Housing Act 2004 property licensing schemes

Dawson, Henry; Tacagni, Richard

doi:10.1201/9781003246534-11

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests the possibility that SL schemes may have impacts prior to full implementation. This could be important, as levels of enforcement may vary across London schemes: while there has not been a robust evaluation of this issue, the website www.londonpropertylicencing.co.uk provides some information on varying levels of enforcement based on periodic data requests from London local authorities 15…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The need for action to improve PRS quality has been recognised by UK governmental bodies such as the National Audit Office12 as well as the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health 13. In 2006, local authorities gained discretionary powers to regulate privately rented homes through ‘selective licensing’ (SL) schemes under 14 15. In SL schemes, landlords in areas targeted by local authorities must pay for a licence, allow inspection and carry out work necessary to maintain minimum housing standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fees are typically around £600 for a 5-year licence. SL schemes can only be implemented following a consultation with local stakeholders and only some local authorities have implemented SL to date 15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of selective licensing schemes for private rental housing on mental health and social outcomes in Greater London, England: a natural experiment study

Petersen

Alexiou

Brewerton³

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess primary impact of selective Licensing (SL), an area-based intervention in the private rented housing market, on individual self-reported anxiety and neighbourhood mental health (MHI—Mental Healthcare Index) and secondary impacts on antisocial behaviour (ASB), population turnover and self-reported well-being.DesignDifference-in-difference (DiD) was used to evaluate effects of SL schemes initiated 2012–2018. 921 intervention areas (lower super output areas) were matched 3:1 using propensity scores derived from sociodemographic and housing variables (N=3.684 including controls). Average treatment effect on treated (ATT) was calculated for multiple time period DiD in area-level analyses. Canonical DiD was used for individual-level analysis by year of treatment initiation while adjusting for age, sex, native birth and occupational class.SettingIntervention neighbourhoods and control areas in Greater London, UK, 2011–2019.ParticipantsWe sampled 4474 respondents renting privately in intervention areas (N=17 347 including controls) in Annual Population Survey and obtained area-level MHI population data.InterventionsPrivate landlords in SL areas must obtain a licence from the local authority, allow inspection and maintain minimum housing standards.ResultsATT after 5 years was significantly lower for MHI (−7.5%, 95% CI −5.6% to −8.8%) than controls. Antidepressant treatment days per population reduced by −5.4% (95% CI −3.7% to −7.3), mental health benefit receipt by −9.6% (95% CI −14% to −5.5%) and proportion with depression by −12% (95% CI −7.7% to −16.3%). ASB reduced by −15% (95% CI −21% to −8.2%). Population turnover increased by 26.5% (95% CI 22.1% to 30.8%). Sensitivity analysis suggests overlap with effects of London 2012 Olympic regeneration. No clear patterns were observed for self-reported anxiety.ConclusionsWe found associations between SL and reductions in area-based mental healthcare outcomes and ASB, while population turnover increased. A national evaluation of SL is feasible and necessary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%