Council faces criticism over serious housing failures
2 years ago | 8 comments
Expert hits out after councils escape safety fines that would ruin private landlords
12:07 AM, 15th August 2024, 2 years ago
10
Categories:
A landlord law expert has blasted four council housing providers for avoiding hefty penalties despite severe safety breaches which would bankrupt private landlords.
Phil Turtle, a director of Landlord Licensing & Defence, is furious that Brighton and Hove City Council, London Borough of Hackney, South Derbyshire District Council, and Ashford Borough Council escaped punishment for failings uncovered by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).
All four received a C3 rating, indicating critical safety shortcomings including electrical and fire safety risks, a lack of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and thousands of homes with a fire risk assessment.
Lenient treatment when compared to private landlords
Mr Turtle says he was bewildered by the lenient treatment of councils when compared to private landlords for similar offences.
He said: “Yet again councils get let off with a slapped wrist for housing failures for which the very same council would fine a private landlord out of existence.
“Fines for not having an EICR are up to £30,000 and it’s up to £30,000 for inadequate fire alarms/precautions and another up to £30,000 for damp and mould.”
He added: “If this was a private portfolio landlord where ‘professional’ means they would get the highest possible fines, because ‘they should know better’ – they would be looking at the best part of £100,000 in fines per property.
“But the same councils that inflict these fines – which they keep for their own revenue budget – just get a slapped wrist and time to leave the tenants in mortal danger until they feel like getting around to the repairs and upgrades.
“It’s at best immoral. Some may say completely corrupt.”
Safety breaches in council properties
The shocking details of the safety breaches in council properties highlighted by the RSH include:
- Brighton and Hove City Council: Electrical safety risks in 3,600 homes, fire safety issues in 1,700, and a repair backlog of 8,000
- London Borough of Hackney: More than 15,000 homes don’t have a valid electrical safety certificate, nearly 9,000 are without smoke detectors and more than 400 don’t have carbon monoxide detectors, and more than 1,400 council homes have damp and mould cases
- South Derbyshire District Council: Half of homes haven’t had a fire risk assessment, ‘a number’ don’t have valid electrical safety certificates, and more than 100 homes needed extra work for ‘unsatisfactory’ electrical certificates
- Ashford Borough Council: Severe health and safety lapses, including overdue electrical checks, incomplete fire safety measures, and missing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in some of its 4,800 homes.
Despite these shocking revelations, the RSH did not impose penalties.
‘Landlords must provide safe and decent homes’
Kate Dodsworth, the chief of regulatory engagement at RSH, said: “Landlords must provide safe and decent homes for tenants by taking a proactive approach to delivering the outcomes of our standards.
“Making sure tenants’ homes are safe and keeping up-to-date data is key to meeting these objectives, as is ensuring there are effective approaches to handling complaints and engaging with tenants.”
She adds: “The issues outlined in the judgements need to be addressed promptly and we are working intensively with each of the landlords as they put things right for their tenants.”
Tags:
Ashford, Brighton, council, Electrical Safety, Fire Safety, Hackney, housing crisis, landlord, RSH, Safety, social housing, South Derbyshire
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
UK rents surge and house prices rise - ONSNext Article
FHL, Paragon and Aldermore unveil lower BTL rates
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2002 - Articles: 21
10:05 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Is it possible to bring private prosecutions against these councils?
Member Since February 2018 - Comments: 627
10:14 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/08/2024 – 10:05
Rather than prosecuting the Counculs directly, how about brining legal pressure on the regulatory body to do its duty< clearly harm, at least potential, has been occasioned, malfeasance in public office springs to mind.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 508
10:18 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Ptivate prosecutions sound very attractive until you look at the expense involved.
When it comes to saving their own skins, those councils mentioned would suddenly find a bottomless fund pit to do everything they could to frustrate the process and run up costs.
I’m afraid all you can do is make a very loud noise and accept it is a true example of one law for them, one for you? I would love to be proved wrong.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
10:37 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 years ago
I’m all for encouraging social tenants to start hounding the councils directly! If more tenants kick off then the true scale will be realised….
Member Since November 2023 - Comments: 20
10:40 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Absolutely shocking that anyone would allow their tenants to be at such significant risks over tests and equipment that cost a few hundred pounds at best to ensure safety and compliance
When is the regulator going to start doing his job and stop issuing stupid report cards
He needs to get these idiots removed from office and force these councils to immediately remedy the major safety breaches
Disgraceful that they punish PRS LLs to the full extent and they seem to be able to hide in the shadows
Member Since December 2020 - Comments: 13
10:59 AM, 15th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by MPD at 15/08/2024 – 10:40
Perhaps a court order as they are not fit to act as landlords .The properties confiscated and set under a management order.
Suddenly all their rental income would disappear !
If they not fit and proper they can hardly fine any one then as they would have no doubt lost that capacity to do so.
Question is who would be the fit and proper person to manage it then??
The ombudsman , along with help of proper private landlords perhaps ?
Member Since August 2024 - Comments: 3
10:47 AM, 16th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/08/2024 – 10:05
Hi Ian yes you could under breach of 122 (1)b) Electrical safety standards for Housing and Planning Act 2016, Non compliance with BS 7671 currently 18th Edition, HHSRS 2005 Regs Section 9 of the Housing Act 2004 if there are other hazards like mould or boiler issues. A local authorities Environmental Health does not tend monitor these due to subjective compliance issues. The latter there are few private operators and they are quite expensive and a tenant is unlikely to spend the time researching it or paying for it
Member Since August 2024 - Comments: 3
10:49 AM, 16th August 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 15/08/2024 – 10:14
Good idea Money Manager The Regulator has been in operation since 2018 but how would you go about doing that realistically a Judicial Review?
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 508
11:59 AM, 16th August 2024, About 2 years ago
DON’T waste money on the Law!!!
From a lawyer.
Member Since January 2016 - Comments: 473
11:21 AM, 17th August 2024, About 2 years ago
The problem with fines generally is that they never go to victims but to central government with a transfer fee for the judiciary.
As. for handing the properties to someone else, Who? It would just be G4S, Capita or Serco.
Sorry nothing positive to contribute