlords. HMO tenants rarely add to the community activities and noise from gatherings in gardens do cause discontent to other residents. The houses in this area are densely packed and the gardens are small. Parking in these streets also causes difficulties. Cars are often parked dangerously and emergency vehicles struggle to get round the Ham area.”

“I have seen exteriors of properties in the 2 areas I have marked ‘agreed’.”

“I live and work in or close to BR town centre.  Walking around it is very depressing seeing unkempt properties.”

“I don't know the River ward in Littlehampton but do know the two wards in Bognor Regis where there are good patches but the areas where HMO's are predominantly situated aren't nice places to be and bring the whole area down. An effective licensing scheme would elevate the specific areas so that they are better places to live, work and visit for everyone.”

“HMO's tend to have a reputation for attracting the less fortunate in society and consequently have attained a reputation for being poorly maintined [sic] and for being more likely to be subject to anti-social behaviour and drug taking etc.”

“Anything that can be done to improve the condition of an HMO will benefit both those who live there and those that live around it. Any uplift in living standard should translate in improved attitudes of those living there.”

“Hopefully it will improve the current situation but still feel that all HMOs should need planning permission.”

“To vet who is renting/residing in these properties and to maintain a better standard of living.”

“I live in one of these wards and feel strongly that the proposed changes will benefit the ward and the residents within them.”

“There needs to be stricter control of HMOs in the area to lessen the impact of antisocial behaviour on residents making sure that tenants with a history of drugs use and anti-social behaviour are not concentrated in the same buildings.  Also regard needs to be given to refuse collection and storage.”

“Anything that protects tenants is good.”

“In my experience (6 years living in Bognor) HMOs tend to have an unfavourable effect on the general environment. This potentially discourages businesses, visitors and traditional residents. The tenants tend to be single men, often working shifts and with little interest in the local area. If the HMOs in the Aldwick Road area are an example the tenants often form groups around local shops and cash points and can be intimidating. Parking around HMOs is regularly cited as a problem.”

“This will protect residents equally.”

“It is a fact too many HMOs are spoiling seaside towns. This has been raised and stated in parliament The council should stop licencing HMOs we dont need any more if you wont stop licensing then which clearly you wont make it as hard as you can or you will kill our towns.”

“If this is not controlled we will end up like we are in Beirut.”

“We want to have a nicer environment for the decent families and also have less anxiety about bad neighbours.”

“Anything which can be done to improve the often very poor standard of properties in these wards will be of benefit to tenants. Because we live in River Ward we are better placed to comment on the provision in this area but know of similar difficulties in Bognor Regis. Ultimately we would hope to see a restriction imposed by Arun DC on the numbers of HMO's permitted in the town of Littlehampton. We also think that the actual and potential impact on Community Safety should be taken into account before HMO's are granted licenses.”

“Prior to so many "Houses of Multiple Occupation" being allowed to be created, the area was much nicer with less anti-social behaviour and better appearance. Many of the landlords of these properties rent to tenants with no regard for the surrounding areas and overcowd [sic] their properties in order to maximise revenue. I have spoken with numerous tradesmen who have worked on these properties and who report that the tenants are keeping them in filthy conditions internally and that the tenants themselves are frequently abusing drugs and alcohol to an extreme extent.”

“I live in my self-contained flat as the owner. My neighbours (owners and tenants alike) take care of properties they live in as well. We tend our gardens, too. Surrounding properties look decent. It is a very quiet residential area with anti-social behaviour so sporadic (and when this happens it is the same house) that is actually non-existent. I do not accept the idea that because as the owner I am a minority in the building I should pay a sort of penalty. There were issues with safety rightly pointed at by the Arun council but they are now (after very costly improvement works) resolved. I don't believe an extra fee will resolve any problems. If applied it would be passed on tenants or in my case on top of much higher mortgage costs and high maintenance charge it would be an additional burden. Bad landlords will be bad landlords, regardless. I think Arun council have enough powers to make them accountable and more responsible for maintaining properties they own. Just use them.”

“I don’t believe that there is an issue to address.”

“I live in Marine ward, and have witnessed the general untidiness of converted properties.”

“Marine Ward already has 2 HMOs, one of which is regularly visited by police. We see drug deals being done. I certainly do not want that type of person living in the block where I live, in any of the flats in XXXX Road actually.”

“I do not agree with giving people sub standard accommodation which runs completely against the long fought for Housing Act. It creates a system which propels a second class society.

It would be so much better if you gave the problem to a young architect or the Royal Society of Architects to come up with some plans that kept EVERYONE'S housing up to the already standard.”

“No problems I ever encountered in particular to these areas. They are better now than years previously and are less problematic than comparably to Brighton or Bournemouth regarding anti social aspects. The local authority should concentrate on ways to reduce expenditure rather than implement this scheme. Studies regarding the aspects concerned would generally point towards a greater uniformed police force to reduce crime statistics for the area’s mentioned.”

“There is enough beurocracy [sic].  Bad landlords will still be bad landlords, the only difference being that maintenance charges will increase to cover costs of licences. Some very nice houses have been converted into flats a long time ago, and although well maintained are likely not to be up to the level you wish to impose with the new licencing scheme. With older properties the fabric of the building will not stand the alterations.”

“The proposed scheme seems to include those families who live together in a single dwelling, as families have done for thousands of years.  I don’t believe that the council should have any authority over family homes (by classifying them as HMO’s).”

“Flat/ house prices will significantly depreciate if labelled as an HMO property as a whole.”

“All smaller HMO's are better managed than larger ones the council put tenants into. This form should include council properties, which are a disgrace and illegal, not to current rental regulations.”

“The effect of the license scheme will be to reduce the supply of rental properties and therefore to increase homelessness.”

“Landlords will quit at a time when there is a dramatic shortage of rental property availability. The council should be making it easier for Landlords not harder. Landlords are already planning on selling up en-mass, due to the proposed Rental Reform Bill and high interest rates. This additional licencing is both unnecessary and counter-productive. It will worsen the current housing crisis. ADC please come to your senses - this is madness !”

“Until there are sufficiently enough decent tenants who have a good background on how to look after a property which isn’t their own without using it as a drug den or whorehouse then we do not want these type of people living within our community.”

 

“Other” respondent responses

“There are already many regulations in place for Landlords to ensure good accommodation for Tenants.  This scheme seems to be aimed at the few rogue Landlords and will damage those responsible Landlords who are already finding it increasingly difficult to be part of the private rented sector.  Landlords are already considering their positions due to the incoming Renters Reform Bill and recent tax changes and this may be the final straw for many.”

“was Nader [sic] the impression the article 4 area was passed earlier this year… I appreciate you have higher density of HMOs in these regions. You can’t take the client out of the areas regardless of the article 4, are we solving the problem of social depravity by doing this? You may well end up with a housing shortage. Would it be better to spend this money you are spending on this and planning staff/time required by supporting those local areas and landlords to improve the environment?”

“we have way too many HMOs in River ward already and no more should be allowed.”

“There should not be any more HMOs in this area. There are too many as it is.”

“I object on the basis it is of no benefit to the local economy and environment, and often the housing is not maintained properly and is a site for rubbish to accumulate and drug  paraphernalia & drug taking also with alcohol issues.”

“With regards to questions 12 and 14 there should have been an option for same as other areas.

I do not thing the proposed HMO scheme will make any difference to issues within the brough [sic].”

 

Properties that will be included in Arun’s additional HMO licensing scheme

Respondents were asked whether they thought that the properties/parts of properties proposed should be included in any additional HMO licensing scheme. The types of properties to be included in the proposed scheme can be found in Appendix 3.

House with 3 or 4 occupants in 2 or more households sharing facilities

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 41.8%                     21.5% (3)    40% (4)         49% (34)             0% (0)     

Agree – 18.4%                                       7.1% (1)    40% (4)         16% (11)           17% (1)

Neither agree/disagree – 7.1%        14.2% (2)       0% (0)            6% (4)             17% (1)

Disagree – 6.1%                                    7.1% (1)       0% (0)            6% (4)             17% (1)

Strongly disagree – 21.4%                  7.1% (1)    20% (2)         22% (15)          50% (3)

Don’t know – 5.1%                                 43% (6)      0% (0)           1% (1)               0% (0)

 

Purpose-built rented flats with 3 or 4 occupants in 2 or more households sharing facilities

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 34.7%                    21.5% (3)     30% (3)           40% (28)             0% (0)

Agree – 24.5%                                    14.2% (2)     40% (4)          26% (18)             0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree – 8.2%       14.2% (2)        0% (0)             7% (5)             16% (1)

Disagree – 5.1%                                  7.1% (1)        0% (0)             4% (3)             16% (1)

Strongly disagree – 22.4%                7.1% (1)      30% (3)          20% (14)           67% (4)

Don’t know – 5.1%                               36% (5)        0% (0)             1% (1)               0% (0)

 

Building converted into flats with 3 or 4 occupants in 2 or more households in each flat sharing facilities

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 43.9%                      28% (4)      40% (4)           51% (35)           0% (0)      

Agree – 18.4%                                       7% (1)       40% (4)           17% (12)        16% (1)

Neither agree/disagree – 8.2%        14% (2)          0% (0)            9% (6)             0% (0)

Disagree – 5.1%                                    7% (1)         0% (0)             3% (2)         32% (2)

Strongly disagree – 19.4%                  7% (1)       20% (2)           19% (13)       52% (3)

Don’t know – 5.1%                           35.5% (5)          0% (0)         1.5% (1)            0% (0)

 

Tenanted single household section 257 self-contained flat          

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 22.4%                       7% (1)         20% (2)        29% (20)          0% (0)        

Agree – 18.4%                                     28% (4)         10% (1)        16% (11)       33% (2)

Neither agree/disagree – 15.3%      14% (2)           0% (0)        19% (13)          0% (0)

Disagree – 8.2%                                    7% (1)           0% (0)        10% (7)            0% (0)

Strongly disagree – 24.5%                  7% (1)         70% (7)        16% (11)       67% (4)

Don’t know – 11.2%                            35% (5)           0% (0)        10% (7)            0% (0)

 

Owner-occupied section 257 self-contained flat

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 14.3%                       0% (0)         10% (1)        19% (13)          0% (0)        

Agree – 17.3%                                     28% (4)         10% (1)        16% (11)       16% (1)

Neither agree/disagree – 18.4%      28% (4)           0% (0)        20% (14)          0% (0)

Disagree – 9.2%                                    0% (0)           0% (0)        12% (8)         16% (1)

Strongly disagree – 28.6%                  8% (1)         70% (7)          23% (16)      67% (4)

Don’t know – 12.2%                            36% (5)         10% (1)          10% (7)           0% (0)

 

Common parts of buildings converted into section 257 flats

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 28.6%                    21% (3)          10% (1)          35% (24)         0% (0)        

Agree – 17.3%                                    14% (2)          20% (2)          17% (12)      16% (1)

Neither agree/disagree – 14.3%     14% (2)            0% (0)          17% (12)         0% (0)

Disagree – 5.1%                               7.5% (1)            0% (0)            5% (3)        16% (1)

Strongly disagree – 23.5%               7.5% (1)         60% (6)          17% (12)      67% (4)        

Don’t know – 11.2%                            35% (5)         10% (1)            9% (6)           0% (0)

 

Buildings converted into section 257 flats where there are no communal parts

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 26.5%                    21% (3)          20% (2)           30% (21)        0% (0)        

Agree – 11.2%                                     14% (2)         10% (1)           10% (7)       16% (1)

Neither agree/disagree – 18.4%      14% (2)         10% (1)           20% (14)     16% (1)

Disagree – 6.1%                                    7% (1)           0% (0)             7% (5)          0% (0)

Strongly disagree – 26.5%                  7% (1)         60% (6)           22% (15)     67% (4)

Don’t know – 11.2%                           35% (5)           0% (0)           10% (7)          0% (0)

 

44.Respondents were asked to what extent overall did they agree that the property types in the proposed scheme are appropriate. The types of properties to be included in the proposed scheme can be found in Appendix 3.

