We reproduce here a contribution to the consultation on repairs in the social rented sector from the London Tenants Federation.
London Tenants Federation London Tenants Federation (LTF) is a membership organisation bringing together a range of borough, neighbourhood and London-wide federations and organisations of tenants (including leaseholders) of social housing providers (both council and housing association). Our membership also includes the London Federation of Housing Cooperatives and the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations. Together these organisations form our decision-making membership focused on strategic housing, planning and regeneration policy. We also have individual tenants’ and residents’ associations, tenant-managed organisations and cooperative members. These along with individual social housing tenants are able to engage in a wide range of LTF meetings and events that feed into the LTF members’ decision-making processes. LTF members engage in Examinations in Public of the London Plan, respond to regional and national consultations related to housing, planning and regeneration and at times are invited to engage in London Assembly Housing and Planning Committee meetings.
LTF is a member of the London Housing Panel. We often produce tenant-led policy alternatives, significantly including the London Tenants Manifesto for a Positive Future for Social Housing in London (published in January 2021).
Response
London Tenants Federation strongly believe that all social housing tenants pay for and deserve proper maintenance of their homes by their landlords. We are disturbed by the reports of cases where this is not happening. We also know of many such cases from our members.
However, the law already provides for the expectation that landlords should fulfil these obligations. We quote from section 30 of your document: ‘Landlords of social housing are responsible for most repairs in their residents’ homes. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to make repairs to electrical wiring, gas pipes and boilers, heating and hot water, sinks, baths, toilets, pipes and drains, and the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, stairs and bannisters, the roof, chimneys, external doors and windows. Section 9A of that Act (inserted by the Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018) requires landlords to make sure that homes are fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is ‘fit’, regard is given to its condition in respect of specified matters which include any hazards under the HHSRS. To be fit for human habitation a home must be safe, healthy and free from things that could cause residents serious harm.’
The question is, therefore, why is this not happening? And will the series of time limits your document proposes improve the situation?
We would like to suggest that you make a thorough examination of the possible reasons why social landlords are not fulfilling their already existing legal obligations.
The London Tenants Manifesto, published on 19 January 2021, suggests some directions which might be explored. The Manifesto can be read on the London Tenants Federation website.
In the introduction the Manifesto points to ‘changes that have happened to public housing over the last 40 years. This includes severe cuts in public funding and the failure of the market alternative to deliver the homes that most people can really afford…our Manifesto argues for a return to large-scale publicly funded provision of good quality social rented homes.’
In the section ‘The London Context’ the Manifesto says: ‘Market ideology applied by governments of all political persuasions over the last 40 years has failed to ensure that all Londoners have access to a good quality home that they can afford. ‘Public subsidy has been increasingly levered in to prop up a failing housing market through schemes such as Help to Buy, Starter and First Homes as well as shared ownership.
‘Large housing associations such as those that make up the G15 have moved away from their philanthropic origins. Many of them now behave more like developers, focusing increasingly on building private market homes.
‘As highlighted in the Chartered Institute of Housing’s UK Housing Review 2020 [showing the planned government subsidy for new housing 2019-24], the government actually provides three times more subsidy to prop up market housing than it does for all types of housing described as “affordable” including shared ownership.’ ‘Affordable’ housing also includes even low-cost home ownership. The £0.5 billion annual increase for 2021-26 announced in the March 2020 budget and any subsequent small sums do not change the overall picture.
Therefore, the shortage of government funding for social housing is, we suggest, an area you might wish to examine as a root cause of the persistent problems of disrepair.
We also note in your Executive Summary section 4: ‘On July 20 2023 Awaab’s Law entered the statute book through Clause 42 of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act…new requirements [are] to be set in detail through secondary legislation. This means all registered providers of social housing (also referred to as ‘social landlords’) will have to meet those requirements and, if they fail to do so, tenants will be able to hold their landlords to account by taking legal action through the courts for a breach of contract…’
We are concerned that this could encourage tenants to seek lengthy, time consuming and expensive litigation. Any financial penalties imposed on landlords will in any case come from their source of income which is tenants’ rents.
It would perhaps be more fruitful to examine why the existing means for tenants to make complaints and get their landlords to make necessary repairs are not working effectively. To cite one recent experience by one of our members, a large housing association informed the tenant that raising a Stage 1 complaint would not necessarily result in the repair being made any faster. The tenant was therefore understandably at a loss to understand the point of the complaints system. Finally, a number of recommendations in your document seems not to recognise the extreme shortage of social rented housing.
For example, 14 iii: ‘ensure bids for new social housing properties are treated as a high priority if a medical professional has recommended a resident moves home after identifying a risk to health at their existing property…’
‘17: The third recommendation is already existing practice. Councils have powers to prioritise those with medical needs for an allocation of social housing and make decisions based on local need.’
These and other clauses talk as if councils have plenty of spare housing to rehouse people. They don’t. Overcrowding in social rented housing, which is widespread and which as you mention in clause 28 as an hazardous condition, is another result of this shortage.
Just to give one example which indicates the severe shortage of social rented housing, quoted in our submission to the APPG on Council Housing’s recent consultation, Hackney Council has 3,000 households in temporary accommodation and 8,500 on the waiting list, a list which was cut from 13,400 two years ago by tightening the eligibility criteria and which therefore does not give a true picture of the need. In 2019/20, 409 council tenancies became available for offer. There is also the influence of the Right to Buy policy on the shortage of council social rented homes. From 2010 to 2022, Hackney Council built just 464 council rent homes, and sold 895 under Right to Buy, a net loss of 431 units of public housing. So this policy might be another factor for you to consider.
We hope you find our suggestions for further study and analysis to find the root causes of the persistent problems of disrepair helpful. We believe solving some of these issues is more likely to lessen the risk of a repeat of the tragic case of Awaab.
Labour Campaign for Council Housing 