“(6) The second set of general conditions are— (a) that the area is experiencing a significant and persistent problem caused by anti-social behaviour; (b) that some or all of the private sector landlords who have let premises in the area (whether under leases or licences) are failing to take action to combat the problem that it would be appropriate for them to take; and (c) that making a designation will, when combined with other measures taken in the area by the local housing authority, or by other persons together with the local housing authority, lead to a reduction in, or the elimination of, the problem.”
“3. — Conditions specified for the purposes of section 80(2)(b) of the 2004 Act “(1) The following conditions are specified as additional conditions for the purposes of section 80(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which a local housing authority must consider are satisfied in relation to the area before making a selective licensing designation under this provision— (a) that the area contains a high proportion of properties in the private rented sector, in relation to the total number of properties in the area; (b) that the properties referred to in sub-paragraph (a) are occupied either under assured tenancies or licences to occupy; and (c) that one or more of the sets of conditions in articles 4 to 7 is satisfied.”
“4. — Conditions in relation to Housing Conditions “The first set of conditions is— (a) that having carried out a review of housing conditions undersection 3(1) of the 2004 Act , the local housing authority considers it would be appropriate for a significant number of the properties referred to in article 3(1)(a) to be inspected, with a view to determining whether any category 1 or category 2 hazards Category 1 and category 2 hazards are defined insection 2(1) of the Housing Act 2004 . exist on the premises; (b) that the local housing authority intends to carry out such inspections as referred to in paragraph (a), with a view to carrying out any necessary enforcement action; and (c) that making a designation will, when combined with other measures taken in the area by the local housing authority, or by other persons together with the local housing authority, including any licence conditions imposed undersection 90 of the 2004 Act , contribute to an improvement in general housing conditions in the area.”
“(4) The authority must not make a particular designation under section 80 unless– (a) they have considered whether there are any other courses of action available to them (of whatever nature) that might provide an effective method of achieving the objective or objectives that the designation would be intended to achieve, and (b) they consider that making the designation will significantly assist them to achieve the objective or objectives (whether or not they take any other course of action as well).” (a) they have considered whether there are any other courses of action available to them (of whatever nature) that might provide an effective method of achieving the objective or objectives that the designation would be intended to achieve, and (b) they consider that making the designation will significantly assist them to achieve the objective or objectives (whether or not they take any other course of action as well).”
“16. … [the authority] must also consider whether there are any other courses of action available to it that would achieve the same objective or objectives as the proposed scheme without the need for the designation to be made. For example, if the area is suffering from poor housing conditions, is a programme of renewal a viable alternative to making the designation? In areas with anti-social behaviour, where landlords are not taking appropriate action, could an education programme or a voluntary accreditation scheme achieve the same objective as a selective licensing designation? “17. If the problems of anti-social behaviour are only associated with a small number of properties a local housing authority should consider making a Special Interim Management Order, rather than a selective licensing designation covering properties with regard to anti-social behaviour (see Annex below). “18. Only where there is no practical and beneficial alternative to a designation should a selective licensing scheme be made.”
“It will not be appropriate to make a selective licensing designation to address isolated individual problems of anti-social behaviour which nevertheless seriously impact upon the local community. In such cases local housing authorities should consider making a Special Interim Management Order (SIMO) under Part 4 of the Act. “A Special Interim Management Order transfers the management of a residential property to the local housing authority for a period of up to 12 months and can only be made if approved by the First Tier Tribunal (Residential Property). The tribunal may not authorise a Special Interim Management Order in respect of a property unless, in the case of non-Houses of Multiple Occupation, there is anti-social behaviour emanating from the property, the landlord is failing to take appropriate action to deal with the problem, and it is necessary to make the order to protect the health, safety or welfare of persons occupying, visiting or engaged in lawful activities in the locality of the house.”
“… targeting specific areas where additional oversight in the private rented sector is needed. This approach will allow the Council to focus resources on areas with higher incidences of poor property conditions and ASB.”
