Clause 193 - HMOs: certain converted blocks of flats
Housing Bill
10:00 am
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
Clause 193 sets out which converted blocks of flats fall within the definition of a house in multiple occupation. Those are blocks where the standard conversion does not at least meet the standards laid down in the Building Regulations 1991, and in which less than two thirds of the flats are owner-occupied. The current definition of HMO in the Housing Act 1985 applies to all converted houses, regardless of the standard of the conversion or the tenure of occupancy. However, that is not appropriate, because the legislation is primarily intended to target poor-quality accommodation providing homes for some of the most vulnerable members of the community.
We have taken this opportunity to narrow the definition of HMO to include poor-quality properties that are occupied by a substantial number of shortholders and/or tenants. I have carefully considered the arguments for the inclusion of all converted blocks in the definition, regardless of the tenure of occupants, and for the exclusion of all converted blocks of self-contained flats, but I am not persuaded by either of those. For the reasons I have already mentioned, I do not consider it appropriate that HMO legislation should apply to all conversions, regardless of tenure. The Government believe that owner-occupiers are in a position to exercise their contractual rights and require minimum standards to be enforced. Indeed, if they are not happy with the management arrangements, they can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to appoint a manager for the block. Tenants, however, are not in the same position.
We should remember that we have declared it to be the job of the local authority to be the champion of the vulnerable tenant. Moreover, many problems that are associated with HMOs, such as poor maintenance and management, arise as a direct result of the absence of the landlord leaseholder. Many of the blocks that the legislation is aimed at are owned by individuals or companies, were converted many years ago, and are occupied by elderly or otherwise vulnerable people.
The health and safety of the occupiers of such blocks are frequently a cause of concern. Such houses are often not fitted with adequate smoke detection equipment: the Building Regulations 1991 require alarms to be mains-fitted, and thus always working. I have referred to the Entec report on fire safety, which was published in 1997. Committee members will recall that it concluded that persons living in houses converted into self-contained flats are twice as likely to die from fire than those living in comparable single-occupancy houses. The larger the house, the greater the risk of death from fire: 52 per cent. of deaths occur in HMOs of three or more storeys, but only 16.5 per cent. of HMO-dwellers live in such properties. That is a compelling reason to ensure that there is HMO legislation to protect people living in poor conversions.
However, I do not support the proposal in amendment No. 240, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow, that legislation should only apply where there are three or more tenancies. I am aware that it is a probing amendment—as is the other
amendment in the group—but it would produce some singularly strange results. For example, a house converted into four flats would only be an HMO if three quarters of them were let, but a large house converted into 15 flats would fall within the definition if only one fifth were let. I know that that was not the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
There are 640,000 HMOs and they house about 1.2 million households. Of those HMOs, 120,000 have three storeys or more. As I have said, the risk of death from fire is much higher in buildings of three storeys or more. The Entec report revealed that a dweller in a self-contained flat in a poorly converted three-storey block was five and a half times more likely to die from fire than a similar dweller in a smaller block. That is why the fire safety order applies to such properties, and local authorities must have powers to license them if they are problematic.
There are two reasons for the change in the formulation. First, many of the blocks to which the legislation will apply will be poorly converted and in single ownership, and it is considered that the one-third rule may be subject to abuse—for example, sham leases might be created to avoid the requirement for the house to be licensed or subject to other HMO controls. Secondly, although the Entec fire report was largely concerned with the number of storeys in a house, it also considered that the number of occupants in a house was a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of fire.
Mr. Hayes rose—