Can we actually end HMOs?

It's a trend now, councillors and candidates taking a stand against HMOs. I've done it, with some success, and so have my colleagues.

But the HMO story is far more nuanced, and an HMO is not always a bad thing. In some situations an HMO can be the answer, rather than the problem.

My HMO Experience

When I first moved to London I lived in an HMO. It was in a town-house in Notting Hill and I paid just £300 a month. It made London affordable and got me onto the career ladder, with a decent room that was walking distance from my work. It wasn't the best place to live, but it was what I needed.

When I moved out from there, I moved into another HMO in SW London, with some friends from church. It certainly wasn't a licensed one, we were lucky to have a good relationship with the landlord. Again, it gave me a decent home in the right location, without crippling me. I was able to save up my money.

Not everyone has the same experience, some HMOs are horrific and many disturb the neighbourhood. But, a well run and legal HMO can be a lifeline.

Can HMOs be the answer?

The average age of a first time buyer is now closing in on 35. In 2007 it was close to 30, in the 1970s it was in the mid-20s. This is a problem.

Living under your parents' feet until your mid-30s means delaying starting a family, limiting your employment choices and having less independence. Getting a mortgage in the mid-30s, that then lasts for an average of 30 years, is a stark contrast to the generations who were paying mortgages off in their 50s and slowing down later in life.

When we add into the mix the fact Havering has 400 local families living in temporary accommodation, at a cost of £20m a year to the borough, we see an urgent need for low-cost housing.

An HMO doesn’t solve the ‘mortgaged till your 60s’ issue, but it does allow one to move to where jobs pay better, whilst paying a lower rent and allowing one to save. If you’re a young single worker in your 20s then why do you need a family house and garden? I certainly didn’t care about that when I was living 13 stories up.

And well-run, licensed HMOs can provide much better accommodation than a B&B.

HMOs often provide much needed housing, and they fill a gap.

But, they need to be well-run, legal, and in the right location.

Objecting to an HMO

I have fought against a number of unsuitable HMOs during my time as a Councillor. I didn’t object to all of them, but I focused my attention on those that were going to be an issue.

In one instance, the proposal was to expand the home to 12 rooms. It looked like kennels, with a long and low corridor with half a dozen rooms off it. The rooms had windows that looked directly onto a fence, and 12 people were sharing a tiny communal space and kitchen.

This HMO would not provide a decent standard of living for the future inhabitants, who we should stand up for as much as current residents. The street it was on already had 30% of the homes converted into HMOs, and that’s just too much for one area. This is an objection that I often used, on the basis that it transforms the character of an area.

Objecting to an HMO is more complicated than some councillors and campaigners let on.

Last summer, a councillor stood outside a ‘suspected HMO’ and broadcast allegations about the people living there. It generated plenty of clicks and signatures on a petition.

Setting aside the wisdom of publicly speculating about the occupants of a property, that is not how HMOs are stopped.

HMOs are governed by planning and licensing laws. Councils can make decisions that ignore those laws, but face consequences if those decisions are overturned on appeal. As long as a council is satisfied that an HMO meets the relevant rules, it is likely to be approved, petition or otherwise.

A councillor and campaigner need to highlight how the HMO breaks said rules. This means objecting on grounds such as living conditions, the impact of light, noise etc. And, be warned, a decent landlord will come armed with professional studies that show how these are not a problem.

The short of it?

Objecting to an HMO is hard and requires skill, not just shouting at things.

How do we fix this?

Let’s take a look, again, at why HMOs exist.

1. Housing is expensive

2. Many young people don’t want or need a family home with garden and parking

3. Havering isn’t building

   
   

Anyone under 30 who lives in Havering is going to struggle to stay here. That means limited job opportunities and it means moving a long distance from support networks, such as families.

For 25+ years, Romford has been dominated by political voices who objected to any sort of new development, and especially anything high-rise.

“We need family homes with parking” is the cry, and that’s true. But a 25 year old single man doesn’t need and rarely wants that. What he wants is a decent starter flat, 15 minutes from a station and shopping.

We’ve not built that in Romford, and it means landlords are making money converting family homes into HMOs.

There are 324 licensed HMOs in Havering, at 4 people per home that’s nearly 1,300 people who were looking for an affordable starter home to rent.

If we built more starter flats, we would reduce the pressure that drives the conversion of family homes into HMOs. We would be giving Havering the chance to get more family homes back, whilst also providing better options for younger residents.

I’m not calling for 1,300 one-bed flats to be built, but we need to think a bit deeper about these things.

We objected to new developments, we then object to HMOs, we then complain that our high street is dying and no-one comes here any more... and all these things are linked.

Housing policy needs to be balanced, reasonable, and based on needs. Not just nostalgia and political expedience.

If you want an end to HMOs, you need to back building starter homes. If you want more family homes, but not on greenbelt, then you need to back building starter homes, to reduce the demand for HMOs, and so on.

I, for one, am bored of the lazy campaigning and complaining and posturing around housing in Havering.

We have 400 families forced to live in B&Bs and hotels, we have 1,200+ people living in HMOs. And we constantly object to every solution.

If we want local born and bred families to stay in the area, and stay together, then we must back building. Family homes and starter homes, houses and flats, and maybe some HMOs.

Instead of reducing every housing debate to slogans, petitions and social media clips, we should be prepared to engage with the realities of housing need. These are complicated issues that deserve common sense, decency and serious discussion.