industry news
Gas safety changes being mulled over
although the Housing Minister has not been persuaded to intervene in the debate. To comply with the law, landlords must
T
complete gas safety checks on heating and hot water appliances in all their rented properties every 12 months. Failure to complete the checks can result in prosecution by the HSE, but HAs face the added threat of a rating downgrade from the Homes & Communities Agency, despite having fewer legal tools than councils to resolve access problems. This has been a growing area for action by the
HCA in the last couple of years, based on concerns that overdue gas safety checks pose a “serious detriment” to tenants’ wellbeing. It has resulted in more governance downgrades than any other issue, as well as unwelcome publicity.
he HSE is understood to be sympathetic to recently voiced concerns about the fairness and cost of the current rules,
Access difficulties
Because housing associations sometimes have difficulty in getting access to all their properties (usually because of non-cooperation by tenants), they often schedule their gas safety checks for one or two months before they are due. This can mean associations are carrying out six
checks in a five-year period, plus doing checks between tenancies and before properties are re-let. While the cost of an individual service to a boiler or gas fire may be as low as £30, the cost to landlords with thousands of properties can be considerable, with legal costs an additional problem. If the service and safety check is carried out
early, the 12-month period starts again. The Gas Access Campaign, which represents 150 organisations in the sector, has argued this is costing landlords considerable sums each year and has pushed for HAs to have the same powers as
councils to obtain court orders to access properties quickly if necessary.
Legal action
Councils can obtain a court order granting access within 24 hours of a tenant refusing access, whereas associations are faced with having to try other legal mechanisms such as obtaining an injunction or a possession order. These can be both time-consuming and costly, and they were not designed to deal with this particular problem. The HSE is now considering introducing a
system similar to a car MOT, where the annual check date for a property remains the same each year even if the actual check is carried out early. This means if the check is carried out a month early, another check is then not required for 13 months. It is understood the HSE will weigh this up
against the risk of gas safety checks happening less frequently than once every 12 months. A workshop with associations was organised for early March, to discuss the plans further. If agreed the change would be subject to a
formal consultation and require an amendment to the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations, a statutory instrument ‘owned and enforced’ by HSE, as well as needing ministerial approval.
only housing the poorest in society. It is being labelled as both unfair and a
Pay to stay policy attacked by influential critics T
he controversial ‘Pay to stay’ rent policy could drive tens of thousands of tenants from their homes and result in councils
disincentive to work. Among the bodies lining up to criticise the policy are the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Local Government Association and several influential members of the House of Lords, as well as Zac Goldsmith, Conservative candidate for the London Mayor. Opposition is likely to be aired to it during Parliamentary readings of the Housing & Planning Bill. Under the new policy, council tenants earning
more than £40,000 a year in London, and more than £30,000 elsewhere, will be required to pay the local market rate in the private sector, if they want to stay living in their council flat or house. If not, they will have to move and either rent or buy in the private sector. The move is part of government plans to end
what Ministers say are effectively subsidies for better-off council tenants. They estimate the subsidy is worth up to £3,500 a year for tenants with higher incomes. It is due to be implemented from April 2017. Research carried out for the Conservative
controlled Local Government Association (LGA) has found that over 200,000 households will be directly affected by the new policy and that as many as 60,000 families will be forced to leave their home, with 27,000 Londoners forced to move from the areas where they currently live.
Defer call And one of the scheme’s biggest critics has called
for the policy to be deferred, to allow work on its impact to be carried out. Lord Kerslake said “When this was originally discussed in the coalition Government, it was intended to deal with the very small number of high earners on over £60,000. The current proposals will affect a lot more households with earnings of half that.” Lord Kerslake, who was recently Head of the
Civil Service, called on ministers to put the plan on hold so that pilot schemes can be carried out. He said that he would table amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill to place the scheme at the discretion of local authorities and “provide adequate protection for tenants on the amount of rent they have to pay compared to their income”. The peer, who is now chairman of the Peabody
Trust housing association, has warned that the proposals are part of a package that could "threaten the future of social housing". “Pay to stay needs to be seen alongside the
forced sale of council housing to fund right to buy for housing associations, the ending of permanent tenancies and the almost total end of funding for new social housing after 2018. Together, they threaten the future of social housing as we have known it.”
Key workers affected
The LGA report was produced by Savills. It found that higher rents in the private sector and soaring house prices in many parts of the south, mean that many council tenants who just exceed the income cut-offs will be left in a desperate position. Among the groups who could be affected are people like nurses, care staff, social workers, teachers who work part-time and
Possible relief?
Some hope of a respite was given by Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, who said that people who could afford to pay more in rent "should do so" – but it would be graded, so that those on lower incomes would not have to pay full market rates. This could mean increases are tapered in direct relation to income levels, but administering this could be difficult. "We have always said we would consider
carefully how much more people pay as they move through the pay scales, once they get over £30,000," he told the BBC. He said the government would "listen to what comes in before we make a final decision in the period ahead of us" “We have been clear that our intention is that
social rents would increase gradually as tenants’ incomes rise above this threshold. Pay to stay better reflects tenants’ ability to pay, while those who genuinely need support will continue to receive it.”
www.housingmmonline.co.uk | HMM March 2016 | 11
transport workers. The LGA said the research showed that around
50 per cent of those tenants who would find themselves classed as high earners in the south-east, east of England and London would not be able to afford to pay market rents or take up a right to buy offer and would need to move out of the area. Councillor Peter Box, housing spokesman at
the LGA, said: “A couple with three children earning £15,000 each a year cannot be defined as high income. Pay to stay needs to be voluntary for councils, as it will be for housing associations.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52