Scottish Government

A REVIEW OF THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MANDATORY LICENSING OF HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION IN SCOTLAND

CHAPTER ELEVEN EXEMPTIONS, TIMESCALE AND THRESHOLD NUMBERS

THE CONTEXT

11.1 Since its introduction, there has been much debate about the scope of the national framework for the mandatory licensing scheme. The scheme encompasses almost all types of shared accommodation in the private, public and voluntary sectors. There are only 5 categories of exemptions listed in the Order (Scottish Executive, 2000a: 2(2))

• Nursing homes, residential care homes and private hospitals registered under the (now) Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2002
• Residential boarding accommodation for school students
• Residential accommodation for members of a religious community
• A house occupied only by persons each of whom has a heritable right of ownership of the house (or a member of any of those person's families)
• A house subject to a Control Order under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987

The Order specifically includes women's refuges and term time accommodation occupied by full time students.

11.2 The debate about what should or should not be subject to licensing has been dominated by concerns expressed by certain HMO owners and by interested parties who have argued that particular types and sizes of HMOs, and certain categories of HMO owners, have been inappropriately included within the scheme. After hearing from certain interested parties, the Social Justice Committee published an interim report in December 2001, one of the recommendations of which was:

"that the classes of property currently exempted should be extended to include public sector organisations and others such as the Abbeyfield Society, Scottish Woman's Aid, university accommodation and similar for which a clear definition will be required. Effectively, the committee believes that the scheme should focus on the private sector where there is no equivalent regulation to that in the social rented sector" (Scottish Parliament, 2001)

11.3 Although the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) did not make any representations at the committee's hearings, it was concerned at what it saw as a bias of views heard by the committee:

"COSLA accept the pressures on the Committee's time, however not withstanding this, it is clear that the balance of evidence provided to and for the Committee is skewed in the direction of agencies that feel aggrieved at the operation and impact of the legislation" ( COSLA, 2002: para.3.1)

COSLA referred to the committee's views having been formulated:

" without the benefit of evidence from authorities such as Edinburgh, Fife or Dundee who are running schemes which appear to be less problematic" ( COSLA, 2002: para.3.2 )

11.4 However, as noted in Chapter 6, in the first 12 months of the scheme, only the City of Edinburgh Council, with 91 approvals could have reasonably offered any positive comments on the scheme's operation. Fife Council approved no applications and Dundee City Council, only six. COSLA considered the strategic framework of the scheme " fundamentally sound" and saw no persuasive argument for changes to the list of exemptions as " experience would show there are legitimate concerns about standards" (para. 4.7).

11.5 In the postal survey, local authorities were asked their views on three issues:

EXEMPTION ISSUES

11.6 Three quarters of local authorities agreed with COSLA's view that no changes should be made to the list of exemptions, while a small group of six authorities (19%) saw merit in some loosening of the exemption categories, mainly for Abbeyfield Society homes (Table 11.1).

Table 11.1 Local authority views on changes to exemptions from mandatory licensing

Source: local authority postal survey *multiple choices were made by some authorities

11.7 Authorities also had the opportunity to recommend reducing the range of exemptions but only one authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council, identified any change. It wished to have removed, the exemption of the religious community accommodation category due to a particular local problem concerning a property owned by a Buddhist group to be occupied by five residents who would come to the community to work.

11.8 However, from local authority HMO benchmark group minutes, there were suggestions that exemption should be removed for certain types of staff accommodation attached to hotels and " seasonal accommodation for hotel staff or other seasonal workers where accommodation is provided directly by the employer" (Scottish Local Authority HMO Benchmark Group, 2000b: para.6e). This concern with 'marginal' categories of HMO was also expressed at the apparent exemption of portacabin accommodation for seasonal, foreign student workers employed in fruit picking where the living quarters were often of very basic standard and to which health and safety powers did not extend (Scottish Local Authority HMO Benchmark Group, 2000c: para.7).

ARGUMENTS MADE IN SUPPORT OF MORE EXEMPTIONS

11.9 Notwithstanding the views of COSLA and most local authorities that no extension of exemptions should be contemplated, there have been arguments made by several organisations in support of extending the exemptions categories.

The research considered 3 categories:

• Abbeyfield Society homes
• Housing association very sheltered housing schemes
• Woman's aid refuges

11.10 Other categories could also have been considered (e.g. university owned accommodation and local authority hostels) but representations for exemption of these three categories had been articulately voiced through different mediums and merited further consideration.