“The main aim of this review was to investigate and provide accurate estimates of: • Current levels of private rented sector (PRS) properties and tenure change over time. • Levels of serious hazards that might amount to a Category 1 hazard (Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS)) • Other housing related stressors, including antisocial behaviour (ASB), service demand, population and deprivation linked to the PRS. • Assist the council to make policy decisions, including the possible introduction of property licensing schemes under Part 2 and Part 3 ofHousing Act 2004 ”
“Known stressors linked to individual properties have been modelled to calculate population level incidences and rates.”
“The predictive capacity of each model was assessed using a D² test, which provides a measure of the overall predictive performance of the model and is an accepted method for evaluating the predictive capacity of this type of model. Higher values indicate stronger predictive capacity. a. The Owner-Occupier model achieved a predictive capacity of 81%. b. The PRS model achieved a predictive capacity of 94%. c. The HHSRS hazard model achieved a predictive capacity of 85%.”
“2,894 burglaries were reported to the Metropolitan Police in Westminster between May 2022 – April 2024. Lancaster Gate (257) and Marylebone (228) wards have the highest number of burglaries (Figure 8). There are 6,764 private rented properties in Westminster that are likely to have at least one serious housing hazard (Category 1 and high scoring Category 2, HHSRS). PRS properties with serious hazards are distributed across all wards. Lancaster Gate (661) and West End (603) have the highest number of properties with at least one Category 1 and/or high scoring Category 2 hazard (Figure 19 & Map 4). Category 1 and/or high scoring Category 2 hazards in the PRS are distributed across Westminster with no clear geographical concentrations of hazards (Map 4). The rates of Category 1 and/or high scoring Category 2 HHSRS hazards per 100 PRS properties reveals a wide distribution across Westminster (Figure 18 & Map 5). Lancaster Gate (16.9 per 100) and Harrow Road (15.3 per 100) have the highest rates of predicted PRS properties with serious hazards. The national average for Category 1 hazards in the PRS is 12%. Complaints and service requests made by PRS tenants to the council about poor property conditions and inadequate property management are a direct indicator of low quality PRS. Westminster recorded 3,805 complaints and service requests from private tenants and others linked to PRS properties over a 5-year period (Figure 19). Properties in Lancaster Gate (381) and Bayswater (325) were subject to the most private tenant service requests and complaints by private tenants and others to the Council (Figure 19 & Map 6). It has been calculated using the matched addresses that 10.1% of PRS properties in Westminster have an E, F, and G rating. 1% of PRS properties have an F and G rating (Figure 22). Extrapolated to the entire PRS, 553 PRS properties are likely to fail the MEES statutory requirement. Westminster has 4,765 PRS EPC ratings that are E, F, & G. EPC ratings E, F, & G represent properties with the least energy efficiency. West End (512) and Marylebone (481) have the highest number of EPC rating E-G (Figure 22). Queen’s Park (13.6) PRS stock has the largest difference between current and potential energy efficiency score (Figure 24). Westminster uses a range of statutory housing and public health notices to address poor housing standards in the PRS. Interventions can be a result of a complaint being made by a tenant about their accommodation or as a result of a proactive inspection. Over a 5-year period (2018-23) Westminster served one or more housing and public health notices on 356 unique residential premises; this equated to 583 notices in total (Figure 25). Properties in Harrow Road (79) and Hyde Park (59) received the highest number of statutory notices for housing and public health related issues (Figure 25 & Map 7). The council has recorded a total of 20,640 incidents related to noise anti-social behaviour (ASB) linked to 8,927 PRS properties over the past five years. Lancaster Gate (2,346) and Bayswater have the highest levels of PRS ASB incidents (Figure 26 & Map 8). Properties subject to repeat ASB incidents (2 or more incidents) begin to demonstrate a lack of tenancy management or other underlying issues. Lancaster Gate (323) has the highest number of properties with repeat noise ASB incidents (Figure 27). Other ASB includes all other types of ASB (excluding noise), including waste, smoke, odours and fly tipping and is investigated and recorded by Westminster’s City Inspectors. The council has recorded a total of 4,601 incidents related to other anti-social behaviour (ASB) linked to 3,302 PRS properties over the past five years. Marylebone (547) has the highest number of other ASB incidents (Figure 28 & Map 9). Marylebone (92) has the highest number of properties with repeat other ASB incidents (Figure 29). Looking at total ASB (combining noise and other ASB), there have been 3,956 distinct properties in the PRS with repeat ASB incidents over the past 5 years, and Lancaster Gate (389) has the highest number of properties with overall repeat ASB.”
