Changes to open market were widely discussed – and overdue

The Open Market Forum suggests that there was no consultation, but we all know that the proposed changes were widely discussed and there was consultation over a considerable period of time. Moreover, the population management legislation that was brought in by the States was not aimed at the open market as a whole but at one small section that was clearly abusing the open market situation by letting Open Market (Part A) family homes for multiple occupancy by unrelated people, or by letting individual rooms in open market houses for numerous tenants. This meant that an open market house could be let to up to six unrelated people (often sharing bedrooms and bathrooms) and that those people had the right to live in Guernsey, virtually without restriction, and also to work in Guernsey because they were living ‘in the open market’.

This was clearly an abuse of the housing system and it was long overdue that this ‘loophole’ was closed. As it is, a considerable number are allowed to continue being let as ‘multi-occupancy’ dwellings because they were bought and first let for multi-occupancy before the cut-off date. These properties can be either left as Open Market Part A houses until they are sold or else put on the Open Market Part D register. We have known that new legislation was being developed and to avoid any suggestion that the new law would be retrospective, it was publicised that only those houses first let for multi-occupancy before the cut-off date would be permitted to continue being let for multi-occupancy. This was known well in advance. Therefore, the Open Market Forum’s claims that they knew nothing about it need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

There are a number of points that should be appreciated:

1. Until the law was changed, a low-skilled person who wished to undertake work could come to the island and live in a ‘multi-occupancy’ open market house and find work locally, although they could not live in local market housing or obtain ‘right to work’ documents to work in the island. Compare this situation to the very stringent controls that were put on local market residents and on those people who were skilled and desperately needed within various professional sectors, such as teaching or nursing, etc. Those people who came to the island under licence could not stay for more than four or five years and many excellent teachers had to return to England because their permitted time in the island had come to an end. Compare these essential workers with the low-skilled workers that were able to live here indefinitely in open market accommodation. Clearly this was a massive loophole that made nonsense of the island’s population management (housing and work control) legislation.

2. Low-skilled workers who were unable to obtain a local market licence, because their work was not considered to be sufficiently skilful or necessary to the island as a whole, could live in Guernsey in open market accommodation. In recent years a large number of open market properties have been purchased as an investment specifically for the ‘multi-occupancy’ rental market to exploit the loophole. This loophole was closed to some extent by the recent housing legislation but those houses that were let before the closing date are still available for multi-occupancy rental. In fact, scrutiny of the Press and estate agents adverts indicate that many of these houses are remaining un-let although they are still available for low-skilled workers, but at a price. Surely, this suggests that there is not the demand that there once was, or that the open market rental demanded by landlords is too high a price to pay.

3. These open market ‘multi-occupancy’ houses are often in inappropriate places, which has a negative effect on the ambience of the surrounding area: for instance neighbouring either open market or local market housing on an estate. I personally know of several such houses on the Fort George open market development and on numerous private housing estates and clos around the island. These houses are owned by landlords whose aim was to benefit from the loophole in the previous law. It is no wonder that they are now trying to get the very sensible and long overdue law changed back for their own benefit. I do hope that their lobbying will be in vain and that States members will see through their whinging.

4. It is not, as suggested by some members of the Open Market Forum, that these ‘open market’ residents enhance the community. Some genuine ‘open market’ residents really have enhanced the local community in Guernsey and we can all think of several shining examples, but that is not what the Open Market Forum is trying to change. What they appear to want is a return to the old system where an open market house could be let to a group of low-skilled workers. It is a complete fallacy that these people are enhancing the community in which they live. In general they are in the island while they can make sufficient money to pay the exorbitant rents demanded by the landlords of open market multi-occupancy properties. I personally feel very sorry for some of these people who pay a large amount of their earnings for just a room (in fact not even a room but a shared room) in one of these multi-occupancy houses. Just look at the rental prices in some of the adverts. It’s actually a scandal and these open market investors want to continue making large returns from this ethically very dubious market.

5. These open market multi-occupancy houses are in effect boarding houses. Many owners of Part A houses do not wish to formally convert them to a Part D boarding house because by doing so they know it will devalue the resale value of the house.

6. Many of the open market multi-occupancy houses were in need of renovation when they were purchased and have been allowed to deteriorate by their investor-owners as, in general, they seem to spend a minimum amount on their maintenance. In doing so they devalue the value of the privately owned family houses around them. Many people will not buy a private open market or local market house if they know that there is a multi-occupancy house nearby. They cause major problems for the local residents in numerous ways.

7. Traffic and vehicle parking can be major problems. The owners or tenants of a normal family home may have one or two cars in the family. However, there are usually up to six unrelated people living in a multi-occupancy house. Many of these people have their own car but, such is the nature of their work, they often also have a truck or van owned by the gardening, property maintenance or cleaning company for which they work, that is then parked in the road outside the multi-occupancy dwelling or on a local housing estate. This can add up to 10 or 12 vehicles per dwelling, which means that if there are one or two multi-occupancy houses in a locality there are often a large number of cars and vans parked in the road, meaning that other local residents then have problems parking their own family car. This does not lend itself to good harmonious community relations, whatever the Open Market Forum might wish to suggest.

8. In many ways the rest of the local community suffer and support the people who live in the multi-occupancy houses, while the multi-occupancy landlords make a lot of money with little consideration for their tenants or the local community.

I doubt that any of the landlords who apparently wish to regain their ‘open market rights’ actually live near one of the multi-occupancy houses that they own.

9. There are many other points; for instance, do these multi-occupancy open market houses have the appropriate health and safety requirements, such as fire alarms, smoke detectors, fire doors and fire escapes? The world has woken up to these requirements since the Grenfell Tower disaster in England. Do we have to wait for a similar disaster to occur in a multi-occupancy house here in Guernsey before these responsibilities (and regulations) are taken seriously? Private family homes were never built nor designed as houses for multi-occupation.

The changes to the population management legislation were long overdue and finally closed down some of the loopholes in the system that have existed for far too long. Let’s face it, these investors in open market family houses that they bought to let as multi-occupancy houses have abused the system and thank goodness that at long last the States has taken the decision that ‘enough is enough’ and that this loophole has been closed. The investors saw a great opportunity to ‘milk a cash cow’ and they piled into the market a few years ago at the considerable discomfort and expense of the local community.

Now the forum is trying to persuade us that the legislation is against the open market. No it isn’t. It’s against the investors who have bought open market family homes, sometimes in the most inappropriate places, to make use of a legislative loophole and to let the houses as multi-occupancy dwellings.

This market and abuse has been closed down. Thank goodness. The closure of the loophole was long overdue.

States members should not be swayed by the persistent lobbying of open market ‘multi-occupancy’ landlords.

Hopefully, in time, these houses will revert to Open Market Part A houses and once again be available at a reasonable price for the occupation of families who wish to live or rent on the open market in Guernsey and contribute to the community.

Name and address withheld.