Abbeyfield Society homes

11.11 All Abbeyfield homes in Scotland require to be licensed if they fall within the threshold size and are not otherwise registered under the Regulation of Care legislation. Abbeyfield Scotland has been a vocal critic of the inclusion of local Abbeyfield Societies homes and presented detailed written and oral evidence to the Social Justice Committee (Abbeyfield Scotland, 2001a). As a 'key player' organisation interviewed for this study, its arguments for exemption of Abbeyfield homes can be summarised as:

• they are non-profit organisations bearing no relationship in their purpose, management or types of residents to that of private landlords
• They are already sufficiently and rigorously regulated by both external regulators (annual fire brigade inspections and environmental health officers) and internal assessment procedures including the 'Abbeyfield Standard'

11.12 The Abbeyfield Standard is a UK wide quality assessment standard developed by Abbeyfield nationally. It covers internal audit of six areas: residents, staff, management, volunteers, partnerships and the physical environment. From the interview with Abbeyfield Scotland's representative, the achievement of the Abbeyfield Standard would take societies time but it would be rigorously assessed by assessors visiting homes and carrying out audits with reports to a Standards Committee established to help the societies. Their representative explained that the organisation had reached an agreement with Communities Scotland that will decrease its regulation by agreeing to societies operating under Abbeyfield Scotland's standards and procedures for self-assessment. Abbeyfield Scotland will provide Communities Scotland with information on the assessment and progress in applying the Standard to each of the Abbeyfield societies and once a year, a Communities Scotland assessor will join Abbeyfield Scotland assessors in an assessment.

11.13 Notwithstanding other issues, the key issue in the debate over Abbeyfield homes is about the perception and the reality of the fire risk presented to the residents living in an Abbeyfield home. Most local authorities and Abbeyfield societies do not see this issue from the same perspective. As Table 11.1 shows, only five local authorities believed Abbeyfield homes should be exempted from licensing (though not necessarily for the same reasons as Abbeyfield Scotland). There are 108 homes in Scotland. Building type, size, age of construction and modernisation may differ across the group. Based on the case study interviews, the argument put forward by local authorities for inclusion of Abbeyfield homes revolved around the principle of the safety of the residents as their over-riding obligation. To summarise the view of most of the lead HMO officers, if the homes did not meet the benchmark standards, they were not as safe as they should be and that justified their retention in the licensing scheme. They did not consider that other methods of regulation equated with the demanding HMO licence standards and on the key issue of fire safety the lead officers argued that the fire officer carries out a risk assessment that should provide the correct position on fire safety requirements. From Abbeyfield Scotland's perspective, the risk is low because of all the fire safety precautions taken and because of its management systems

11.14 Some lead officers had not found the Abbeyfield homes very deficient in relation to the benchmark standards and could not see what the problem was, as there were little upgrade costs to meet (although this ignored the fee and certification costs). Dumfries & Galloway Council had 8 homes in its area. All had a Fire Certificate, fire doors and a fire detector in each bedroom. According to the lead officer, little work was needed and none had " major costs" to meet. All were close to getting their licence. The Stirling lead officer reported a similar position with the 5 homes in her area, one of which had its application approved. They already had a Fire Certificate and tended to have high standards with not much work to be done in relation to fire safety. In her view, there was " little difficulty with them" other than one that was very unhappy because architectural plans had to be prepared.

11.15 A more critical position was articulated in Edinburgh and Glasgow. In Edinburgh, there were 13 homes. All were granted licences subject to certain outstanding works. The authority's lead officer rebutted Abbeyfield Scotland's arguments for exemption. He believed that licensing would have a positive benefit for the homes because the works they would need to do would make them safer for the residents. In his view, the scheme was flexible enough to deal with different types of HMOs (a point disputed by Abbeyfield Scotland) and the homes were risk assessed by the fire officers. Glasgow had a similar view. With four homes in the city, none were licensed in year one of the scheme but three were " in the pipeline". The fact (according to Abbeyfield Scotland) that some Abbeyfield homes had so high upgrade costs that their viability was threatened was not, in Glasgow's view, the way the issue should be addressed. It argued that if the costs were high, the standards were unsatisfactory, work " must be needed" and the licence was justified because the " safety of residents is paramount". In his view, Fire Certificates were not the same - " once you get one, it lasts …forever", even when standards rise.