“All of the 15 wards in the two designations have levels of category 1 housing hazards that are above the national average of 10%. … From the experience of council officers, these properties are also highly likely to also have at least one category 2 hazard.”
“The 7 wards in designation 2 [i.e., including the Marylebone and West End wards] are all experiencing significant and persistent levels of anti-social behaviour (ASB) specifically related to private rented properties and its occupants, or its immediate vicinity. When this type of ASB is carried out by tenants, the council expect a landlord to help address the issues with them.”
“4.14. As detailed in the [Cadence Evidence report], it is proposed that all private rented property licence applications will receive a desk-based risk assessment. Compliance inspections will be undertaken in at least 60% of licensed properties equating to approximately 20,000 compliance inspections undertaken over the life of the scheme. It is anticipated that this will lead to at least 10,000 properties being improved via compliance inspections alone and subsequent enforcement action where required. 4.15. As well as reactively responding to complaints, through this inspection regime the Council will ensure that any Category 1 and 2 hazards identified are remediated and licence conditions complied with. This will achieve a general improvement of property conditions in both Designation 1 and Designation 2 within the lifetime of the scheme. 4.16. The [Cadence Evidence report] also sets out how the council intends to deliver a reduction in ASB in Designation 2 by working proactively with landlords and owners of properties to prevent ASB and, where necessary, dealing with ASB in their properties. This will be achieved through a combined effort as a local authority working in partnership with other agencies. Attention is drawn to the findings in the [Cadence Evidence report] that the 7 wards in proposed designation 2 are all experiencing significant and persistent levels of ASB specifically related to privately rented properties and occupants or its immediate vicinity. That report also evidences that some landlords in this category are failing to take action to combat this problem. 4.17. The operation of a selective licensing scheme will ensure that landlords are required to have a more hands on approach to tenancy management in their privately rented homes. Through the granting of licences under the selective licensing scheme, standard licence conditions will be imposed that require licence holders to meet obligations relating to the letting and effective proactive management of their rented homes. 4.18. Guidance and advice will be provided to landlords on managing tenants who are involved in ASB, particularly where there is evidence of serious ASB which necessitates formal action in the Courts. 4.19. Officers shall work collaboratively with multidisciplinary teams alongside internal and external stakeholders including the Police to identify properties of concern to improve property conditions and reduce ASB. 4.20. Having carefully considered the consultation representations there are no alternatives identified that would, individually or collectively, be capable of delivering the scheme objectives that the Council would achieve through the introduction of the proposed selective licensing scheme. Making the designations combined with other measures taken by the Council will significantly assist the council to achieve the proposed objectives to reduce poor housing conditions in Designation 1, and to reduce poor housing conditions and achieve a reduction or elimination of the significant and persistent problems caused by ASB in Designation 2.”
“… a decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”
“It is clear that the local authority are entrusted by Parliament with the decision on a matter which the knowledge and experience of that authority can best be trusted to deal with. The subject-matter with which the condition deals is one relevant for its consideration. They have considered it and come to a decision upon it. It is true to say that, if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere. That, I think, is quite right; but to prove a case of that kind would require something overwhelming, and, in this case, the facts do not come anywhere near anything of that kind. I think Mr. Gallop in the end agreed that his proposition that the decision of the local authority can be upset if it is proved to be unreasonable, really meant that it must be proved to be unreasonable in the sense that the court considers it to be a decision that no reasonable body could have come to. It is not what the court considers unreasonable, a different thing altogether.”