All respondents (99)             Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 23.5%                    21% (3)          10% (1)          28% (19)          0% (0)       

Agree – 24.5%                                    15% (2)          10% (1)         30% (21)          0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree – 9.2%       15% (2)          20% (2)            7% (5)            0% (0)

Disagree – 8.2%                                  7% (1)          20% (2)            4% (3)          32% (2)

Strongly disagree – 27.2%               15% (2)          40% (4)          25% (17)        67% (4)

Don’t know – 7.1%                             28% (4)            0% (0)            6% (4)            0% (0)

 

Respondents were asked to provide additional information if they wished to the previous question. Specific responses received were as follows:

Tenant responses

“Mass HMO's need to stop unless in exceptional circumstances however, a tenant/owner renting their flat out (whilst occupying) should be allowed to have 1 extra tenant if space allows.”

“I can only comment on my own location, where problems caused by HMO  are clear to see. More regulation is needed to prevent unscrupulous builders cramming as many flats as possible into former houses in order to maximise profits fir themselves and landlords, on the backs if [sic] other peoples misfortune.”

“Why should people share basic facilities?”

“Not really sure what you talking about.”

“I don't understand what the scheme is about.”

“Should raise standards.”

“Unclear about scheme for privately rented studio and how it is affected.”

“I think some control with a consideration of tenants to a greater degree than ive noticed in the past. I have experienced and not been impressed with the councils "support" for tenats [sic] facing eviction from bad landlords.”

 

Landlord responses

“Expansion of the accreditation scheme with incentives would have more effect in raising housing standards.  Unless you rent to students no-one has heard of the accreditation scheme.  Why are agents allowed to advertise properties that aren't part of the current scheme?  It seems to me that revenue is the main driving factor in this scheme rather than taking a simpler approach that would have a better affect on the rental housing stock in the area.”

“There is a shortage of good quality, licensed and well maintained property for single or parent and child(double/twin) in Littlehampton.”

“I would caution against the threshold being 3 occupants from 2 or more households as you create a barrier for young and low income people to access affordable accommodation. In Brighton we have seen the very typical Couple + 1 Friend sharing group struggle to access accommodation as they constitute an HMO. You push young and low income renters in to larger shared HMO situations which are not always suitable or desirable.”

“No strong view.”

“I think any habitat which houses multiple individuals/households should be licensed and regulated.”

“Again, this is a money making scheme for local authorities.  Tenants already have a way of complaining through the environmental health channels.  Landlords incur higher expense.”

“Section 257 hosing [sic] is of no concern of yours. It is essential. It is NOT unsafe or problematic. If it met your building standards why are you now concerned?”

“It makes sense.”

“I disagree with the proposed introduction of Section 257 HMO legislation for the following reasons: The majority of landlords are looking after their properties, adhering to all the regulations and requirements contained in the Section 259 and if there is a problem would quickly address issues without licencing. The minority that aren’t maintaining their properties correctly can be dealt with under existing legislation and charged accordingly to cover costs. The proposed license fee for Littlehampton is excessively high in comparison to other areas This additional cost and no doubt other costs that will appear come at the worst time with most Landlords having to deal with vastly increased interest rates, EPC regulation upgrades, overall higher maintenance costs, Section 24 tax and all the rental reform bill costs that will be coming into effect shortly. The freezing of LHA is also having a massive impact plus Insurance costs have also skyrocketed in Littlehampton due to flooding.  As Landlords we can’t and don’t want to pass on all these costs to tenants and haven’t done so, so far but will have no choice but to increase rents as properties are going to be running at a loss.  This Licensing will contribute to the pressure to keep raising rents.  It will encourage the selling of rental properties and as nearly all potential buyers are now owner occupiers, the rental stock will reduce further. In blocks where there are a mix of  owner occupiers, and some are let out,  the Section 259 will create bad feeling with owner occupiers who will not be happy about being asked to contribute to this cost.  Managing agents will also add an administration levy on top of the Section 259 license cost which will increase Landlord costs even more. Overall, I am against the proposed introduction of the S259 licensing because most Landlords adhere to the requirements and those that don’t can be dealt with under current legislation.”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“If these property types are going to work it will depend to a certain extent on how large they are, and how big and well equipped the communal areas are.  HMOs must be organised to enable and respect the privacy of the occupants (including noise/sound proofing), and not just the pockets of the landlords.”

“Try seeking the HMOs out that have not been registered. I have reported several to no avail.”

“The property types cover dwellings with highest occupancy and most over-crowding.”

“Because they should be regulated and safe for people living there.”

“It would be unfair to single out a particular property type for the scheme.  Reputable landlords will already be complying and no doubt welcome the scheme which will provide fairness i  the private sector rental market.”

“To meet the stated objectives the focus should be on properties with rented accommodation and shared facilities such as bathrooms, kitchens and outdoor space.”

“Hopefully there will be some form of regular inspection and accountability by the landlords which will be enforced.”

“I see no harm in inspecting these types of property if only to hear from the tenants themselves of their lived experience and to check that building regulations comply especially sound proofing and fire protection systems.”

“As per previous answer. Many people within society have a lack of interest in caring for others. If this continues then unfortunately and sadly some form of regulation and/or legislation should be required.”

“I think that the Council should be able to ensure that all landlords are responsible persons and that they and their properties (and tenants) should be subjected to periodical, unscheduled and unannounced, Council inspections.”

“I do not believe the report has demonstrated there is a significant problem nor that the premises are dangerous. If 2 household choose to live together what right does government have to regulate them.  I am not naïve I know there are pockets of anti social behaviour however that is not an overcrowding problem, nor a landlords problem, that is lack of investment in people and that is Governments job not a landlords. all the time Local Government is looking at raising money it is not using its resources to provide long-term solutions.  The unintended consequences of meddling with the lives of people who choose to co-habit because  of financial  need or a social need are not even discussed in the report.  This is interference in the market and in peoples lives 4 5 6 or even 7 people living together is not necessarily overcrowding maybe its just community.   And if there is blatant dangerous conditions you do not need to licence 100 people to catch the one.”

“I don’t think HMOs are the answer.”

“properties with built with in this area are not originally intended to be used as flats, the local facilities are not present to introduce more HMO's and will cause over crowding.”

“If I am understanding the question correctly, I don't believe anymore properties in this area should become HMOs it is destroying the fabric of our community.”

“In Littlehampton the proposed HMO’s are in the disappearing, dying High Street. Whoever is in charge of giving out licenses or permissions should stop giving them out to Barbers, nail bars & gambling shops & HMO’s.”

“Seems generally appropriate.”

“I’m not sure if they’re appropriate or not. I don’t understand why privately owned and occupied flats seem to be included in legislation for HMO properties.”

“We don't need another license.”

“Standards of conversions to properties, number of occupants and maintenance of properties should be adhered to and monitored by local councils, in addition to landlords and owners.”

“Because it's what I believe.”

“Because some control needs to be in place as Landlords are just doing what they like.”

“It is fairly comprehensive.”

“Paper I received via letterbox did not show inclusion of my type of block. All own bath/toilet facilities.”

“Residents mostly sub-let tenants from leaseholders who leave so-called maintenance to Letting agents who rarely do a good job and a Black Management company who charge for less necessary repairs .as described in aforementioned question boxes.”

“A lot of those categories I don't claim to fully understand, but wherever you get lots of households sharing a building, mess is left for others to clear up; few take responsibility.”

“They focus on the types of property where there are more risks to the safety and health and potential vulnerability of tenants.”

“More control needs to excersised [sic] over properties which include communal areas such as bathing & cooking (not just entrance lobbies).”

“Anything to make the validation that the proposed landlord is fit for purpose has to be welcomed.”

“Hopefully it will deter some landlords & protect the Health & safety of tenants.”

“To ensure better living conditions and to monitor who is actually living in these properties.”

“The descriptions above do not seem to take into account HMOs where one building has been turned into more than 4 separate bedrooms for 4 or more tenants.  The HMO opposite me is a 10 bed unlicenced HMO and is seeking permission to turn the downstairs into another 10 beds making 20.”

“Firmer control is needed.”

“To protect tenants.”

“Stop allowing any sub standard bedsits for single drop outs and wine drinking anti social individuals to move into our town and drive others out all at the expense of local families / residents and all for the benifit [sic] of landlords who do not live in the town.”

“Do we want to be back in the Dickensian era?”

“Needs more regulation.”

“The proliferation of HMO's in this town over the last 5 years has been greatly to the detriment of longer term residents. the problems highlighted in my previous answers occur in many different types of properties across the range of those listed.”

“Premises which fall under the categories to which I have answered "Strongly Agree" need to be far more strictly regulated than they are at present.”

“An extra fee will not change bad landlords' attitude. It will be passed on to tenants as a higher rent. Arun Council has enough powers already to check properties. Proposed scheme will add to the confusion.”

“Why are house shares included if owner occupied and bill sharing enables people to live more cheaply?”

“HMOs should contain of all the same type of people and not be mixed in with owner/occupiers. I would not feel safe in my flat, nor for the contents of my flat. Also the building we live in is beautiful with many original features - I feel that these would not be appreciated/treated with respect.”

“As per my last answer that this type of planning is unfair on the whole community.”

“Small number of properties law already in place regarding responsibilities of landlords tenants.”

“If a percentage calculation has to be done why use two thirds calculation? Surely 50 percent is fairer and more logical. Someone who lives in and owns their leasehold property, within a converted house , has a vested interest in its upkeep. They don't need additional box ticking or additional expense for a piece of paper to say their property is fit to live in. The sharing of basic facilities by more than one household should be the deciding factor. True HMO!”

“As per my previous answer, family homes shouldn’t be included as HMO’s.”

“depreciation of property prices.”

“You are trying to get more money off the private section to enhance wages in the council, while council properties are unmanaged and a disgrace to the community. Council properties should be included in all regulations the council put towards the private sector. You are only pushing private landlords out, leaving more homeless.”

“i am against the scheme because it will decrease the amount of rental housing available and so increase homelessness. Homelessness is an evil in itself, and also increases antisocial behaviour, eg excrement on the streets.”

“It is too complex and will discourage landlords who are already quitting the rental market.”