Very sheltered housing schemes

11.16 The distinguishing characteristic of the very sheltered housing scheme compared to an 'ordinary' sheltered housing scheme is the preparation of meals by staff in a kitchen and served to residents in a communal dining room. In an ordinary scheme, residents have their own cooking and eating facilities in their self-contained flats.

11.17 Only two local authorities, supported exemption of very sheltered housing schemes managed by housing associations from mandatory licensing. Their postal survey return offered no explanations and no other authorities supported this position. However, 2 leading housing associations, Servite and Hanover, argued that their very sheltered housing schemes were inappropriately included within the national licensing framework. While not tested, other associations with the same types of schemes may hold similar views.

11.18 Servite's housing manager pointed to the inconsistency in attitude by authorities when a scheme in Perthshire did not require an application from Perth and Kinross Council but Dundee City Council required a licence for two schemes. Hanover's manager had over 10 very sheltered housing schemes across Scotland but at the time of the study only two applications were lodged, one with East Renfrewshire Council and one with East Dunbartonshire Council. The association thought that other authorities had not acted to licence schemes in their areas because they had recognised the amount of supervision already in place. Processing the two applications had been put on hold as the association sought to convince the Executive about the inappropriateness of licensing very sheltered housing schemes.

11.19 The 2 associations presented a number of arguments to support the case that sufficient regulation and management were in place to make HMO licensing unnecessary:

11.20 Both associations believed that licensing was simply creating duplication. Hanover added that it carried out its own formal risk assessments. According to its manager, licensing was no more than " a paper chase of certificates". Servite pointed out, ironically, that it was being required to licence two schemes in Dundee yet there had been " no comment" on how it prepared or served its meals or about the kitchen hygiene processes - the very factors that triggered licensing. Although, " to date, the licensing costs of meeting the standards has been minor" (mainly certification), Servite said staff costs have been considerable as the applications had dragged on.

11.21 The SFHA supported the associations in their argument though emphasised it was not looking for a wider range of shared accommodation exemptions across all associations and co-operatives. According to its representative, the impact of licensing on very sheltered housing schemes " was never expected to be the result of the introduction of licensing" but the situation had been made more difficult by " the unwillingness of local authorities to be flexible in their approach and consider different ways in which the same standards of safety could be achieved". The SFHA's one concern about exemptions was the difficulty of writing precise definitions of risk assessment criteria into the regulations.

Woman's aid refuges

11.22 The postal survey showed no support by any local authority for the exemption of woman's aid refuges from mandatory licensing. The issues involved were pursued in the local authority cases studies. The common position adopted by authorities was that if a refuge was an HMO, it should be licensed. As with Abbeyfield homes and very sheltered housing schemes, authorities justified their position in terms of fire risks and equality of treatment. South Ayrshire said: " standards should apply regardless of who owns a property if it is in multiple occupancy". Edinburgh, which was processing 4 applications, emphasised the fire safety issue: " While we have sympathy, if it is an HMO, it still has the capacity for risk of fire and hygiene problems". Similarly with Stirling:

'If women and children go into temporary accommodation, why should they be expected to have less protection and fire safety than anyone else" (Stirling Council, lead HMO officer)

11.23 However, owning a refuge building did not necessarily result in an application. In Stirling, no licence application had been submitted in the first year by the housing department for a woman's aid refuge owned by the council. Similarly, in Aberdeen the lead HMO officer noted:

" There are three but they are owned by the council via the housing account. Their applications should have been submitted in the first year but were not. They are still awaited" (Aberdeen City Council, lead HMO officer)

11.24 On behalf of local woman's aid organisations, Scottish Women's Aid has made its case for exemption at the Social Justice Committee hearings. As with Abbeyfields and very sheltered housing schemes, its view and that of local authorities are not easily reconciled. When interviewed for the research, the organisation's representative emphasised that it was incorrect for anyone to say Woman's Aid was not thinking of the safety of the women and their children in the refuges. The organisation's arguments in support of exemption were:

Conclusion

11.25 Any exemption of Abbeyfield homes, very sheltered housing associations and woman's aid refuges requires more substantive evidence than this study was charged with gathering in a qualitative study. At this stage, there is no reconciling the views between most local authorities and the supporters of these specific exemptions. Those in favour of the exemptions believe, generally, they apply sufficient compensatory safety mechanisms as to make licensing unnecessary, or at most, adding very little additional safety value. From the local authority position, no distinction appears to be drawn between the private rented sector and the non-profit sector. As the Fife lead HMO officer argued:

" Why should they meet any less a standard? No reason. Profit or non profit is not the issue. It is the amenities and safety provided to residents" (Fife Council, lead HMO officer)

MINIMUM OCCUPANCY THRESHOLD AND TIMESCALE CHANGES

11.26 There is no doubt that in the first year, for a number of reasons set out earlier in this report, the mandatory licensing scheme got off to a very slow start, though from some more recent information (see Chapter 6) local authorities are likely to increase their rate of approval in the second year. This raises a question - both principled and pragmatic - as to whether the scheme should be curtailed in the number of HMOs it encompasses or in the timescale within which it is fully implemented, or both.

11.27 Authorities were asked to consider extending the timescale by which the licensing threshold is reduced (which would be a form of suspension of three or four person HMO licensing) and removing 3 person HMOs from the licensing scheme. Despite their problems with the first year's operation of the scheme (53% of authorities had approved no applications in the first year of the scheme when the threshold was over 5 persons), the majority of local authorities were unsupportive of either change. Twenty authorities (63%) wanted no changes to be made either to the reduction in the threshold or to the timescale for the reduction in October 2002 (Table 11.2). Of the four main cities with HMOs, Edinburgh and Dundee wished no changes, although Glasgow, recognising the volume of work it faced, looked for an extension of the October 2002 timescale and Aberdeen believed the threshold should be stopped at HMOs with four qualifying persons.

Table 11.2 Local authority views on changes to the threshold and timescale of licensing

Source: local authority postal survey *percentages rounded up

11.28 However, not all authorities objected to changes to the order. Over a third of authorities, 12, approved of some change, although there was no consensus on what it should be. Four authorities (13%) favoured stopping the threshold at four. A further four favoured extending the timescale for the current year's processing of four person HMO applications for some unspecified period before three person HMOs were incorporated. Further variations were offered by two authorities (6%) who thought that the threshold should be stopped at five and two authorities who believed that the 3s should be excluded and the timescale for processing 4s extended.

THE EXEMPTION OF THREE PERSON HMOS

11.29 Within the terms of the original Licensing Order, all three person HMOs will require to be licensed from October 2003. The inclusion of this size of HMO has been a matter of some controversy. There is a contested assumption that health and safety risks in dwellings reduce as the occupancy level diminishes (as reflected in building regulations where more onerous standards apply to new dwellings with more than six occupants) though this is qualified by the particular occupancy group of a dwelling.

Local authority views on exemption of three person HMOs

11.30 As seen in Table 11.2 above, only six authorities (19%) indicated that three person HMOs should be exempted from the licensing scheme. Even a proposal to apply less strict regulations and standards to three person HMOs was not acceptable to two thirds of authorities although a quarter believed it was feasible (Table 11.3).

Table 11.3 Reducing the regulations and standards for three person HMOs

Source: local authority postal survey

11.31 Reasons given by local authorities for not making the licensing scheme easier for three person HMOs were diverse but the protection of residents from fire was a recurring theme:

• They already face fewer regulations because they come within the 'less than six occupancy' category for fire safety in the benchmark standards
• Securing the safety of tenants was paramount
• Other housing legislation does not adequately address the safety issues.
• Similar risks arise, whatever the occupancy levels
• Small HMOs tend to be domestic accommodation with little or no thought to fire protection or space standards
• Students died in a three person HMO
• Small HMOs are less likely to have been inspected so may well be the most vulnerable to risks
• There can be just as much noise, litter, and disrepair as in larger HMOs and they can have a negative impact on adjoining proprietors
• Space standards should still be applicable (they are not if the 'threes' are excluded from the scheme
• There should be no different standard from larger accommodation

11.32 There are three common types of three person HMOs. Those with:

• Three single person households
• A resident owner with two tenants
• A family with two lodgers

11.33 Three single person households pay rent to a landlord, not resident in the HMO. The latter two types of HMO involve variations on rental arrangements within the domestic milieu of a family home. The difference between them is not large but the non-resident and resident owners can be considered more commercial and business oriented than the family/ two lodgers' arrangement. The family arrangement is characterised by the family that 'takes in' two students as lodgers in term time. The students may only lodge from Monday to Friday and go home at weekends. The university or college that the students attend may have set up the rental arrangement with the family and set standards that must be adhered to.