“28. The Claimant criticises the way the borough has been divided up into wards. Ward level data is an entirely appropriate way of splitting up the borough and has been used by several London local authorities; it provides operational clarity and ease of boundary definition.” … “30. … Wards are established, legally recognised administrative areas which provide clear boundaries, ensure transparency for landlords and tenants, and are consistent with the requirements of theHousing Act 2004 for selective licensing designations to be made in respect of defined areas. Presenting data at ward level allows for clarity of communication and enforcement, while still being firmly grounded in robust property-level analysis. “31. The use of wards provides a proportionate and rational method of defining areas. It avoids ambiguity or disputes over boundaries, and aligns with the approach adopted by other London local authorities when introducing selective licensing schemes. While some variation at a more granular level within wards is inevitable, there was no evidence to suggest that any specific sub-area should be excluded from the designation. “32. The only known exception in London where a more localised exclusion was applied occurred in Newham, in respect of a new housing development within the Olympic Park In subsequent evidence it became apparent that there was, at least arguably, a further exception in Hammersmith. However, it is clear that designation by reference to wards is by far the most common approach. . That exclusion arose solely because there was no data available to assess those properties, as they were vacant and yet to be occupied. This is entirely distinct from the present case, which concerns established housing stock, predominantly pre-1900, and comprising a mix of freehold and leasehold dwellings. “33. Furthermore, members of the public, including tenants and landlords, know which ward they are in and who their ward councillors are; it is a well-established means of dividing a borough and provides clarity.”
“43. During my time working at the City of Westminster, alternative approaches to selective licensing have also been explored. This has included consideration of whether more localised designations, such as specific problematic blocks of flats, streets, or areas experiencing persistent waste management issues could be targeted. Such exploration often arises from local community concerns or member-led requests. However, in practice, these issues are not confined to isolated buildings or micro-locations, but are more widely distributed across wards. “44. Selective licensing is intended to address broader, area-based issues and therefore requires a sufficiently wide and coherent geographic scope to be effective. A more localised approach in a conurbation such as Westminster would, in effect, result in dozens of small, fragmented designations. Furthermore, localised problems are often transient in nature and can shift from place to place. For example, issues may arise where an unscrupulous managing agent takes control of a number of flats within a large mansion block. This is a relatively common occurrence in Westminster, where managing agents oversee the day-to-day operation of property portfolios, often on behalf of offshore entities. “45. The council did not present ward level data merely for administrative convenience. Although conclusions were presented at ward level, the underlying evidence base included property-level analysis, enabling examination of patterns and concentrations within wards. “46. In assessing proportionality and targeting, officers also considered the operational reality that selective licensing is a regulatory framework intended to drive improved management standards across an area, rather than solely to address a small number of isolated addresses. The council concluded from an early stage, when the draft Metastreet data was provided, that ward-based designations were justified by the combination of: (i) high concentrations of PRS properties; (ii) indicators of management concerns and ASB associated with the PRS; (iii) housing conditions risks; and (iv) the council’s wider enforcement and regulatory objectives when combined with other measures. “47. The use of wards provides a proportionate and rational method of defining designation areas. Wards are clearly defined, publicly recognised boundaries and align with the approach adopted by many other London local authorities introducing selective licensing schemes. While variation at a more granular level within wards is inevitable, there was no evidence demonstrating that any discrete sub-area should be treated as distinct nor excluded from designation. As Metastreet built a data warehouse as part of the analysis, officers were able to analyse property