“It’s no good having multiple different people, especially men, living in a confined space when there are many issues affecting them including drug dealing, serious mental health issues and released prisoners.”

 

Agent responses

“I think the focus should be on the large HMOs where there are multiple rooms and multiple occupants.”

 

“Other” respondent responses

“There may be a high density of shared living in these areas- this article does not solve the problem? It hyperinflates the value of these buildings if HMO status and squeezes good landlords out of the market that want to improve the quality on offer”

“there are already far too many HMOs in River Ward and they are very poorly managed. You need to get controls in place and have the landlords managing the existing HMOs properly before even considering any more”

“They should not be built in river ward”

“My reasons are that folk need one home with their own cooking areas, bathrooms not sharing. It is putting families with children & lone females at risk”

“I do not think that the property type has anything to do with this proposal”

 

45.Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the council’s HMO Standards (note that these are largely already in place and already applicable to all current HMO properties). The council’s HMO standards can be found at https://www.arun.gov.uk/hmo/

All respondents (99)             Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 13.3%                        7% (1)        20% (2)          13% (9)                33% (2)

Agree – 22.4%                                     14% (2)        30% (3)          23% (16)                0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree – 19.4%       29% (4)          0% (0)          19% (13)             33% (2)

Disagree – 16.3%                                  7% (1)        20% (2)          19% (13)                0% (0)

Strongly disagree – 12.2%                   7% (1)        10% (1)          12% (8)                33% (2)

Don’t know – 17.3%                             36% (5)        20% (2)          15% (10)               0 % (0)

 

Respondents were asked if they had any additional information they wished to provide in response to the previous question.

Tenant responses

“More needs to be done to minimise mass HMO's.”

“I think standards need to be raised even higher.”

“The council may be monitoring and allow HMO at present but why does Bognor need more.”

“Not sure what the council has in place as was not aware.”

“I don't understand what HMO standards are or what you are asking about.”

“Standards in the flat and building where I am a tenant seem OK.”

“I dont know enough about it, and decline to comment. The notices i received arent by any means 100 % clear.”

“We do not have an issue in this area with standards. we do not have any issues with our properties you should target landlords/ agents that do not follow the rules and not penalise all.”

 

Landlord responses

“The accreditation scheme is already in place but not enough landlords/tenants know about it and there are no incentives.”

“Having experience of the HMO team at ADC they are fair and good at communicating with what is required of landlords and running a safe HMO. Which is good when you have difficult tenants.”

“We regularly see poorly managed HMO properties for rent / for sale, these are licensed but are not in a good condition and state of repair. If Arun cannot maintain the standards across the existing housing stock, the implementation of further HMOs to be inspected will only further detriment the housing stock.”

“There should be standards that are adhered to.”

“HMOs need proper licences.”

“I agree with HMO's for over 5 occupants of separate households only.”

“I dont understand the question. I think your definition of HMO non sensically [si] includes NON HMO's such as Section 257s.”

“I am not involved in HMOs.”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“More housing.”

“Why ask this question now?  Arun should know by carrying out checks to evaluate whether or not you have got it right and if not acting on the results.”

“Very little knowledge of the HMO standards, assume they are inline with national standards.”

“They are easily achivable [sic] and fair to the tenants.   This should have been done years ago.”

“On paper the standards appear ok.”

“Endless problems with HMO’s in immediate area.”

“Think there should be a lot more overall authority.”

“What else is available to Arun to do the job properly?”

“Sharing of kitchen, bathroom/washing facilities is not healthy or sociable.”

“The broad guidance and level of standards is not "poor" but simply needs to be maintained well.”

“There is nothing wrong with the standards though some have no legal requirement and are at total waste of resource which could be used to better effect. I am not in favour of unnecessary licencing at a cost which is not competitive.”

“They dump undesirable people where they can.”

“overcrowding is already becoming a problem in some of the proposed areas. it feels as if the river ward area is one of the more depraved areas in arun district already. cramming more people in isn't the answer to the housing problem.”

“They are in the middle of being build but strongly agree they should not be in the high street, we have enough undesirables hanging around already.”

“I can’t give an answer to this as I don’t know.”

“I agree they may be in place, but in the current climate when cost cutting by businesses, local councils etc is common place standards should continue to be maintained.”

“Control is the only way to manage these properties as very little care is taken with them.”

“The HMO standards are good but are they able to be implemented successfully?”

“My property and overcrowded converted flats visible from many streets in this Ward.”

“Not really au fai [sic] with what the standards are.”

“Those standards are generally in line with others across the country.”

“If the current HMO standards are those that have yielded the many HMO's in the wards suffering from disrepair which are blighting the streets, then clearly they are not robust enough.”

“It’s obviously not addressing the problems of deprivation in these 3 wards.”

“These may already be in place but there are too many HMOs and the more stringent the rules are, certain standards, hopefully will be maintained.”

“I am not familiar with the councils standards.”

“Important that the council have the resources to enforce the current system.”

“I don't know.”

“The standards are not relevant its the number of HMOs that are the issue.”

“You approved a 23 bed HMO in Barclays bank in Littlehampton. That probably equates to 20 single people sitting around on the street in the shopping area doing very little and contributing to anti social behaviour.”

“They are not stopping a proliferation of HMOs.”

“Need more regulation.”

“Lack of enforcement of existing standards.”

“Only because a house is HMO it should not have different = more complicated standards. Especially when HMO properties are by definition not constant, f.e.: only two flats out of six will be owner-occupied, next five or all of them will be owner-occupied and that can change within a year.”

“I would agree in circumstance where purpose built accommodation is provided for multiple people as a business but not when people choose to share.”

“I cannot see how turning a Victorian property into an HMO is going to be looked after in the loving way that we look after ours.”

“As already stated it creates a second class society which I believe will back fire on the whole community it time.”

“They have followed existing guidelines.”

“Because you are talking about bigger HMO with historically poor management style. Sharing of basic facilities by many households,  should not be allowed.”

“I’m just stating my opinion regarding family homes and not on other elements of the scheme.”

“I have no knowledge of HMO properties other than I would neither buy one nor would I want to live anywhere near one.”

“all HMO's council or not should be under the same regulations and all managed by landlord or agent properly. currently your existing and proposed are only directed at private sector, while council hmo do not get managed at all.”

“Don't know about the existing standards.”

“The current HMO standards do little to improve properties . The standards are unnecessarily complex and Housing Officers do not all apply the same principles.”

“They are clearly rubbish! No one adheres to the rules regarding antisocial behaviour and how they keep the property.

 “Other” respondent responses

“We don't deal with HMO's due to the complexity.”

“I think safety and pleasant living are essential to living provision- the HMO standards address this- keeping landlords accountable and properties safe.”

“there are already far too many HMOs in River Ward and they are very poorly managed. You need to get controls in place and have the landlords managing the existing HMOs properly before even considering any more.”

“For all reasons already given. The standards won't be met.”

“The current HMO standards are perfectly ok.”

Respondents were asked to what extent did they agree with the proposed scheme licence conditions (note that these are already in place and applicable to current mandatory licensable HMO properties)? The proposed scheme licence conditions can be found in Appendix 4.

All respondents (99)          Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 24.5%                      15% (2)        20% (2)          29% (20)        0% (0)

Agree – 19.4%                                     21% (3)        40% (4)          17% (12)         0% (0)        

Neither agree/disagree – 15.3%       21% (3)          0% (0)          16% (11)      17% (1)

Disagree – 7.1%                                     0% (0)        20% (2)            6% (4)        17% (1)

Strongly disagree – 20.4%                  8% (1)        10% (1)          20% (14)      66% (4)

Don’t know – 13.3%                            35% (5)        10% (1)          12% (8)           0% (0)

 

Respondents were asked to provide further comments to the previous question.

 

Tenant responses

“The proposed scheme license covers most basis although asbestos checks (with textured asbestos coating being common in older houses) are not mentioned and only seemed to be checked through HHSRS. It might be appropriate to add this as a possible option to at least visually confirm any asbestos usage and whether further investigation is recommended. Legionella testing (or confirmation of duty to make sure water is safe) may also be another consideration to add to licensing conditions. Tenants or occupants should also be allowed to request for the documents submitted for licensing application that prove the current status of the residency such as Fire alarm testing certificates.”

“Not sure”

“Content in present circumstances.”

“The licensing should remain to 5 or more persons.”

 

Landlord responses

“A free scheme would be more effective with harsher punishments if not followed.  The accreditation scheme is already in place but not used enough.”

“As above, need proper licencing”

“As before I do not necessarily disagree with the proposal in general but specifically as it applies to Section 257.”

 

Owner-occupier response

“No opinion.”

“Is it working?”

“chase the evaders.”

“Very little knowledge of the license conditions, assume they are in line with national guidance.”

“Represent fairness for both landlords and tenants.”

“on paper it appears ok.”

“Too keen to make more council tax money than have adequate housing.”

“In all honesty I do not believe that privately owned HMOs should exist.”

“My broad interest in this, is already indicated. I simply wish to ensure everyone has access to quality safe housing.”

“There is a reason for mandatory licensing and that is why it is mandatory.  The smaller properties falling into this scope are not the same fire safety risk. Just aren't.”

“Again, if I have understood this correctly. I believe the council should enforce the new legislation to reduce the amount of occupants in an hmo.”

“Don’t know the Conditions.”

“I don’t know so cannot answer but I have to to continue with the survey.”

“Because it's what I believe.”

“Again, the conditions are good but can they be implemented.”

“Inclusion does not allow for blocks like mine.. as previously described in above sections.”

“Anything that gives the council added muscle to get these areas tidied up must be good.”

“They focus on the predominant risks to tenants.”

“I am not a fan of HMO's as I think that in general they seem to depress an area rather than enrich it, but I do also accept that society today does have a genuine need for them. I strongly beleive [sic] that they must be subject to continuous and effective inspection and enforcement however. Landlords who opt for the HMO model probably have more interest in extracting maximum return from their properties than any ideas or feelings as to the impact of such properties on the local community.”

“They should include courses of action with the landlord in the event that tenants undertake arson, drug dealing / use or antisocial behaviour. I understand that it is easy to say these issues should be addressed to the Police or ADC but your conditions should include the landlord's requirement to evict such tenants should it be proven that they participated, rather than just allowing the landlord to continue making money at the neighbourhoods expense.”

“Still feel planning permission should be in place , to maintain stardards [sic] of property, regular checks & community involvement as to the number of HMOs in any one area.”

“Large HMOs should have a stricter licencing scheme.”

“Plenty of examples of properties not covered by the existing licencing rules. ie. less than 5 tenants.”

“Will protect tenants”

“This is a measured and appropriate action. I do not want to live here if the HMO trend continues. We will move.”

“As above, these properties need more stringent regulations.”

“Again, an adidtional [sic] fee will not change anything apart from heaping an extra cost on tenants and (in my case) owners living in flats they own.“

“Don’t know enough.”

“to be honest your conditions do not make any sense.”

“As already stated it creates a second class society which I believe will back fire on the whole community it time.”

“I think existing guidelines are sufficient.”

“As above - depreciation of property prices.”