11.34 Some questions that can be asked about these two resident owners and families with lodger arrangements are:

• Are the health and safety risks with the resident landlord and family-lodger arrangements sufficiently high relative to those faced by a traditional, nuclear family to justify inclusion in the licensing regime?
• Would a typical resident landlord or family with lodgers in their own home, have similar motivation and 'control' over events and behaviour in the HMO as the parents of a traditional family with children (possibly adolescents with their own bedrooms).

11.34 Local a uthorities were asked their views about exempting the two resident owner categories if the threshold for licensing went down to three. Authorities were divided in their views (Table 11.4). Although 13 authorities (41%) wanted neither category excluded, an equal number wanted both categories excluded. In fact, overall, the majority of authorities, 17 (53%), favoured exemption of the family and two lodgers arrangement and just under half, 14 (44%) favoured exemption of the resident landlord and two tenants.

Table 11.4 Local authority willingness to exempt certain 'three person' HMO categories from licensing

Source: local authority postal survey

Views of other participants on the exemption of three person HMOs

11.35 The views of HMO owners, universities and key player organisations provided a less ambiguous, less equivocal perspective on whether to exempt the three person HMO category though there was no overall consensus.

11.36 Of the 10 private owners of HMOs, eight believed that three person HMOs in general should be exempt from licensing (they did not differentiate the categories). Some argued they were just like family houses, one thought that other regulations could deal with any problems without the need for licensing. Owners operating in university areas feared for the negative impact on student accommodation. According to one large property portfolio landlord, if three person HMOs were included in Edinburgh it would " create a massive problem". One owner added that if the 3s were kept in the scheme there should be less demanding standards " though installing a mains powered smoke detector is not that expensive".

11.37 The universities had a particular interest in small HMOs because of their contribution to providing student lets though Glasgow and Edinburgh University had differing thoughts about the HMO of landlady and two lodgers. Glasgow University's manager was not sure that the landlady with two lodgers should be an exempt category. However, Edinburgh University's accommodation manager as reported in Chapter 4 surmised that if landladies with two student lodgers were included in the scheme, " they will not do the work" if alterations were required to their family home. However, the university saw no reason why licensing should not be required for other three person HMOs just as it was for 4 person HMOs. Dundee University's concern was about its own three person flats. The accommodation officer's view was that the flats for three students or less " will be closed and sold". It would be difficult to meet the maintenance improvements required and the flats did not have fire detection to HMO licensing standards. The university was unwilling to do any more work on them as it would involve more borrowing than it was prepared to contemplate.

11.38 Three private owners of three person HMOs in Glasgow were interviewed as part of the research. They owned currently unlicensed HMOs that will require to be licensed from October 2003 and the city council will be seeking applications from October 2002 onwards. While their views on exemption provide an interesting glimpse into the possible attitudes and reactions to licensing of small HMOs, they cannot be presumed to be typical. Unlike many three person HMO owners, they were already aware of licensing because of contact made by HMO officers - although it is fair to say they did not have an accurate understanding of what licensing would mean for them. Unsurprisingly, none of the owners was supportive of licensing their size of HMOs believing it was unnecessary and would add unacceptable costs in relation to the amount of income their flats generated. Their views about whether licensing would make them sell were not fully developed though there were clear indications from their comments that it was a real possibility.

11.39 The owner of one HMO occupied by his student daughter and two other students could not believe that licensing would affect him. He thought the literature on licensing from the council had arrived at the wrong address. The licence fee " would not be worth it" and rents would rise. It was " overkill" to licence a flat lived in by a family member and " only a couple of people". He agreed there needed to be minimum standards and building regulations had to be met but licensing was unnecessary " for properties like his". His concluding view was that the flat " may be sold" if it had to be licensed. The second interviewee managed a two bedroom flat on behalf of her daughter. Three students rented it. If the licence fee was as much as 1700 for three years, she believed this would have:

"serious financial implications given the flat was not big and the rent could not cover that type of cost - students only had so much they could pay" (owner of three person HMO)

11.40 She thought she would " wait and see" how everything developed and continue to rent in the meantime. The third owner was a commercial landlord who owned 4 modern, ex council flats that he rented to students. He was exceedingly displeased about the 1,700 fee for a three year licence and was adamant he would not pay it. He said he was " happy to go to the court" or alternatively he would get two tenants in each flat to say " they are a gay couple and see how the council would prove otherwise". He did not think he would sell up but would either avoid licensing or fight it, but his attitude was: " if it came to it", he would sell.

