Non-freehold tenants do not feel safe in their own home

Non-freehold tenants do not feel safe in their own home

9:54 AM, 27th February 2023, About A year ago 1

Text Size

New research shows that four in 10 non-freehold tenants do not feel completely safe in their homes.

A national sample of 2,000 non-freehold tenants was surveyed twice over an 18-month period (from 2021-2023) to assess whether their perception and impression of building safety has changed.

Findings from the management software company Zutec revealed that eight out of 10 non-freehold tenants felt safety issues raised were not responded to adequately or effectively enough by the building manager or owner.

41% of residents questioned in 2023 stated they have experienced or observed fire safety hazards in their building/home

There was some improvement between surveys but much still remains unsatisfactory. Only 39% of non-freehold tenants confirmed they feel ‘very safe’ in their properties.

This figure remained consistent, with no change in the 18 months between the two polls being conducted—despite mounting pressure on asset owners and property managers surrounding incoming building regulations, such as the Building Safety Act 2022.

Almost half (41%) of residents questioned in 2023 also stated they have experienced or observed fire safety hazards in their building/home such as non-existent or faulty sprinkler systems, fire alarms or extinguishers, or issues such as fire escapes being locked.

However, this figure was an improvement on 18 months ago, where over two-thirds (68%) had observed or experienced fire safety issues in their building.

‘Residential safety and security must move on from a box-ticking exercise’

Taking immediate action once a fire safety issue has been flagged is non-negotiable, according to fire safety regulations. Only a fifth (21%) said that the party responsible for maintenance responded quickly when safety-related issues were raised.

When asked about the extent to which they were satisfied that their voice was heard concerning fire safety and maintenance issues, less than a quarter (22%) felt ‘very satisfied’ with the service received.

Emily Hopson-Hill, Zutec’s chief operating officer said: “Ultimately, residential safety and security must move on from a box-ticking exercise to become baked into the whole building lifecycle, from planning to building to handover and beyond.

“With the regulatory landscape changing, now is the time to up the ante to ensure their residents feel 100% safe in their properties. In the here and now it’s non-negotiable.”

 

 


Share This Article


Comments

moneymanager

15:41 PM, 27th February 2023, About A year ago

"Almost half (41%) of residents questioned in 2023 also stated they have experienced or observed fire safety hazards in their building/home such as non-existent or faulty sprinkler systems"

27th May 2020 https://www.thefpa.co.uk/news/sprinklers-to-be-required-in-11m-residential-buildings

"The government announced today the publication of its response to the consultation it undertook on ADB, publishing at the same time an amendment to ADB that ‘extends the provision of sprinklers in blocks of high-rise residential buildings to those buildings with a top floor height of 11 metres above ground level’.

In other words, the above survey is, at least on that point, worthless as there was no requirement to have them nor will there be in existing buildings, any expressed concern by the tenants has, in all probability, instilled without any purpose; we must tread carefully in the changing landscape of fire safety and the perception of the need for a changed strategy, even at Grenfell it was not the "stay put" strategy that failed but the various changes to both the external structure and internal services including EU driven retrofit cladding and even the piped gas supply. In our building we have had to change from a "stay put" to evacuation policy, a recipe for disaster, in a building of some four hundred units we have had one false alarm during the early evening, it soon became patently obvious that site staff would be overwhelmed (it occured during a break period of some off the 24 hour staff) there could be no comprehensive knowledge of who was even in the building and thus impossible to verify evacuation, just the number of known disabled and temporarily movement impaired showed the chaos that would ensue and quuite needlesly, the building has previously experienced three fires in apartments and the containment worked perfectly.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now