“council trying to get money from private sector to cover their spend but do nothing for it. it is money for nothing.”

“It is unnecessary for smaller proportries [sic]. No need for this extension. SIMPLY TOO much bureaucracy!!”

“It’s practically the same as what it is already but on a larger scale. Absolute chaos!”

 

Agent responses

“The proposal with penalize responsible Landlords who do everything necessary to provide safe accommodation for their Tenants.”

 

“Other” respondent responses

“The proposal with [sic] penalize responsible Landlords who do everything necessary to provide safe accommodation for their Tenants.”

“You are not managing the current scheme, the council has done nothing with the state of these properties the poor behavior of tenants and the shocking neglect that both the council and landlords have shown on the management of HMOs to date. I am opposed to these in principle as they are very detrimental to the quality of live for everyone else.”

“I don't agree.”

“The Scheme is unnecessary.”

48.Respondents were also asked if they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed licence scheme fees, what they would propose as an alternative that would still enable the council’s costs to be covered.

Tenant responses

“Costs should be high to discourage mass HMO's.”

“Not sure.”

“I believe that three months is a bit short for Temporary Exemption Notice (TEN) on a license holder's death and it would be more appropriate to extend it to 6 months to 1 year and back charge any due payments from three months onwards the next time a license fee needs renewing. It would also be less hostile to offer a discretionary notice for confirmation when possible if a landlord submits for a license for too many occupants for the residence they wish to license unless the amount of occupants suggested is wildly overestimated by two or more (this doesn't mean an advisory visit fee is not appropriate to keep).”

“Just dont do it.”

“Don’t action the plan would be the simple answer.”

“I find this question ridiculous. It is not the responsibility of the local people to consider the council's costs for the council's own proposals.”

“If you could explain things to me in a way that an average person could understand I could give an answer or an opinion.  I haven't the education or ability to understand what you are asking me.  I know that I can just about afford to live where I do and I can't afford to pay out more.  If you are proposing that I have to pay more, for what I don't know, I don't know where I am going to find the money.  I am on short time now and minimum wage.”

“What are the costs?”

“A break down of costs would need to be provide to justify this. to my knowledge an agent visits the property twice and writes a letter to list what is required - this dies [sic] not warrant £1800 in labour??!”

 

Landlord responses

“The accreditation scheme needs to be expanded with incentives for landlords and harsher punishments for poorly maintained properties.  Agents should be banned from letting properties that do not meet accreditation standards.  The scheme should be free as it is now or at a vastly lower rate than is being considered.  At the very least there should be a discount for properties that are currently accredited as there is no way it will cost the same to set up as a property that has lots of defects.”

“Stronger powers to fine landlords found to be operating any property that doesnt meet housing standards.

“Rather than charging every landlord a blanket fee, charge those who are non-compliant and not providing a good standard of accommodation.”

“The cost should be shared between tenants & Landlords, and only be levied to cover the costs of the scheme - not an additional source of revenue for the Council.”

“Streamline the process and provide a subsidised cost, if you want landlords to take part and comply. Make it mandatory for landlords to give to tenants contact details for environmental heath and how complaints can be made is issues are not resolved.  A HMO licence should only be necessary for over 5 occupants or separate households.  Why do you think the current system is not working? You should be clear in this aspect, back up your argument to expand.  There are enough regulations in place for landlords to follow - gas safety, electrical certificates, alarms, right to rent etc, we do not need more.  If there is disrepair or overcrowding then environmental health can be involved.  This is a way for LA's to make money and it is for this reason it is being expanded.  This is not fair.  The majority of landlords are good and rogue landlords can be dealt with in another way if standards are the issue here.”

“A logical open minded approach in identifying the problems, the causes, and tackling them pragmatically.”

“Lower costs for managed properties.”

“I don't know - what are the Council's costs?”

“Would need more information on what the council costs are to comment on this.”

“It's puzzling the costs have been worked out by the Council but when we asked what extra staff would be employed this is unknown.”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“Seek the other landlords who evade HMOs and then you will obtain enough money! Dont keep charging the ones you know about. employ someone to go through the properties and check.”

“Get people working.”

“Council or State built and owned. No right to buy.”

“No comment.”

“No scheme no cost.”

“Just significantly raise the licence costs for HMO owners.”

“Stop building HMO’s, stop bringing people from outside the town.”

“I don’t know.”

“Another renting the cost will be past [sic] to the tenants.”

“To expensive and not pointless. Money could be spent to upgrade the property.”

“Charge more as HMO's take up more time for everyone.”

“Costs recoverable from freeholders but on condition that tenants are not penalised. 1 person homes need to be a healthy safe standard (as in my 14 flat block) but £1400 ++ unlikely to be affordable from tenant.”

“Should be doubled.”

“I agree that there should be stricter licencing requirements for HMOs as in Littlehampton we have an issue with anti-social behaviour surrounding them.  I believe it is correct for landlords to pay a fee to fund the scheme.”

“Licence fees must be covered by private landlords without passing the cost on to tenants.”

“£20000 minimum in each case.”

“Perhaps they should be more.”

“I would recommend higher fees that are more punitive for landlords who wish to operate these dwellings in order to incentivize them to convert the properties into regular single-household, self-contained flats.”

“Arun council has enough powers to execute the existing law which is very complicated and confusing as it is.  Another scheme will complicate matters even further. Each year we pay more council tax receiving less and less each year.”

“what costs does the council need to be covered?? We clean our on streets, including removal of grass from the road. I have phots [sic] to prove this. You make plenty of money from our council tax!!”

“I would do away with the whole idea of creating low standard housing. Instead start building

the latest dense community housing that is in line with the Housing Act.”

“Less council employees audit all other services I am single resident and I can’t believe what I pay in council tax covers my existing services provided. Put scheme out to tender to be run by private surveyors they have more experience and are more cost effective.”

“Do not increase the coverage. Leave existing leasehold buildings as they are.  The older property converted into self contained flats, with any owner occupier does not need to be included in any scheme.”

“The council shouldn’t include family homes in this scheme.”

“What costs do you need to cover? It would be far better to ensure landlords had rentable habitable properties. An HMO license will not give a tenant a guarantee that the home is of a specific standard. Perhaps any potential landlord wanting to rent their property needs to have a tenancy license to prove the home has been checked and is fit for purpose? Put the onus on each flat/home owner and charge them a license fee but don’t call it an HMO!”

 

Agent responses

“These costs are too high for Landlords who already do everything they possibly can to provide decent accommodation for their Tenants.  Understand these fees for HMOs and this is where the focus should be.”

 

“Other” respondent responses

“Don't implement the scheme.”

“There should be annual fee that covers all of the costs to ensure proper and effect management of these places including courts costs, enforcement, managing ASB, litter flytipping and closure if needed.”

“The true costs need to be revealed.  It cannot cost the proposed charges to produce a license.  This is a money making scheme for the council.”

 

49.Respondents were asked whether they thought that applicants for a HMO licence, whether mandatory or as part of an additional licensing scheme, should be required to provide a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

All respondents (99)       Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 43.9%                   29% (4)        30% (3)          48% (33)        50% (3)

Agree – 20.4%                                     14% (2)        10% (1)          22% (15)        33% (2)

Neither agree/ disagree – 15.3%      21% (3)        20% (2)          15% (10)          0% (0)

Disagree – 4.1%                                     7% (1)          0% (0)            3% (2)          16% (1)

Strongly disagree – 11.2%                   0% (0)        30% (4)           10% (7)           0% (0)

Don’t know – 5.1%                              29% (4)          0% (0)             3% (2)           0% (0)

 

Tenant responses

“This will prevent dubious landlords.”

“don't have the knowledge to comment.”

“I think this would be a useful tool to see if applicants suitabke [sic].”

“A DBS would be no guarantee of a quality housing provider and may lead to unneccessary [sic] profiling or unconsious [sic] bias pre-judgement when assigning licenses.”

“Why?”

“To mitigate the risk to current inhabitants.”

“What has the DBS to do with licensing properties?”

“In tenants interest.”

“More red-tape.”

“Give them all dbses we have to put up with them as in the emloyment [sic]world.”

“Should be a good and proper person who is a landlord.”

 

Landlord Responses

“If this helps.”

“Would be another barrier for rogue landlords”

“As far as I’m concerned it’s common sense.”

“There are many unscrupulous landlords.”

“If landlords do not live with their tenants then why is a DBS check necessary?  It is a ridiculous suggestion.  Again, more money for the landlord to spend..”

“No. Unless you want to level the field and deal with the problem pragmatically by applying same to tenants.”

“I do not see the relevance at all.”

“Don't see as relevant. Has lack of DBS proved to be a problem and will doing one improve standards?”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“Responsibility”

“Not sure it needs to be essential but establishing identities etc seems a good idea - if the application process for DBS checks can be speeded up!”

“DBS aren’t really worth the paper they are written on”

“Keep everybody safe”

“Yes I think it will help to make sure the right people are applying for licenses”

“The council should be able to use every tool at thier [sic] disposal to try and ensure that regulations are not being circumvented and that landlords are fit to hold HMO licences”

“Again weeds out the unscrupulous landlord”

“This would help to ensure landlords are background checked which would protect tenants”

“Too many HMOs”

“As a carer I am required to provide a clean DBS certificate whenever I apply for a job. I am not sure what purpose it would serve for me to apply for DBS check as the owner of my flat in which I live. It would be just another fee to pay and more bureaucracy”

“As an idea it is probably good to exclude rogue landlords but not workable in practice in my view”

“Adds expense and increases bureaucracy”

“To ensure high standards are in place, maintained and there is transparency on both sides”

“An HMO Licence holder has a responsibility to tenants and the community and it would be appropriate for the licence holder to be subject to background checks”

“You are responsible for other peoples lives”

“Agree if the HMO is likely to house vulnerable occupants”

“It would reduce the amount of criminals in this marketplace”

“Essential for tenant protection”

“Agree if the HMO is likely to house vulnerable occupants”

“It would reduce the amount of criminals in this marketplace”

“Essential for tenant protection”

“Snakes”

“If this was already in place might not have half the problems we have now”

“There needs to be strong checks to prevent problems”

“Many people and their families who access are vulnerable and need protection and support.  I have witnessed the agents landlord verbally abusing tenants.  When I advised Arun they were not interested.”

“Unsure of the benefits of this option although I am used to the dbs process as I use it in my daily role. As in many professions nowadays when dealing with, in some cases vulnerable people, it is obligatory so it should be for HMO landlords and their agents.”

“I can see people giving perfectly valid reasons for both for and against. If a DBS check could be more carefully "tailored" to the "housing subject" then that would be more useful.”

“All applicants must be checked to ensure that they are of suitable character and trustworthy to be landlords.”

“So you know who you’re dealing with”

“Landlords need to be held accountable as the council are not interested and have been fobbing us off for years, I'm sure it would be a different story if a councillor lived next door to an HMO”

“Landlords and managing agents are often dealing with vulnerable people.”

“I’m not qualified to answer this”

“Landlords should behave in accordance with the rules.”

“Otherwise you will end up with criminals running these places similar to the Russian lady example earlier.”

