Industry News


MPs demand that social housing sector ups its game


A


n influential group of MPs have strongly criticised social housing landlords for failing to maintain good standards in their


housing stock, while simultaneously failing to treat their tenants respectfully. Te Levelling Up and Social Housing select


committee launched an inquiry into the regulation of social housing in November 2021, in light of a series of media reports revealing appalling levels of disrepair in some social housing, and of the measures announced by the Government to raise standards in the sector, in particular through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. While most of its criticisms and


recommendations were aimed at social landlords, the committee also raised issues with Government policies and the work of the regulator. Te Government has until late September to respond. During the inquiry MPs invited social housing


tenants to speak to them in an oral evidence session, ran a survey that received 628 responses and they visited two social housing sites where they held a roundtable with tenants. Committee chairman Clive Betts said:


“During our inquiry we heard that some social housing has deteriorated to the point of being unfit for human habitation. “On levels of disrepair, we conclude that


most social housing in England is of a decent standard, but that the condition of some homes has deteriorated so far as to be unfit for human habitation. We also note with concern the extremely serious impact on the mental and physical health of those affected.” Te committee concluded that one of the


principal causes of housing disrepair is the age and design of the social housing stock, aggravated by the lack of funding for regeneration and the lack of new social housing. Mr Betts said: “Te social housing sector


must still take much of the responsibility for the condition of some social housing, as it is clear that some providers have contributed to disrepair by managing their housing badly. In particular, too many are guilty of:


• not responding quickly enough to requests for repairs or investigating the structural causes of disrepair;


• preferring quick fixes over proper remediation work;


• neglecting sites earmarked for regeneration; and • relying too heavily on tenants to report problems, rather than proactively monitoring the condition of their stock.


MPs want the regulator, as part of its review


of the consumer standards, to require providers to routinely audit the condition of their stock. In addition to complaining about the conditions of


Committee members said they believed the poor treatment of tenants can be attributed to a lack of respect for tenants arising from a stigma attached to being a social housing tenant, or to other forms of discrimination; the power imbalance between providers and tenants


their homes, some tenants also raised concerns about the quality of service they receive and how they are treated or spoken to by their provider. Committee members said they believed the


poor treatment of tenants can be attributed to a lack of respect for tenants arising from a stigma attached to being a social housing tenant, or to other forms of discrimination; the power imbalance between providers and tenants; and the commercialisation of the sector, which has distanced some providers from their tenants and from their original social mission. To reduce stigma and discrimination, the


Committee wants social landlords to ensure their 22 | HMMAugust/September 2022 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


boards and senior management teams better reflect the diversity of their communities, and for the regulator to incorporate this requirement into its revised consumer standards. It is recommending that all landlords that


have not already done so, to immediately review and where necessary improve their complaint handling processes. It also wants the Ombudsman to be given powers to award compensation up to £25,000. MPs are also calling on the regulator to


reconsider its interpretation of the duty to minimise interference and act proportionately, and to abandon the “systemic failure” test.


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60