and intra-ward information using GIS software, an example of such is evidenced on page 103 of the OPH bundle which illustrates serious hazard prediction distribution across Marylebone ward. “48. Excluding or carving out pockets within wards based on marginally different indicators would risk inconsistency, confusion and a fragmented regulatory approach. Wards provide clearly identifiable boundaries that are understood by tenants and landlords and are consistently used in digital mapping and service delivery datasets. In addition to undermining clarity and transparency for landlords, tenants and residents, using alternative boundaries would have required arbitrary line-drawing between adjoining streets and buildings that share the same building typologies, tenure patterns, and environmental stressors. It would also risk creating small, isolated pockets where unscrupulous landlords or agents could concentrate their activities to avoid regulatory focus, thereby undermining the intended protections and enforcement outcomes. “49. The use of wards also enables alignment with wider council policy and operational structures. Many services, including within the Public Protection & Licensing directorate, ASB teams and public health initiatives, are delivered on an area-based or ward-based model. Selective licensing is therefore capable of being integrated into existing multi-agency, ward-focused approaches to local problem-solving, rather than operating in isolated pockets.” … “52. I am aware that some local authorities have adopted more geographically narrow selective licensing designations, for example designating individual streets, small clusters of streets, or Lower Layer Super Output Areas (“LSOAs”) where evidence demonstrated highly localised concentrations of deprivation, crime, or poor housing conditions. Others have used LSOAs as designation units where statistical indicators (e.g. Index of Multiple Deprivation scores, crime rates, or empty property levels) were sharply concentrated within those micro-areas. “53. Westminster is materially different in character. It is a dense, continuous urban conurbation in central London. There are no physically separate housing estates in the sense seen in some regional towns. The housing stock is predominantly converted Victorian and Georgian buildings or purpose-built mansion blocks. Building typologies, tenure patterns, and environmental stressors are widely distributed and interspersed across wards. Privately rented properties are not clustered in isolated streets that can easily be ring-fenced. Rather, PRS properties are dispersed throughout mixed-use neighbourhoods alongside commercial premises, short-term lets, owner-occupied flats, leasehold subletting arrangements, and blocks under mixed management structures. “54. Westminster experiences extremely high residential turnover, intense housing demand, and significant pressure on stock. These characteristics are not confined to a handful of streets but are systemic across the area as a whole.”
“32. In my experience, assessing evidence at ward level is by far the most common approach, particularly in London. The most common reason for using wards is that the boundary lines often follow natural geographical features within a borough that can be explained and regulated, and ward-level geography is widely understood by stakeholders, including residents, Councillors, officers and landlords.”
“42. … With the exception of open parks, given the dense urban environment throughout Westminster there is a continuous spread of residential accommodation across the borough with no defined areas within wards defining uniquely different areas. Furthermore, I am confident that other than naturally expected variation in housing conditions and ASB data there is no defined area within any of the wards that stood out suggesting the need for special consideration. By way of example, an overlay showing the distribution of properties predicted to contain significant hazards across the Marylebone ward is presented as exhibit GM04 Attached to this judgment as Appendix 1 . It will be seen both that the prevalence of hazards exists throughout the ward and, in particular, that it exists throughout the Claimant’s estate.” … “80. There appears to be some misunderstanding in the Claimant’s analysis suggesting that ASB assessment was conducted only at ward level. The data used for modelling comprised real-world intervention data recorded at individual property level. Whilst the detailed evidence exists at specific address level, for decision-making purposes the results were presented in broader ward categories. By way of example, Exhibit GM05 Attached to this Judgment as Appendix 2 shows the spatial distribution of ASB interventions across Marylebone and West End Ward.”