“Should also include bankruptcy search as per any normal purchaser.”

“I would like to see this especially for properties housing  vulnerable people”

“Transparency & pension of vested interests taking precedence and  prevents lies to tenants, mortgagors, leaseholders.”

“Sounds a reasonable criteria: are these people fit and proper to manage residential premises.”

“It would help weed out those potential landlords with a dodgy background, thus providing further protection for tenants and the surrounding neighbourhood.”

“To prove the quality and hopefully the integrity of the applicant, if nothing else.”

“To ensure that they are above aboard.”

“Will mean that any potential fraudulent landlords are better vetted”

“To prevent criminal activity

“Important to identify where landlords have been refused licences - see current Ediburgh [sic] case”

“They should be suitable safe people to be caring for tenants”

“Would reduce risk of rogue landlords”

“To deter hmos”

“because of the vulnerability of many of the tenants”

“Everything which can be done to make these types of dwellings unattractive to landlords and financially arduous to operate should be done. Also, nobody who cannot pass a DBS check should be operating one of these buildings as it is more likely that they will be involved in criminality and likely to rent their premises to people involved in undesirable activities.”

“if the applicants is the owner that is a ridiculous idea. This needs to be done on whoever would be moving into an HMO as standard.”

“Not sure if I agree or not as not all things show on a DBS check”

“As a organisation with power and influence you should really reassess your role and objectives.   This is not a healthy route for any LG to be going down. Intrusive,  it is not reasonable to intrude on peoples privacy.  The DBS check is not required and it is beyond any scope of the service.  This would be a GDPR nightmare as there is no reasonable grounds to require one and it is against liberties.  none of the reason for a DBS apply and it is a misuse of the service.”

“Reason for DBS Preventing (and keeping records of) unsuitable individuals from working with vulnerable groups”

“Check if there’s any reason a potential employee is inappropriate for the role that they’ve applied for”

“To respond to referrals from organisations that are concerned that a candidate may not be suitable for a job due to the reasons above”

“As already stated it creates a second class society which I believe will back fire on the whole community it time.”

“Laws already exist to cover these aspects.”

“More expense?”

“Not a bad idea but what benefits would a DBS check give you? Any criminal wanting to rent their flat would get the DBS done in some else’s name.”

“Simply too much”

Agent responses

“You need to know that the applicants are fit and proper to be responsible for HMO.”

“Other” respondent responses

“Fit and proper persons should be running their properties- I have this in east Hampshire HMO licensing already.”

“Anyone who is a landlord should be having to evidence that they are a fit and proper person to do so”

“To ensure good and honest management”

“Keeps folk safe, although some still slip through the net”

50.Respondents were asked whether they thought that any additional licensing scheme should include other areas within Arun District in addition to River, Hotham and Marine wards.

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Yes – 33.7% (33)                         29% (4)          20% (2)             38% (26)       33% (2)

No – 23.5% (23)                           14% (2)          50% (5)             16% (11)        66% (4)

Don’t know – 42.7% (43)            57% (8)          30% (3)              46% (32)           0% (0)

 

If yes, which other wards should be covered:

Tenant responses

“Sensible regulations need to be in place in all areas.”

“All wards should have same standards”

“If only these three wards are covered by the additional licensing scheme, then a kind of "gentrification" effect may take place where a landlord may purchase residentials to rent out outside of the scheme areas but offer a more attractive market rent rate in order to not have to comply with the additional HMO licensing.”

“Though I do think that these three wards should be tested first before expanding, such as a duration of two years.

“Dont know. Sure there are more.”

 

Landlords

“If licensing scheme is required/deemed necessary - it should cover the Arun District”

“I don't know the other wards, but it should be a Ross [sic] the board”

 

Owner-occupiers

“beach littlehampton”

“All Wards within Run [sic] District”

“The most stringent conditions shoild [sic] apply for any and all HMO's.”

It should include everywhere”

“Once the scheme has been rolled out to the proposed wards, any other ward with high density should be considered.”

“All wards”

“All. Why should different wards have different rules?”

“Ham Manor”

“Kingston Gorse”

Willowhayne

All of Littlehampton and Wick

“All”

“All of Arun”

“All properties should be treated the same. You cannot discriminate. Gives a message there is a minimum standard required within the whole area. Not an opportunity to cut corners, to make a quick quid.”

“I think it should be adopted as the standard for Arun. Helping to protect the most vunerable in our town”

“UK has one of worse standards of housing in Europe. Arun needs to show other counties and our useless Government what is the right thing to do which also protects  residents. Health & wellbeing.”

“HMO,s are an issue for wherever they are. The three wards in question just happen to suffer from a massive over representation on HMO's, hence this consultation, I hazard.”

“Any HMO should be licence regardless of what ward they are in.”

“All areas”

“The whole of Bognor and Littlehampton”

“Town ward”

“one for all or none at all”

“Other” respondent responses

“I think it should cover all wards and I also think you need to think about how landlords a avoiding the scheme by trading as air B&Bs”

 

51.Respondents were asked whether they thought that all HMOs should be required to be managed by a professional manager or agent.

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Yes – 52% (51)                            21% (3)          20% (2)            59% (41)        83% (5)

No – 32.7% (32)                           26% (4)          70% (7)            29% (20)         16% (1)

Don’t know – 15.3% (16)            50% (7)          10% (1)            12% (8)              0% (0)

 

52.Respondents were asked whether they considered that shorter licences (i.e. less than the five year norm) should be issued for those properties that are found to be sub- standard or fail to meet minimum standards during the licensing process. (Action will then be required by the landlord to bring them up to standard.)

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Yes – 78% (77)                            57% (8)          60% (6)             82% (57)     100% (6)

No – 12.2% (12)                             7% (1)          30% (3)               12% (8)            0% (0)

Don’t know – 9.2% (10)               36% (5)          10% (1)                 6% (4)            0% (0)

 

53.Respondents were asked whether they agreed that landlords should effectively and adequately manage their rented properties.

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 75.5%                57% (8)               80% (8)      78% (55)         66% (4)

Agree – 16.3%                                  21% (3)                 0% (0)      17% (12)         16% (1)

Neither agree/disagree – 4.1%        7% (1)              10% (1)         3% (2)           0% (0)

Disagree – 1%                                    0% (0)               10% (1)          0% (0)           0% (0)

Strongly disagree – 1%                     0% (0)                0% (0)         0% (0)        16% (1)

Don’t know – 2%                              14% (2)                 0% (0)         0% (0)           0% (0)

 

Tenant responses

“It should be a basic requirement”

“Landlords have equity in the properties they rent out, as well as the income from rent. They should therefore ensure they are providing homes to the kind of standard they would genuinely live in themselves. I stress 'genuinely '. Some Landlords state they would be happy to live in the bedsits they provide themselves,  when I very much doubt it!”

“It has to be there [sic] responsibility not anyone elses”

“Not quite sure the reasoning or purpose for this question?”

“There [sic] responsibility”

“No-one deserves to live in a slum”

“Because rents are high and the landlord should provide some service in return”

“I have so many problems with landlords doing just what they want or dont want”

“This answer is self explanatory - a landlord has receptibilities. Us the fee to educate landlords if you think they should attend a course.”

 

Landlord responses

“Obviously”

“Every landlord is different and have different experience, some are are good, decent people capable of managing their properties, others are just interested in as much return as possible without being responsible.”

“I am fortunate to have a good reputation as a landlord as being fairly hands on and responsive - being a landlord is a full time hob [sic]”

“Many just take the money and don't upkeep the property”

“If tenants are paying rent then landlords have a responsibility to provide safe and well managed properties.  Tenant's have recourse through environmental health if they have issues.  They can also withhold rent until issues are resolved.”

“Effective and adequate management will require the co-operation of the tenant. Who may in turn require the same from the Council. This is impossible with ADC's current attitude. Bad tenants assisted by bad councils is what is causing your problems. How are you intending tackling this?”

“Of course and we put a great deal of time and effort in to this. There is already a great deal of legislation that a landlord is required to comply with and there is already a lot more coming. The Council and others already have sufficient power to deal with those that do not comply - we do not need yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy [sic].”

“Absolutely agree all landlords should effectively and adequately manage their rental properties.  This is a just part of being a professional and responsible landlord.  We have and continue to put much effort and many hours into doing this and providing support in all capacities to our tenants.”

 

Owner-occupier responses

“Responsible for their properties”

“That should be obvious! Landlords are taking rental money and should their responsibilities towards the tenants seriously.”

“you are essentially paying for a service”

“Mainly for the people living in sub standard homes”

“It means that the property is being looked after and maintained and the students are not causing issues locally”

“For all the reasons I have outlined above. Proper regulation, oversight and enforcement would help to improve both the lives of renters and the reputation of HMO's in general.”

“If they don’t meet the standards they shouldn’t be given a license. Maybe the council should enlarge its housing stock”

“It is essential that landlords effectively manage their properties to help prevent anti-social behaviour.”

“Its obvious landlords should manage their properties”

“Every property, like every business and company should be properly managed.”

“Landlords should obviously effectively manage properties that they own.”

“A bad rental property is better than an empty house.”

“Landlords are usually owners of properties and it is their responsibility to ensure tenants have decent places in which to live. They receive rent for this. Tenants in return are responsible for keeping their accommodation in a clean and orderly way. Both have responsibilities. What do the licences/contracts say?”

“As a landlord I strongly agree it is my responsibility to effectively and adequately manage my rental property.”

“I have managed 13 properties without any help quite effectively and maintained gardens. You would not know they were student properties”

“In line with requirements for assured leases.”

“Because they have PEOPLE living in them who are put at risk otherwise”

“The landlords have a duty of care for their tenants.   The vast majority will already comply.”

“Accountability needs to be clear and that sits with the owner/landlord.”

“They should work along side the council, both should be doing regular checks”

“Tenants and neighbours must not be affected detrimentally.”

“They should be accountable.”

“Because of the anti social behavior [sic] I have witnessed in Bayford Road outside the HMOs there and Clifton Road outside the HMO there. Namely street fighting, what I assume is drug dealing and what seems like regular police call outs where the police have better use of their time. The landlords use the public and police to be deal with the behaviour the landlords should be responsible for.”

“If landlords really cared for their properties and the people who rented there, then this mess would not exist, and perhaps regulation would not be required.”

“To ensure that the properties are kept up to a suitable standard. If not, a professional agent should be used (who has also passed the regulatory, etc, checks and is capable of such supervision).”

“So an adequate check is kept on properties”

“It’s a scandal that people are living in homes that are often not fit for habitation.”

“The answer is surely obvious. The tenants should be living in and paying rent for a property that is well managed, safe and free from problems such as damp”

“Because places become ugly/shoddy and attract low-life if they don't!”

“They need to have an financial consequence if they do not.”

“Half the time, homeowners do not know who owns or manages a property. Register should be more transparent and accessible.”

“The residents are entitled to a safe, warm and serviceable [sic] place to live, in good repair.”

“Described in many aforementioned answers - my home block is an example. May look find on exterior but internally & structurally sub standard. 1960’s/70’ lower building standards need to be updated on all properties being rented or leased.”

