Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

13:49 PM, 31st October 2017, About 7 years ago 27

Text Size

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill is a private members Bill sponsored by Westminster North Labour MP Karen Buck.

It presented to Parliament through the ballot procedure on 19 July 2017 as a first reading not having yet been subjected to any debate and is due to have a second reading debate on the 19th January 2018.

The summary states the purpose is to “amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to require that residential rented accommodation is provided and maintained in a state of fitness for human habitation; to amend the Building Act 1984 to make provision about the liability for works on residential accommodation that do not comply with Building Regulations; and for connected purposes.”

The Bill is looking to give more powers to tenants to force landlord to fix category one health and safety hazards or take action against landlord if these hazards are not fixed. Examples of the types of hazards include leaking roofs, exposed or overloaded wiring, damp, badly fitted doors etc.

To follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website click here.

Currently under the deregulation act 2015 provision is made to suspend the operation of section 21 in order to protect a tenant against retaliatory eviction.

Retaliatory Eviction occurs where a landlord takes steps to evict a tenant because the tenant has complained about the condition of the property, rather than carry out repairs.

The new process means that the tenant has to put in writing to the landlord his/her complaints about disrepair. The landlord has 14 days to respond to the tenant, setting out when they will access the property, look at the remedies and carry out repairs.

If the tenant isn’t satisfied and the landlord hasn’t carried out the repairs, the tenant can make a complaint to the local housing authority. Local councils have been given the power to serve an enforcement notice on the landlord, setting out “a reasonable timescale” for improvement works to be carried out. Landlords served with an Improvement Notice cannot issue a section 21 within six months of an enforcement notice being served.


Share This Article


Comments

Giles Peaker

20:43 PM, 3rd November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Tobias Nightingale at 03/11/2017 - 20:35
What is your objection to the Deregulation Act?

And what is wrong with penalising rogue landlords?

As for the whining - look, find friendly MPs, wait for one of them to come in the top 5 of the private members bill ballot and then draft your legislation. It can't concern any government money. Or be complicated. But otherwise off you go. And if you can get enough support you might get it through.

Rod

9:51 AM, 4th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Another example of "labour going to put everything right"! All, write direct to Karen Buck at Westminster state your case e.g. we don't actually make that much money after exp's, mortgage, tax etc as they 'never' see that side and she'll soon get fed up. Plus, "Less L/lords = Less Tax Revenue" have clever labour thought of that, errr !

Giles Peaker

10:00 AM, 4th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Rod at 04/11/2017 - 09:51
It is a private members bill with cross party support. Sponsored by a tory MP. It has nothing to do with your revenue, unless, of course, you are letting out properties that cause a serious risk to the health of your tenants. Is that your objection, Rod?

Monty Bodkin

10:52 AM, 4th November 2017, About 7 years ago

There are about one million rented properties in England with Category 1 hazards - 25% social, 75% PRS.

Unsurprising considering the overall age of the PRS, its like comparing apples and oranges.

Or is the implication that tenants shouldn't be allowed to choose to rent pre-war properties? Nanny state knows what's best for 'em.

Giles Peaker

11:47 AM, 4th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 04/11/2017 - 10:52
There is no reason why a pre war property should present a serious risk to the health of the occupiers.

And the figures were not a comparison. Just to show the scale of the issue - social and private.

Monty Bodkin

12:38 PM, 4th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 04/11/2017 - 11:47
"There is no reason why a pre war property should present a serious risk to the health of the occupiers."

Agreed, many category 1 hazards in older properties do not present a serious risk to occupiers. It is a blunt measure often used to support an argument by those with their own agenda.
Nevertheless;

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919190143/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1133593.pdf

Privately owned homes (which account for virtually all housing built before 1919) were almost twice as likely to have Category 1 hazards present compared to social housing (24% compared to 13%).

Giles Peaker

12:52 PM, 4th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 04/11/2017 - 12:38
A category 1 hazard is one that presents a serious risk to health to present or potential occupiers.

I don't think that quote says quite what you think it says. It is also severely out of date, from 2007. The number of private rented properties with category 1 hazards dropped till 2013, and has been static from 2013 to 2016.

But in any event, it is not inevitable that a pre 1919 property has to have category 1 hazards. Which was my original point. It is not an excuse.

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