The government has overturned its policy to relax HMO regulations on private rental properties used by asylum seekers.
The policy had previously been defended by the government which argued that by relaxing the requirement for landlords to abide by HMO regulations, there would be more accommodation for asylum seekers.
The rule change would have allowed landlords to house asylum seekers for two years without obtaining an HMO licence, a standard requirement for any HMO landlord housing non-asylum seekers.
However, eight asylum seekers challenged the draft regulations and hours before a High Court hearing yesterday the government withdrew the policy. It will now revert to the previous position that everyone living in an HMO has the same rights to protection.
The plans were originally proposed by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Housing Secretary Michael Gove - although it now appears from court documents that Gove expressed opposition to the plans in a letter he sent to the then-Prime Minister in November 2022.
A government spokesperson told the media overnight: “Our success maximising the use of existing sites and delivering alternative accommodation means it is no longer necessary to pursue the removal of licensing requirements for houses in multiple occupation.
“We are making significant progress moving asylum seekers out of hotels, which cost UK taxpayers £8.2m a day. We have already returned the first 50 to their communities and we will exit more in the coming months.
“We continue to keep all policies under review as we work with local authorities to identify alternative accommodation options which are more suitable for local communities.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
Landlord-400x310.png)
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Which landlord in their right mind would ever want an asylum speaker with no documentation, no history and no credit history.
Invariably they are being placed by the likes of Serco, so you are probably not dealing with random dinghy people, but some kind of agency deal with Serco. Either way you don't need the grief for a quick buck.
They must be paying top dollar 💵, I still wouldn’t though.
They do pay top dollar. Serco and Clearsprings outbid the councils too. But no thanks. They are not good at giving the properties back to landlords. Court action is required I understand.
Agreed I wouldn't want them at any money
We are supposed to check documents to prove the right to rent, how can you do that with an asylum seeker?
Exactly John. No documents means you can't check. There are penalties for not checking. Who would want to house these illegal immigrants anyway?
They are always bending their own rules when it comes to immigration. Local nursery ordered to take in children of asylum seekers who are living rent free in the local Travel Lodge. When told they can't because of ratios they were told to ignore them and just do it. So either the rules were just bureaucracy designed to make it more expensive and thus harder to make a living, or they are putting everyone's kids in jeopardy?
HMO Licensing a disgrace so many times its ridiculous. I have redone 4 x 4 times, others 3 times, 2 since Christmas and another one due in a few weeks, those 3 alone is almost £5’000.00 plus all the
Certificate’s annually & the 5 yearly + Fire Risk assessment annually £220. each it’s ridiculous. Why am I required to do 4 while others haven’t done any. I should be exempt until there’s have done 4 and catches up. I think they should be every 10 years not 5 years its too close together and comes around too quickly in another 2 years I’ll be on the 5th ones. Surely when the fire doors etc has been done at passed it ok for 10 years, some of the original doors were there 100 years and as sound as the day they went-in.
The News on TV tonight says the worst pollution is inside your car.
I think the worst pollution is inside your home everything sealed up tight re-breathing the same foul air repeatedly a health hazard.
Wow 😮 what a scam !! There are some nice little earners out there 💵💵🎉🎉
At the end of the day it is up to the landlord who he houses in his/her HMO as long as they remember that it should not be for racist reasons, as they cannot use racism as an excuse. However if it is because you require references or history of a bank account etc just refuse and choose somebody else.
At present the government has a job on it’s hands trying to house way to many people and save itself a whole lot of money. Well you might think that it is worth it, or you may not, just remember that once you've made your decision you counld be stuck with it for longer than you wish, because the government or local authority will definitely not be sympathetic towards the landlord no matter what the circumstance.
So true, once they are in the door of your HMO I think the government will make it difficult to get rid of them.
Whatever regulation there is should be the same.
You can not have 2 standards , you either need to comply with all legal requirements or you dont. Why should the regulations be different for asylum seekers? Are they less worthy?
If a house is not safe for "normal" members of the population - should an asylum seeker be housed init.
Take away regulation and you can be sure that the quality of housing for the most vulnerable would most likely the landlords who do not care to follow the rules, who would charging well above market rate for substandard rooms all at the expense of the British Tax payer.
Good landlords tend to keep clear of any tenant who can not pass referencing and the right to rent requirements. Simply because even if you want to help, interference from Government/Council is more likely to cause the landlord pain so simply makes it not worth while.