“100. The council could not assess individual landlords, freeholders or portfolio owners across the designated wards. In practical terms, it is not possible to identify with complete accuracy the ownership and management arrangements of all privately rented properties within the borough prior to licensing. The private rented sector is characterised by complex ownership structures, frequent changes in control, the use of managing agents, leasehold/freehold layering, and corporate entities. Comprehensive and reliable ownership intelligence is typically obtained only through the licensing application process itself. Complex ownership structures are common in the borough with a large proportion of properties owned by offshore entities. Ownership arrangements include freehold–head-lease arrangements, blocks with multiple intermediate landlords, properties operating under “rent-to-rent” arrangements, and buildings where long leaseholders sub-let to PRS tenants through corporate or letting-agency intermediaries. These models create fragmented responsibility. Even if the council was in a position to assess individual portfolios, it would need to consider every landowner and portfolio-holder and would need to draw a line on where to stop. 101. Whilst individual landlords were able to make representations during the statutory consultation, and some did so, the designation decision is required to be made by reference to the statutory conditions relating to the area as a whole rather than by reference to the conduct of specific landlords. The statutory scheme under Part 3 of theHousing Act 2004 does not require the authority to demonstrate that every landlord is failing, nor does it provide for designation to be confined only to landlords of a particular scale or reputation. 102. The council did consider whether mechanisms could be introduced to recognise landlords with demonstrably strong management standards, including the possibility of accreditation-style recognition or fee differentiation for those able to evidence a consistently high standard of compliance. Such approaches are commonly explored by authorities when renewing or extending an existing scheme, at a stage when substantial inspection data and operational intelligence have been gathered over time. 103. At the point of designation, however, the council had not yet undertaken a borough-wide inspection programme under selective licensing. In particular, in relation to housing conditions, the purpose of the scheme is to enable inspection of licensed properties to determine whether Category 1 or Category 2 hazards exist. Prior to undertaking that inspection activity, it would not have been possible to draw reliable conclusions as to the condition of individual portfolios or estates across a five-year licensing period. 104. The council was also mindful that any form of blanket exemption or “gold standard” designation at the outset would risk creating a false sense of assurance. Property condition and management standards are not static. Ownership may change, managing agents may be replaced, and physical deterioration can occur over time. A determination that a property or landlord met a particular benchmark at one point in time would not guarantee continued compliance throughout the five-year duration of a licence. There was concern that exempting particular landlords or portfolios could inadvertently suggest to tenants that such properties were hazard-free or subject to lighter oversight, when that could not be guaranteed. 105. It was therefore concluded that a uniform application of the licensing requirement across the designated area was the most proportionate and administratively workable approach at the outset of the scheme. This does not preclude the council from developing differentiated approaches, fee adjustments, or recognition schemes in future phases once sufficient inspection evidence and compliance data have been gathered to support evidence-based distinctions between different categories of landlord.”
“7. Historically, councils attempted to review their housing stock and identify property tenure through physical inspections and neighbourhood surveys. While these techniques could generate intelligence, they were labour intensive, costly and unreliable when applied across an entire borough. One of the reasons these techniques are unreliable is related to the difficulties in gaining access to enough properties to produce a representative sample, and there is resistance from landlords and tenants to grant access to properties that are in poor condition or a source of Anti-Social-behaviour (ASB), which can bias borough level results when extrapolated.”
“27. The council considered alternative evidential approaches but concluded that predictive modelling provided the most robust and proportionate method for assessing housing conditions and management standards across a borough of this scale. This approach has been adopted by a number of other local authorities in support of large-scale licensing designations including the nearby authorities of Brent, Enfield, Haringey, Lambeth, Southwark and Merton. In the case of these authorities, a similar Housing Stock Condition and Stressors report produced by Metastreet forms part of the evidence supporting the designation and is attached to the relevant governance decision. “28. By contrast, seeking to inspect a large random sample of properties and extrapolate the results would have been less reliable and operationally infeasible. Physical inspections are resource-intensive, frequently hampered by access difficulties, and particularly challenging where properties are occupied by vulnerable tenants or by landlords who have not previously engaged with council services. The modelling drew upon a combination of a substantial volume of statutory notices, real life inspection records and intervention data, giving confidence that the model reflects real-world housing conditions across the borough.”