“Why would you not want properties to be manged properly?”

“They have a duty of care to their tenants many of whom have added disadvantage and vulnerability. Managing the property properly has a positive impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and to the image of the town as a whole.”

“They should bear responsibility to the neighbourhood for their decision to make money out of the area.”

“All landlords have an obligation to maintain their properties to an adequate level.”

“I have seen properties that are not fit for habitation that are never improved, if there are checks then landlords are more likely to fairly and safely maintain to a good standard”

“It’s their responsibility“

“failure to do this is what leads to some of the issues”

“Common sense!”

“To stop them negatively effecting the lives of others in the neighbourhood”

“Needs more accountability”

“to address directly the problems highlighted in previous answers”

“Common sense”

“Landlords should be forced to take responsibility for their properties and any negative effects these have on the surrounding areas.”

“This answer is for all rented properties”

“Whether you own your own property or not it is always nice to be able to live somewhere which is acceptable from the inside and out.”

“I do agree.”

“i also think the NHS should be effectively managed”

“I think social housing should be effectively managed.”

“Private sector housing is not neither should it ever become a quango of local government”

“Enforcement should be through existing legislation”

“Yes they should”

“It’s there duty council should look at areas under its own control first ie Weatway flats”

“It is in everyones interest to have property adequately maintained. A professional managing agent imposition would increase costs for the small , proposed by you, HMO, to breaking point.”

“Landlords should not be able to take advantage of under privileged or people having difficulties”

“These must apply to all council properties also, most private properties are managed properly, its council ones which lack management and regulations”

“Landlords already effectively manage their properties”

 

Agent responses

“Landlords should employ a professional, regulated and qualified agent to manage their properties.  With increased regulation it is imperative to get it right.”

 

“Other” respondent responses

“A quality service = quality happy tenants and ultimately a better environment”

“I am sick and fed up with landlords getting rich and paying of their mortgages at my expense. These places are bad for the community and no good for the residents as they are very poor accommodation for anyone to live in. I am sick of my life being adversely affected by scummy people living in these places”

“Because we live in a community surrounded by HMOs which seem to be unmanaged.”

“I think the properties should be managed and maintained for all my previous reasons”

“Landlords should be responsible”

 

54.Respondents were asked whether they agreed that landlords should receive training where they fail to meet required standards, let out sub-standard properties or fail to undertake proper management or maintenance (as well as being required to undertake any remedial actions).

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 48%                 50% (7)               10% (1)         52% (36)         50% (3)

Agree – 26.5%                               21% (3)               70% (7)         20% (14)         33% (2)

Neither agree/disagree – 13.3% 14% (2)                0% (0)         16% (11)           0% (0)

Disagree – 2%                                 0% (0)               10% (1)           2% (1)             0% (0)

Strongly disagree – 7.1%              0% (0)               10% (1)           7% (5)           16% (1)

Don’t know – 3.1%                        14% (2)                 0% (0)           3% (2)             0% (0)

 

55.Respondents were asked which matters relating to HMOs (including self-contained section 257 flats) they considered as the most important matters for inclusion in any additional licensing scheme to help improve the housing, on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest.

Over-crowding

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important - 10.2%            7% (1)          10% (1)                12% (8)           0% (0)

2 - 7.1%                                           7% (1)             0% (0)                  6% (4)        33% (2)

3 - 8.2%                                         14% (2)          20% (2)                 6% (4)           0% (0)

4- 13.3%                                          7% (1)          20% (2)               13% (9)         17% (1)

5 Most important - 61.2%         65% (9)          50% (5)               63% (4)         50% (3)

 

Poor external appearance

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 8.2%              0% (0)          10% (1)                  7% (6)         17% (1)

2 – 12.2%                                      21% (3)          20% (2)                  7% (6)         17% (1)

3 – 21.4%                                      50% (7)          20% (2)               19% (13)        0% (0)

4 – 15.3%                                      14% (2)          40% (4)                  7% (6)         33% (2)

5 Most important – 42.9%        14% (2)          10% (1)                55% (38)       33% (2)

 

Untidy gardens/ yards

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 – Least important 17.1%        0% (0)              10% (1)                  7% (5)         16% (1)

2 – 10.2%                                     7% (1)              20% (2)                  9% (6)         16% (1)

3 – 23.5%                                   57% (8)              30% (3)                19% (13)         0% (0)

4 – 16.3%                                   14% (2)              20% (2)                15% (10)       33% (2)

5 – Most important 42.9%     21% (3)              20% (2)                50% (35)       33% (2)

 

Property disrepair

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 7.1%          7% (1)                 0% (0)                  9% (6)           0% (0)

2 – 6.1%                                       0% (0)              10% (1)                  7% (5)           0% (0)

3 – 12.2%                                   21% (3)              40% (4)                  4% (3)         33% (2)

4 – 14.3%                                     7% (1)              10% (1)                 15% (10)     33% (2)

5 Most important – 60.2%     64% (9)              40% (4)                 65% (45)     33% (2)

 

Appropriate facilities

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 9.2%           7% (1)              10% (1)                 10% (7)          0% (0)

2 – 7.1%                                       7% (1)              20% (2)                   6% (4)          0% (0)

3 – 11.2%                                   28% (4)              20% (2)                   6% (4)        50% (3)

4 – 18.4%                                   14% (2)              10% (1)                 19% (13)     33% (2)

5 Most important – 54.1        43% (6)              40% (4)                 59% (41)     16% (1)

 

Fire safety

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 11.2%      14% (2)             20% (2)                  10% (7)          0% (0)

2 – 2%                                           0% (0)             10% (1)                    1% (1)          0% (0)

3 – 11.2%                                   21% (3)             20% (2)                    6% (4)        33% (2)

4 – 7.1%                                      0% (0)              0% (0)                  10% (7)         0% (0)

5 Most important – 68.4%     64% (9)             50% (5)                  72% (50)     66% (4)

 

Adequate and appropriate heating

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 8.2%           7% (1)             10% (1)                    9% (6)          0% (0)

2 – 10.2%                                     0% (0)             30% (3)                    9% (6)        17% (1)

3 – 13.3%                                   21% (3)             10% (1)                 12% (8)       17% (1)

4 – 16.3%                                     7% (1)               0% (0)                  20% (14)     17% (1)

5 Most important – 52%        64% (9)            50% (5)                  51% (35)     50% (3)

 

Have a minimum "E" rated EPC

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 11.2%       7% (1)              10% (1)                  12% (8)        16% (1)

2 – 13.3%                                    0% (0)              20% (2)                  15% (10)     17% (1)

3 – 24.5%                                  43% (6)              40% (4)                 17% (12)       34% (2)

4 – 19.4%                                    7% (1)              10% (1)                 25% (17)       16% (1)

5 Most important – 31.6%    43% (6)              20% (2)                 32% (22)       17% (1)

 

Security of the property

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 – Least important 8.2%           0% (0)                0% (0)                10% (7)         17% (1)

2 – 8.2%                                     14% (2)                 0% (0)                  7% (5)         17% (1)

3 – 27.6%                                   43% (6)              70% (7)                20% (14)      17% (1)

4 – 20.4%                                   14% (2)                 0% (0)                25% (17)       17% (1)

5 – Most important 35.7%        28% (4)              30% (3)                38% (26)       32% (2)

 

Property management

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 9.2%          8% (1)               10% (0)                12% (8)           0% (0)

2 – 8.2%                                      8% (1)               10% (1)                  9% (6)           0% (0)

3 – 11.2%                                  21% (3)               40% (4)                  6% (4)         17% (1)

4 – 22.4%                                  21% (3)               20% (2)                23% (16)       17% (1)

5 Most important – 49%          42% (6)               30% (3)                51% (35)       66% (4)

 

 

Requirement for landlords and agents to have a DBS check

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 19.4%     14% (2)               60% (6)                15% (10)       17% (1)

2 – 8.2%                                      8% (1)                  0% (0)                10% (7)           0% (0)

3 – 9.2%                                    21% (3)                  0% (0)                10% (7)          0% (0)

4 – 18.4%                                  14% (2)               30% (3)                17% (12)       17% (1)

5 Most important – 44.9%       42% (6)               10% (1)                48% (33)       66% (4)

 

Compulsory training for landlords

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 19.4%     14% (2)               50% (5)                 16% (11)     17% (1)

2 – 14.3%                                    8% (1)               30% (3)                 13% (9)        17% (1)

3 – 19.4%                                  28% (4)               20% (2)                 19% (13)     17% (1)

4 – 12.2%                                  21% (3)                  0% (0)                 13% (9)          0% (0)

5 Most important – 34.7%       28% (4)                  0% (0)                 39% (27)     40% (3)

 

Antisocial behaviour

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Least important – 10.2%      14% (2)                0% (0)                 12% (8)          0% (0)

2 – 4.1%                                       0% (0)              10% (1)                   3% (2)        17% (1)

3 – 12.2%                                   36% (5)              50% (5)                   4% (3)          0% (0)

4 – 15.3%                                   21% (3)                 0% (0)                16% (11)     17% (1)

5 Most important – 58.2%        28% (4)              40% (4)                 65% (45)     66% (4)

 

56.Respondents were asked to rate what they think about the following statements. Additional licensing will help to:

Help tackle fire safety issues

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree - 36.4%            29% (4)          30% (3)              41% (28)        16% (1)

2 - 26.3%                                       21% (3)          10% (1)              30% (21)         16% (1)

3 - 11.1%                                       14% (2)          20% (2)              12% (8)             0% (0)

4 - 8.1%                                           0% (0)          10% (1)                4% (3)           32% (2)

5 Strongly disagree- 10.1%          0% (0)          30% (3)                8% (6)           32% (2)

Don’t know - 8.1%                        36% (5)             0% (0)                4% (3)            0% (0)

 

Help tackle disrepair issues

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 39.4%           29% (4)          20% (2)              46% (32)        16% (1)

2 – 23.2%                                      21% (3)          10% (1)              26% (18)         16% (1)

3 – 12.1%                                      14% (2)          30% (3)              10% (7)             0% (0)

4 – 7.1%                                         0% (0)          10% (1)                4% (3)           50% (3)

5 Strongly disagree – 11.1%        0% (0)          30% (3)              10% (7)           16% (1)

Don’t know – 7.1%                       36% (5)             0% (0)                3% (2)             0% (0)

 

Improve the internal condition of smaller HMO properties

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 34.3%          21% (3)           10% (1)              42% (29)         17% (1)

2 – 26.3%                                     21% (3)           30% (3)              27% (19)         17% (1)

3 – 13.1%                                     14% (2)           20% (2)              12% (8)           17% (1)

4 – 6.1%                                         7% (1)          10% (1)                3% (2)            32% (2)

5 Strongly disagree – 12.1%       0% (0)          20% (2)             13% (9)            17% (1)

Don’t know – 8.1%                      36% (5)          10% (1)                3% (2)              0% (0)

 

Improve the health and wellbeing of people living in HMOs

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 34.3%          29% (4)          10% (1)             28% (33)         17% (1)