11.41 There was no consensus on exemption of three person HMOs across the key player organisations. Shelter had no declared position on exempting 3s. In the short term, it thought they probably should be brought into the system although it accepted there would be problems with families with two lodgers. REHIS had no 'official view' either on exemption of the 3s or if there should be a suspension of the scheme for them until the scheme addresses all the bigger HMOs. However, the representative thought that landlords of small HMOs did not make the type of money that those operating larger premises as a business did and that was a factor to consider in the debate. The SFHA said it was not seeking exemption of three person HMOs although a number of associations would have that size of property. As far as SCSH was concerned, " the jury is out" but it believed the issue should be looked at in more detail before the threshold was brought down to three. The representative thought the landlady and two lodgers was the " amateur end of the market" where rent income was just an " income top up". The disincentive of licensing was very high. However, SCSH thought that the three single person households had had their " horror stories" and possibly should be kept in the scheme.

11.42 From a landlord's perspective, SAL believed " common sense must prevail" and the 3s should be excluded. SAL " never thought it would happen" to such small HMOs. However, if 3s were to be retained, there should be no requirement for new fire resistant doors to replace existing doors - though SAL has no problem with smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and blankets. Finally, ARLA, most of whose Scottish members managed three and four person HMOs, was adamant that the 3s should be excluded. Three persons could share a two bedroom flat - it was " ridiculous" to include them. ARLA believed it was a political decision to make the minimum threshold three, not based on advice from civil servants.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

11.43 In the first year of the mandatory licensing scheme:

• Three-quarters of local authorities wanted no changes to the categories of HMO exempted from the mandatory licensing scheme
• A small minority of local authorities were supportive of the exemption of Abbeyfield Society homes but most could see no justification for distinguishing the need to protect elderly residents in Abbeyfield homes from the need to protect other vulnerable groups by requiring a licence to be obtained
• Abbeyfield Scotland believed Abbeyfield homes should be exempt, given the extent of similar regulation they already underwent, the voluntary fire safety inspections carried out and internal audit that the homes were already subject to
• Hardly any local authorities supported the exemption of very sheltered housing schemes from licensing, although associations with such schemes thought that licensing was duplicating other regulations already in operation and added very little value to the health and safety of residents
• No local authorities supported the exemption of woman's aid refuges. Grounds against exemption were that the women and children who lived in them, even if only temporarily, deserved the same standard of protection from fire provided by licensing as any other group living in shared accommodation
• Scottish Women's Aid believed exemption from licensing was justifiable. Grounds for exemption included: voluntary fire inspections were carried out by fire officers; the refuges were not the only or principal home of the women and the refuges have to meet certain standards under agreements with their owners - local authorities and housing associations
• Almost two thirds of local authorities wanted no change to the timescale for reducing the occupancy threshold in October 2002 or to the minimum level of three that the threshold will reduce to in October 2003
• Across the third of authorities who favoured some change, there was no consensus as to what the change should be
• Two thirds of local authorities did not support any less strict regulations and standards being applied to three person HMOs than applied to larger HMOs
• There was no consensus across local authorities as to whether or not to exempt the landlord plus two tenant's category and the landlady and two lodger's category
• Almost all the private sector HMO owners favoured the exemption of three person HMOs and thought that if they were included in the scheme, there would be a serious impact on supply
• The universities did not seek exclusion of three person HMOs but Edinburgh University was concerned about the impact of including landladies with two lodgers. Dundee University owned three person flats and said they would not be able to afford the fire safety and maintenance improvements and would be sold
• Private sector owners of three person HMOs thought licensing was quite unnecessary and would have serious consequences for the financial viability of renting. Selling was a possibility
• There was no consensus across key player organisations about excluding three person HMOs. The landlord and agent organisations wanted them exempted. Other organisations had no official view but leaned towards inclusion rather than exemption. However, they were conscious of particular issues at this level of occupancy and were cautious of simple blanket inclusion of every type of three person HMO.