Agree, it has the wiff of Grenfell 😬🤔. Safety standards can be overlooked if you’re an asylum seeker. It’s wrong on many levels.
Peter, couldn’t agree more but apart from Referencing, Bank Accounts that they won’t give you anyway. Don’t forget if they are from another Country and if they are Asylum or not, you’ll need their Share Code not more than a month old to Check on Government website if they have the Right 2 Rent.
As regards racism probably over played. I used have a work mate from Dominica what we didn’t call each other in the course of a day ? but god help anyone that came between us.
As most asylum seekers cannot speak English or chose not to how on earth did they manage to get eight together to challenge the government through the high court?
Actually most of them have at least a working knowledge of English when they so choose.
Of course we currently have a whole industry of left wing extremists determined to pull down the Government and they operate at every level from school indoctrination to the legal system they use the levers of you're far right, you're a conspiracy theorist etc to shut down debate, and they are extremely successful in our overly soft tolerant society, and it's very ironic that China and Russia will rapidly remove any decent from society yet encourages these folk in our country to reek havoc by claiming rights and protections for people who absolutely detest everything they claim to represent.
What does return to their communities mean ?
Going back home?
Extraordinary that people who supposedly have travelled often 1000s of miles with little food or water, made the perilous journey accross the channel, escaping persecution and perhaps even imminent death then have the knowledge, time, resources and energy to understand the HMO draft regulations, hire a barrister and make a challenge at the High Court. You would think instead they would be grateful and pleased they were being given sanctuary and a roof over their head with the government proposing to make more available.
Damn, done it again, Im getting the definition of asylum seekers mixed up with the 99.9% of people that apply for asylum in the UK.
Perilous journey indeed, but that is the price you have to pay for converting to Christianity.
Well there are lots of Jackie Mackenzies out there from Leigh Day happy to suck up Care for Calais' charity money and legal aid in order to fight the system.
And I bet the asylum seekers' lawyers were paid through Legal Aid! Taxpayers' money!!
Ever so slightly off topic BUT...
I am a managing agent working mainly in a North London Borough and in general get on very well with the licensing authority. They are making additional changes to their HMO specifications, of which I/my landlords pretty much comply anyway.
Because of my relationship with the local authority they asked for my comments/suggestions.
I could only reply that the local authority MUST back landlords and agents when it comes to enforcing the behaviour and actions of tenants.
For example "agents must make regular inspections to gardens and outside spaces and ensure that there is no build up of rubbish or materials which can harbour pests/rodents".
So, upon an inspection, we see a build up of rubbish etc. and inform the tenants that they must deal with this otherwise we will do so and deduct from their deposit.....Absolutely fine until RRB comes in and we have unlimited tenancies, tenants refuse to adhere and there is no way of claiming back any expenditure if the tenants have an open ended contract and when the tenants come crying to us about pests we have to deal with it.....go figure!
Ever so slightly off topic BUT...
I am a managing agent working mainly in a North London Borough and in general get on very well with the licensing authority. They are making additional changes to their HMO specifications, of which I/my landlords pretty much comply anyway.
Because of my relationship with the local authority they asked for my comments/suggestions.
I could only reply that the local authority MUST back landlords and agents when it comes to enforcing the behaviour and actions of tenants.
For example "agents must make regular inspections to gardens and outside spaces and ensure that there is no build up of rubbish or materials which can harbour pests/rodents".
So, upon an inspection, we see a build up of rubbish etc. and inform the tenants that they must deal with this otherwise we will do so and deduct from their deposit.....Absolutely fine until RRB comes in and we have unlimited tenancies, tenants refuse to adhere and there is no way of claiming back any expenditure if the tenants have an open ended contract and when the tenants come crying to us about pests we have to deal with it.....go figure!
Have you got a stutter Frank?
Had that when I first started bin bags piled up outside the back door, ''landlord there are rats in your property'' all my fault of course
ha ha no, I t did not look like it had been submitted first time!
I think it’s easy to get along with local Authorities when snouts are in the same trough.
I think you can get 12 in the trough.
If there's something to feed on and it's a Labour council they can get more pigs in there.
How is it if the Government wants everything more energy efficient there’s a massive penalty for doing it, today bought yet another new Boiler + £300.00 VAT tax penalty. how much are they really making out of us.
Please login to comment