2 – 26.3%                                     14% (2)          30% (3)             19% (13)            0% (0)

3 – 13.1%                                     14% (2)          20% (2)             15% (10)          17% (1)

4 – 6.1%                                         7% (1)          10% (1)                3% (2)            17% (1)

5 Strongly disagree – 12.1%       0% (0)          20% (2)             13% (9)            32% (2)

Don’t know – 8.1%                      36% (5)          10% (1)                3% (2)            17% (1)

 

Support good landlords

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 36.4%          36% (5)          40% (4)             38% (26)          17% (1)

2 – 21.2%                                       7% (1)              0% (0)            27% (19)          17% (1)

3 – 12.1%                                     14% (2)           10% (1)            13% (9)              0% (0)

4 – 5.1%                                         0% (0)           10% (1)              3% (2)            32% (2)

5 Strongly disagree – 16.2%       7% (1)           40% (4)            13% (9)            32% (2)

Don't know – 9.1%                      36% (5)             0% (0)              6% (4)              0% (0)                  

 

Identify poorer performing landlords

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 41.4%          36% (5)          30% (3)             46% (32)          17% (1)

2 – 22.2%                                       7% (1)            0% (0)             27% (19)          32% (2)

3 – 11.1%                                     14% (2)          30% (3)                9% (6)              0% (0)

4 – 8.1%                                       14% (2)          10% (1)                4% (3)            32% (2)

5 Strongly disagree – 11.1%       0% (0)          30% (3)               10% (7)          17% (1)

Don’t know – 6.1%                      28% (4)            0% (0)                 3% (2)             0% (0)

 

Help reduce antisocial behaviour

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 37.4%           21% (3)         30% (3)             43% (30)          17% (1)

2 – 11.1%                                        7% (1)           0% (0)             13% (9)            17% (1)

3 – 18.2%                                      14% (2)         30% (3)             19% (13)            0% (0)

4 – 7.1%                                          0% (0)         10% (1)                6% (4)            32% (2)

5 Strongly disagree – 15.2%      14% (2)         20% (2)             13% (9)            32% (2)

Don’t know – 11.1%                    43% (6)         10% (1)                6% (4)              0% (0)

 

Improve property management

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

1 Strongly agree – 35.4%           28% (4)          30% (3)              39% (27)         17% (1)

2 – 21.2%                                        0% (0)          10% (1)              27% (19)         17% (1)

3 – 14.1%                                      21% (3)          10% (1)              14% (10)           0% (0)

4 – 7.1%                                          0% (0)          20% (2)                3% (2)           49% (3)

5 Strongly disagree – 13.1%        7% (1)          30% (3)             12% (8)           17% (1)

Don’t know – 9.1%                       42% (6)            0% (0)                4% (3)             0% (0)

 

Respondents were asked whether they thought that there is already sufficient management of smaller HMO properties without an additional licensing scheme.

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 13.1%                  7% (1)         30% (3)               10% (7)         33% (2)

Agree – 6.1%                                    7% (1)         30% (3)                 3% (2)           0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree – 18.2%  15% (2)         20% (2)               19% (13)       17% (1)

Disagree – 15.2%                            7% (1)         10% (1)               19% (13)         0% (0)

Strongly disagree – 31.3%             7% (1)           0% (0)               39% (27)      50% (3)

Don’t know – 16.2%                       57% (8)         10% (1)              10% (7)          0% (0)

 

58.Respondents were asked to what extent overall did they agree with the proposed additional HMO licensing scheme.

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Strongly agree – 36.4%                  15% (2)          10% (1)            46% (32)        17% (1)

Agree – 17.2%                                  21% (3)          20% (2)            17% (12)           0% (0)

Neither agree/disagree – 11.1%    21% (3)          10% (1)            10% (7)             0% (0)

Disagree – 3%                                    0% (0)            0% (0)              3% (2)           17% (1)

Strongly disagree – 29.3%             28% (4)          60% (6)            22% (15)         66% (4)

Don’t know - 3%                               15% (2)           0% (0)              1% (1)             0% (0)

 

59.Respondents were asked to provide any other comments that they wished to make about the proposed additional HMO licensing scheme:

“If it encourages good landlords and discourages those who see multiple occupancy as a good investment with little or no costs then it has to be a positive move.”

“I am pleased to know that my local council is showing some concern regarding increased use of properties as HMOs in my local area as increased occupancy of houses and increases in car parking issues which come with it are a big concern.”

“The accreditation scheme already in place would work if it was expanded”

“I dont care how you do this but I am sick of these places lowering the quality of life for residents whilst the landlords benefit. They must held to account and there have to be serious consequences for them if their tenants cause problems”

“As already stated it creates a second class society which I believe will back fire on the whole community it time.”

“There is a great shortage of accommodation for single people. Where I live is really good quality, with en-suites (which is necessary for my disability). Also I couldn't afford to live in a flat now, see below. I am concerned that some of the wording of the report appears to stereotype people who live in an HMO? I am sure some fit the description, but I have worked continuously in Arun for 26 years, for local government. I think some people reading the report will think that everyone who lives in an HMO is out of work, claiming benefits, and is guilty of anti-social behaviour. That is not true. It creates a prejudice on the part of the public to people - who for example, work in public service as I do, and earn half what you would need to buy even the smallest flat locally.”

“HMO Licensing schemes currently put the burden of managing anti-social behaviour on landlords, without understanding the legal framework that landlords are required to operate within. HMO officers need to engage with the Police and Social Services, rather than rely on landlords to deal with ASB. Landlords are not their tenant's parents, and are hugely restricted in their options for removing tenants who commit ASB without a conviction from the police.”

“I hope the additional HMO licensing is approved”

“Why River Ward. We have enough HMOs here.”

“I don’t think it is addressing the issues”

“its simple just stop all these HMO bedsits”

“I see this as a ruse to create more HMOs disguised as trying to manage them effectively”

“It’s the council properties that are the problem and where the council put tenants in private HMO’s without proper referencing, degrading the area as a result, not adding more licensing to private smaller HMO’s. The council with charities move bad tenants from area to area, causing untold issues to both areas” 

“We live in River Ward and are disgusted by HMOs which are pulling our area down and allowing greedy landlords to take advantage of poor people”

“Perhaps ADC could lead by example and deal with the peeling front doors and constantly overflowing rubbish bins outside the blocks of flats it owns in London Road, Bognor Regis?! ;)”

“This scheme shouldn’t apply to family homes”

“It is so important that a balanced selection of properties are in all areas. All should be monitored as much as possible so that Bognor remains a pleasant place to live and invest in.”

“It would be good to have a release of an "accessible English version" of the consultation document as the affected wards do contain many residents who have "English as a second language" or may need documents in simple english due to learning difficulties. It would of been nice if the consultation included case studies of other councils which have introduced an additional HMO licensing scheme and whether this has been successful. No "possible" negatives or concerns about the implimentation [sic] or effect of the HMO licensing scheme were published either, which may have given a fairer analysis. There is also mention that HMO licenses may be given without inspection during high demand, which would likely happen at the start of this licensing scheme period and on each 5 year mark renewal date. I worry that this might affect quality checks that the scheme hopes to introduce. It is stressed throught [sic] the consultation document that the HMO licensing scheme will address anti-social issues but these are not detailed in how or why the HMO scheme would help resolve this. I am also concerned with the HMO licensing scheme digital setup as no plans have been published on whether an open-source/open-code solution will be used for license application and management website/form/software.”

“Landlord will pass the cost onto tenants. Owners will see their costs go up to. I'd expect this as madness in an already struggling and broken housing sector. I hope that whoever makes these decisions will think about people and how much financial pressure is already on them. I hope they don't all live in ivory towers. I'm alright Jack mentality”

“As mentioned, HMOs have been the bain of our lives for far too long. I appreciate people fall on hard times and sometimes need help, however when the tenants of these properties have complete disregard for their immediate neighbours and how their actions affect the local community something has to be done.”

“No more should be built”

“There is a UK-wide shortage of rental housing. Rents are already very high and renters have great difficulty finding and paying for any rental housing at all. See today's BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65903095.”

“The proposed scheme will make the situation a lot worse, the proposed scheme discourages and punishes virtuous people who want to (a) help their fellow-men and fellow-women by sharing their homes (b) reduce loneliness. The proposed scheme is essentially anti-social”

“Include single occupant renters/leaseholders living in properties built before 1980”

“In the highlighted wards there needs to be a parallel focus (including investment) to improve the general appearance of the area to provide a 'better living environment. The streets in the the area are poorly maintained and grubby (weeds and filth everywhere). Better traffic management needs to be considered to reduce speeds and prevent parking on pavements denying clear pedestrian access. Where there are anti-social hot spots CCTV should be considered.  Also services for HMO areas need to be considered (i.e. does the current rubbish collection service really work or should there be communal bins).”

“I don’t think this document will reduce the levels of deprivation nor safeguard the tenants nor the local community. It’s a small step in the right direction in the huge issue of homelessness & deprivation. Proposed tenants should prove that they are local residents with the same criteria as council tenants to be rehoused”

“Every landlord needs to be accountable for their HMO Business”

“Give a bonus! If a landlord is constantly supplying a "good service" and their tenants are more than happy either give a financial discount or inspect less regularly”

“A large house near my home has been turned in to a HMO and is being run on air b&b.  This means that the car parking is not large enough as some users come in mobile homes and this is leading to over crowded roads as some of the properties in the same road only have on street parking.  This is on an approach road to schools nearby. Also puts pressure on water supply and drainage etc. Over crowding will only lead to slum like conditions which do no one any good.  Where are the doctors, dentists, school places for these extra people?”

“I would like to think the additional HMO licensing would help to provide more appropriate accommodation for people in our area”

“HMO scheme is good and I support this. Student accommodation in general needs looking at. It is pretty dire by some landlords. More help needed for council checks”

“The stronger and tighter the legislation, the better! I also think that people living in the neighbourhoods of proposed HMOs should be mail-shotted and asked for their opinions before licences are granted and that those opinions are actually taken into account when decisions are made.”

“I unfortunately don’t think this proposal will change anything, very much hoping I’m wrong”

“Unnecessary and burdensome on good landlords and bad landlords will not respond will do the minimum and the housing will not change the anti social behaviour of anyone.  Experience shows me that anti social people will rip the smoke detector of the wall, light up the joint and blow it in your direction and stick up the middle finger to anyone with the courage to ask them to desist. And this scheme will not stop anti social behaviour because the occupants are not being licensed”

“4 or less occupants DO NOT require a HMO licence”

“River ward doesn't have the facilities to support more residents, the roads are too small, local dentists, doctors and schools are full and parking is already a big issue”

“They should definitely NOT be in the High Street. Care should be taken so there are not too many in one area”

“Inspections should be annually. I don’t know if this is included but if not it should be and notice should be taken of the tenants’ comments and action taken to expedite necessary repairs and improvements”

“I would support an open minded pragmatic approach to dealing with your problems. I would welcome all sincere efforts for mutual benefit. Experience proves that ADC are politically bigotted / not sincere and act illegally in their approach to Landlords. Happy to prove with real life examples regarding your Section 21 policy advice etc. Act within the law and I'll engage with you.”

