RHO Subletting Strategy - Riverside

‘Count Me In’ Policy Consultation
RHO Subletting Strategy
September 2012
Key Points
65% of respondents are satisfied with the Subletting Strategy
85% feel it makes clear our aims and objectives
70% feel it reflects the priorities of our residents
Background
The following report outlines the findings of the Tenant Panel consultation in which
leaseholder members of the reading group were asked for their comments and
opinions on the proposed Riverside Home Ownership Subletting Strategy.
Response Rate
There were a total of 20 questionnaires returned from the 51 which were mailed to
leaseholder panel members. This represents a response rate of 39%.
Results
Overall, 65% of all respondents were satisfied with the Subletting Strategy, with 20%
being ‘very satisfied’.
Overall, how satisfied are you with the
strategy?
Number %
Very Satisfied 4 20%
Fairly Satisfied 9 45%
Neither 4 20%
Quite dissatisfied 2 10%
Very dissatisfied 1 5%
Total 25 100%
The strategy received a fairly positive response, with respondents confirming that it
is clear in its aims and objectives and accurately reflects the priorities of tenants.
Questions: Yes No
Does strategy make clear our aims and objectives? 85% 15%
Does strategy reflect priorities of residents? 70% 30%
Is there anything in strategy you do not agree with? 35% 65%
Are there ways the strategy could be improved? 50% 50%
Despite the positive response, there were a number of suggestions to improve the
strategy.
Business Information and Research 2012 1

Is there anything you do not agree with?
I don't understand why, for some Riverside properties, the lease would not
allow you to make a decision on subletting. The regulations should apply to all
RHO properties.
I live in apartments where owners who sublet do not appear to be subjected to
any conditions.
This strategy does not appear to reflect the reality that a significant minority -
possibly a majority - of homes on my development are currently sublet,
presumably without explicit permission.
When we paid for the property it was with the understanding we would not
sublet, why all this, when it is in the deeds.
If the resident has lived in the property for more than 3 years then they should
be able to let the property. Then it is clear that the property was not
purchased for immediate profit.
Subletting is for only 12months - why?
Suggestions for Improvement
Clear definition needs to be given of the circumstances where permission will
be granted. This seems vague at the moment and will be at discretion of
Riverside. Two similar cases could be given different answers depending on
who is reviewing the case.
For me, the leaflet does not make it clear what fee a leaseholder pays if they
are not in shared ownership. It would be clearer if the leaflet said what the
fees are, which given that it is reviewed annually, it should be possible.
I suspect the strategy is at odds with the practice of a number of leaseholders
on my development, it might be wise to launch a wider consultation prior to
enforcing the policy - assuming the intention is to enforce it rather than simply
to confirm with guidelines issued by central or local government, or existing
lease terms.
It is quite obvious that many occupiers of sublet properties do not understand
Riverside housing basic rules either a) the owner has not informed them b)
they do not simply observe them.
Make it clear if this policy applies to shared ownership and/or home owners.
Make sure subletting is for a longer period.
More targeting on the objectives.
Reads more like a policy than a strategy. No mention of provision to mitigate
negative impacts of EIA/Equality Analysis that I assume has been completed
on the strategy.
Where the property sub-let proceeds for no longer than 5 years, to enable an
appropriate sum of money to be put into the sinking fund of that development.
As if the property had been sold at that juncture.
You make no mention of what action would be taken where those tenants
prove to be nuisance neighbours. This happened to me from 2009 to 2011.
Business Information and Research 2012 2

Additional Comments
How does this affect a property that is up for sale?
I think this is a positive action that meets leaseholder requirements in current
climate.
It is not clear if this applies only to shared ownership or home owners.
Please bear in mind subletting is not an evil practice. E.g. in Hulme there are
many students where renting is the only option. By enforcing this strategy you
will decrease rentable stock, increase rents and devastate communities.
The main problem seems to be two fold regarding tenants of owner sublets a)
they have no direct line to Riverside b) some owners do seem to care.
Where a development of flats, with or without shared ownership, relies on
sales of flats to build up their sinking fund, it needs special attention when
considering sub-letting, should be paid to not allowing long periods of
subletting, otherwise it could take years before a flat is sold and funds put into
the sinking fund of that development. After a period of lettings - say 5 years,
the property should be treated as having been sold and the appropriate sum
put into the relevant sinking fund.
Yes something in writing re nuisance tenants.
Business Information and Research 2012 3