“If licensing helps some people it is a good thing. Inevitably the cost will reflect to the rent, which is not a good thing”

“Please do not put this through just because not many people object. Most people probably think it is pointless to object as you will do it anyway. Please leave things as they are.  If you must meddle make it the big commercial landlords, not the small people”

“My flat, or the block I live in, would suffer a significant loss of value....put yourself in my situation”

“I think it is essential that any scheme takes into account the impact a HMO will have on existing residents of nearby properties and the social makeup of the area.  The properties should be monitored for anti-social behaviour and drugs use and an effort should be made to ensure that tenants with a history of drug use and or anti-social and criminal behaviour are not concentrated together to live in a building where they can have a negative influence on each other and act as a group.”

“It is not necessary”

“If it is brought in I would like it to be policed robustly and tough measures for landlords that fail to adhere to the licensing”

“1. I have no doubt that River Ward has too many HMO's.

2. The premises used for HMO's are at the lower end of the market therefore reducing housing that would be available for family homes.

3. The knock on effect is high rents and in, some cases because of increasing rents and mortgage rates, more need for HMO's thus creating a vicious circle.

4. Littlehampton people are being denied home ownership.

5. The economy of seaside towns is changing with retail shops closing because of the way shopping has changed, among other factors, but also because the town needs shoppers with a bit of money in their pockets.

6. In economic terms the homeless have become a 'commodity', there is a money making market for homeless people so the more HMO's the more opportunity there is to make money at the taxpayers expense.

7. Homeless people deserve better in terms of housing and care. HMO's do not provide these.

8. At the moment the proposals are all we have we need to do better”

 

“Please consider the negative impact on the community the amount of HMOs is having  in one area.  Proactive support for some groups is vital and essential.   There seems to be a very negative attitude towards the  Bayford Road area, for example ' oh its always been bad, you should have been here 18 years ago'   No one seems interested.  Please make a difference and be the ones who do”

“However well the proposals work people without a home deserve better in terms of housing and care. HMO's do not provide these. However the proposals are all we have but I would like to see landlords can prove they are aware of their responsibilities toward their tenants including more interaction with them and a responsibility for their health and well-being. After all the taxpayer is paying the bills and deserves to know how it is being spent and whether we are getting value for money. being spent”

“Good landlords will pull out of the private rental sector and then there will be fewer properties available, rents will increase and the housing situation which is bad at present will get ever worse”

“As an idea it is a noble one. In practice it will be an additional tax (good for council coffers I imagine) with very little (if any) advantage for tenants or/and owners living in their flats in properties defined as HMO, especially when the same property may be HMO one month, then it may change its status next month. Additional complicated scheme on top of already existing one will only add to the confusion and lead to misunderstandings and errors. Arun council has means already to check properties and prosecute bad landlords.”

“1. cost  2.  bureaucracy 3. LG  is ineeficient [sic].  4.Bringing big organisation nanny politics to the lives of ordinary people and small business.  If there was any chance it was a nifty affordable scheme that would make a swift and real difference to peoples lives I would not be so against the scheme however it will be a lumbering slow unresponsive effort with undertrained people interfering and making ridiculous requirements such as DBS check (which is outrageously controlling) and PAT testing which has no good sound reasoning for an annual check - has anyone read the legislation its not even good practice.  The objectives set out can not be realised by the schema because the scheme is fundamentally a taxation collection scheme and has no real framework for how any improvements will be made with the possible exception of fire safety and  gas safety measures. And there is no measure of the size of that problem in the report.”

“I would have thought that in an already restrictied [sic] renting market this will be the final straw for many landlords”

60.Respondents were asked if they had ever been a victim of antisocial behaviour within Arun District.

Total number/percent of all respondents (99)

Yes    60 (60.6%)

No     39 (39.3%)

 

Number/percent of respondents - Privately renting Tenants (14):

Yes     3 (21.4%)

No     11 (78.5%)

Detailed responses, including if it was at the property where they are or were a tenant:

“There has been evidence left of drug-taking within the stairwells of our building in the past, such as discarded needles. People have been able to gain access when outer doors haven't been closed properly. The cigarette butt boxes outside our building in communal areas, provided for residents who smoke, are frequently vandalised, to gain access to the cigarette butts. Discarded drinks cans and other rubbish, are thrown into our communal gardens. There is drinking in the street, especially, but not exclusively in the evening.”

“Town centre”

“Nuisance from boys asking for money by banging on the kitchen window. I was a tenant in the PO22 area”

 

Number/percent of respondents – Landlords (Total 10):

Yes    3 (30%)

No     7 (70%)

Detailed responses (including if it was at the property they own or are the landlord of):

“[Wick], drug abuse, verbal abuse and threatening behaviour and text messages”

“… Hotham ward. Drug dealing by tenants. I was Landlord. I initiated contact with ADC and Police. There help was worse than useless and passed the blame onto me. And then ADC illegally [sic] obstructed me whilst I used Section 21”

“… have had drug dealing going on openly next door to our property.”

 

Number/percent of respondents - Owner-occupiers (Total 69)

Yes    32 (46.4%)

No     37 (53.6%)

Detailed responses (including if it was at the property where they are an owner-occupier):

“drug dealing in Marine Parade in passage way between our property and XXXXXXX. Police informed.”

“Student houses in Neville Road loud music being played”

“House next door was rented out for a while and during that time there was a lot of antisocial behaviour.”

“XX Tennyson Road”

“Arson, Drug use & supply, foul language, loud music”

“Cannabis use in adjoining flat”

“Anti Social behaviour outside my house along river walkway reported to police on a number of occasions. Witnessed antisocial behaviour drinking swearing and shouting in pedestrian walkway”

“Drug dealing at East Ham Road, Gloucester Lane, Arundel Road on numerous occasions. Gloucester Lane runs behind our house and there is daily drug dealing occurring in plain sight”

“from council HMO tenants in new road. these issues from them are continuous. drug dealing, parties on daily basis, we have to endure it, as council do nothing. no management at all. they have a free-for-all” {Note that the council does not own any HMO properties]

“Assault at Railway Station. Scooter wheelies on road. Drug dealers”

“We have a HMO in our road and have been subject to drug dealing, fights, loud music and police interventions over many years”

“Several: one outside BR Railway Station, but have also had my car vandalised on my driveway in the ward.”

“Antisocial behaviour including littering and smoking category discouraged drugs”

“We've had our back garden broken into, with the thieves stealing our childrens bikes and other property, and we have had our cars damaged in the street outside on numerous occasions”

“Witnessing drug use and drunken behaviour in marine ward area numerous times and locations. Not related to my property.”

“I live on Maxwell Road and we have had problems with 4 HMOs on this road for many years, we are all sick to death of the problems associated with the tenants of these properties. The landlord's have ZERO interest in local community and turn a blind eye to the issues the residents have to deal with on a daily basis and how it, affects the community as a whole. The council should NOT be allowing HMOs in close proximity to young children and elderly people, we are sick of seeing antisocial behaviour, drug dealing, police having to attend, noise pollution and threatening behaviour in a single street. The tenants of these properties have no regard for their neighbours who are law abiding citizens trying to bring up children in a safe environment. As I'm writing this we have 4 police cars on the road attending another incident at number XX, we are all hard working people trying to get by and are constantly plagued by non working scumbags that have no regard for the community they live in.”

“Linden Road, On going drug dealing in plain view on a daily basis, drunken yobbish behaviour from all age groups when returning from pubs and clubs at night, in day time too. HMO opposite constant Police and Ambulance attendance due to the type of occupants housed by XXXX, also another private HMO next door not such a problem though I wonder I the Council aware it is an HMO at all. Victoria Drive the northern end has just had large domestic house approved to become an HMO with no car parking facility. We have had flats where I live being run as HMO's which you have stopped. Our whole area is swamped with them.”

“Dogs dangerously out-of-control on the beach. Not related to my property”

“Yes. I have had parcels stolen from my doorstep. We have had ongoing drug dealing in our road which is Maxwell Road. Littlehampton”

“House opposite has anti social tenants associated with drugs and perhaps prostitution. House 4 doors down is hmo with recent violence with multiple police attending also peeping Tom there. House on the other end near no 2 had ex offenders who caused mayhem. Down the other end house backing onto my allotment had drug dealers etc. Loud music late night fights etc etc”

“Owner of garage on Gloucester place insisted he owned parking rights outside his garage and gave verbal abuse to myself and others for parking both close to, and in front of. There are no parking restrictions at all anywhere here, which he refused to accept”

“Thefts in the neighbourhood, arson in Linden Park. Traveller thefts, noise and threatening behaviour. Drug dealing. In and around Gloucester Road, Littlehampton”

“Purchased and moved into a house on East Ham Road next to a HMO last year and had to call police numerous times and well as getting the Council involved to help with anti social behaviours, noise levels, etc.”

“I could write a book! Drug dealing, fighting, parties, prostitution etc”

“noisy neighbours, assaulted by Floyds corner”

“Drug dealing in the street in which I live”

“A house next door has multiple occupants (I don't believe it is a registered HMO as I can't locate it on the register - XXXXX) and during 2021 and 2022 especially the various residents coming and going with groups of friends were loud, obnoxious, sold and smoked drugs, littered the street and we experienced excessive noise/music/arguments [sic]. The house still has multiple residents who let a room each but there is less noise/disturbance overall recently - but it does depends on who is renting the rooms at any once [sic] time”

Number/percent of respondents – “Others” (Total 6)

Yes    1 (16.6%)

No     5 (83.3%)

 

61.All respondents were asked whether they had any comments about the potential positive and/or negative impacts that the options outlined in this consultation may have on individuals with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010?

All respondents (99)        Tenants (14) Landlords (10) Owner-occ (69) Others (6)

Yes – 13%                                    2 (14%)               1 (10%)      8 (12%)             1 (17%)

No – 48%                                      2 (14%)              5 (50%)    36 (52%)             4 (66%)

Don’t know – 38%                       10 (71%)              4 (40%)    25 (36%)             1 (17%)

Detailed responses:

“I am classed as disabled (in cancer recovery). I can only work part-time but I am classed as a key worker by WSCC. I do not qualify for any benefits. I wouldn't be able to continue working here (I get 50% wages + a pension) if I didn't live in a shared house.”

“This scheme could have a negative impact on families if it applied to them.”

“I’m unsure as we don’t know what the protected characteristics are. If they are for paedophiles or rapists being rehomed in residential areas then that’s not exactly positive. If it’s for offenders of lesser crimes that are have [sic] been successfully rehabilitated that do not propose a risk to others then yes.”

“I would like a section about vunerable [sic] people having appropriate support. Careful choice of the  tenants and people needing more support i.e drug dependants, mental health issues, rehabilitated offenders.”

“I do not think a HMO license will address/change this.  It may have a negative effect on disabled occupants if the landlord is required to spend money on property adaptions.”

“I have Asperger's Syndrome.  This doesn't make me educationally sub-normal, but it does mean for me that I can't read 'jargon', so you have put me at a disadvantage because I can't understand what this is all about.”