A complaint has been made after councillors refused to hear a question from a tenant wanting to know how many others, like her, had been placed in housing that was unfit for human habitation.
Brighton and Hove City Council would not let Julie Ash, who is in temporary housing, ask her question when the council’s cabinet met at Hove Town Hall on Thursday (26 September).
Her question was published with the formal agenda papers on Wednesday 18 September and was prompted in part by an official report that criticised the council as a landlord.
She cited the conditions that she lives in to ask how many others were living in similar sub-standard conditions.
The council said that her question was about an individual matter and the cabinet meeting was not “the appropriate forum” to deal with it.
Ms Ash’s question was headed: “Improving housing services: Responding to the Regulator of Social Housing’s judgment.”
Her printed question said: “In relation to the recent report from the social housing regulator: My family of five adults – four with severe disabilities and health issues – has been housed in temporary accommodation since 2018 that is riddled with damp and mould from day one.
“This has severely impacted our health and the property is deemed unfit for human habitation.
“The council has known about this, yet no action has been taken. How many other families are living in such conditions?”
Ms Ash turned up to ask her question at the cabinet meeting but it had been removed from the online version of the agenda.
Housing campaigner Daniel Harris, who has been supporting Ms Ash, criticised the move when asking his own question at the meeting, saying: “That’s completely inappropriate. We’ve raised a formal complaint.”
He has asked for the question to be reinstated at the next cabinet meeting in public – scheduled for Thursday 17 October – and for a review of the way that the council handles public questions.
Mr Harris said: “The question addressed not just personal issues but highlighted systemic failures in the council’s housing services, particularly the ongoing poor conditions in temporary accommodation.
“By dismissing this question as an ‘individual matter’, the council is avoiding necessary public scrutiny of broader policy failures.
“Additionally, the recent intervention by the social housing regulator raises serious concerns about maladministration within the housing department.
“This intervention underscores a pattern of neglect and poor governance which Julie Ash’s case clearly illustrates.
“It is unacceptable that her voice—and by extension the voices of many others—has been dismissed without full consideration of the broader implications.”
Mr Harris also tweeted a video filmed by Ms Ash of the council’s acting monitoring officer Elizabeth Culbert saying that the question had not been not accepted despite appearing on the agenda.
More on the housing & council scandal that happened yesterday and picture evidence of the household living conditions the family live in. Liz misled councillors and should be investigated for his breach of the Nolan principles & solicitor regulation Authority STANDARDS OF CONDUCT pic.twitter.com/7ymP86EMDI
— Brighton & Hove Housing Advocate & Activist (@HousingDAN) September 27, 2024
In the formal complaint submitted to the council on behalf of Ms Ash, Mr Harris said that the social housing regulator had raised concerns about the housing department.
The Regulator of Social Housing report, published in August, said that there were “serious failings” in the way that the council operated as a landlord “significant improvements” were needed.
More than 600 homes required a water risk assessment which had not been completed and 500 were at least three months overdue for water safety repairs and improvements.
In addition, more than 1,700 medium and low-risk fire-related repairs and improvements were overdue by a minimum of two years.
There was a reported backlog of about 8,000 low-risk, low-priority repairs that were raised in 2023 – with some dating back to 2021.
The regulator said that, out of about 12,000 council homes, some 3,600 were without an electrical condition report.
The Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said: “Public meetings are a key part of this council’s commitment to openness and transparency of decision-making and a fundamental tool in allowing residents to engage in the democratic process.
“In this case, one of the questions put forward by a member of the public concerned an individual matter and, as such, cabinet was not the appropriate forum for this to be discussed.
“The council did publish the question initially which was an error. I am very sorry for the confusion caused by this.
“This does not mean the resident’s question will go unanswered. The council will respond directly to them shortly.”
Over to you, Benjamin…..
Ha, good one. Nah, the individual element, absolutely, there are more appropriate ways this could be addressed rather than using the limited time at cabinet.
However, the broader question about wanting to know figures for other properties in a similar situation seems like a reasonable question though, maybe it would have been better to allow the lady to ask an amended question rather than saying no completely?
Either way, as someone who thinks it is appropriate to film someone in their workplace, I am sure she will update us if this doesn’t happen!
The question wasn’t personal. Are the council now saying that you can’t ask a policy question and give an example of a real case when trying to emphasise the human impact of the policy and the council’s neglect!!
An example if ever one were needed of this current administration at the council preventing residents from having a say on something that is one of THE MOST significant issues affecting residents in the city. It’s commonplace for people to draw on real experiences when asking policy questions – it seems clear that the council were dodging a difficult question about how many residents are actually living in damp and dangerous homes which would legally considered to not be habitable.
Really quite shocking the question wasn’t allowed.
It’s a very fair point you make about drawing on personal experience. At the very least, it would be fair to help the resident reform the question to articulate it in a more generalised way, if the personal element was of concern.
Like I said, I think the material aspect of the question, which effectively is a challenge on the condition of emergency accomodation, is a fair one.
The question was perhaps not well articulated, but that shouldn’t prevent a question being asked – again, if there was a problem with the question structure, I would have liked to think some help in rephrasing the question would be offered to provide a useful answer.
I bet they will duck the question about how many council homes are below EPC rating C… Just 6 years to get the entire stock up to EPC C or better according to Ed Milliband. Will cost millions – damp and IECR certificates are the tip of the iceberg.
This is one of several anomalies around that particular Cabinet meeting, including a decision announced before Cabinet had discussed the issue, a major report published late, the deadline for public questions not extended while those for members was extended, the wrong start time for the meeting shared etc. No doubt officers now have heavier workloads since the recent round of cuts and that may indeed be the cause but a cynic might say that all of these anomalies impact democracy badly and benefit only the elected administration.
I am concerned about the lack of democracy in the council and that it feels as though there is some form of dictatorship developing. Decisions are being made by fewer and fewer people.
The same council which has the cheek to penalise private landlords with additional licencing schemes when they cannot even keep much of their own housing stock up to decent homes standards.
Of course first under platts all maintenance repairs were going in-house…. Not It’s all signed off via a dynamic purchasing system. Not the same.
A lot of inherited repair jobs, department which doesn’t know what it is. Costing a fortune.
Need the promise that was made, and maybe this can grow, but as it stands an awfully expensive service and embarrassment considering the rent hikes the last two years and agree RE going after rogue landlords. Look closer to home first…
On the residents and perfectly fine question being rejected it makes a mockery of the democratic process, the disrepair and video came after people are so desperate they will record for their own sanity.
Embarrassing state of play, change needs to come.
Or this super majority will start to lower
They should indeed hold slumlords to account, as well as ensuring their own stock is up to decent home standards.
The council has a statutory duty to investigate rogue landlords and has had this for years. There is no need for licenses to do this, indeed licenses add costs to honest landlords who then pass these costs onto tenants.
Not enough funds from general council income have gone into housing enforcement for years.
That is absolutely correct Nick. The licensing scheme is not about holding slum landlords to account as Benjamin suggests, it is about raising funds. Ironically, it is the very people the council are claiming to act for, (ie private tenants), who will be indirectly paying for this.
That’s a fair point, Atticus. Licensing schemes can risk becoming just another cost for tenants if they aren’t paired with robust enforcement and support for landlords who maintain good standards. While it’s important to address rogue landlords, the council also needs to ensure their own housing stock meets the same standards they’re imposing on the private sector. Otherwise, we’re just shifting the burden onto tenants without solving the root issues.
This has echoes of the criticisms of Kensington and Chelsea council and its tenant management organisation in the Grenfell Tower report (phase 2 volume 3). “It is striking that senior officers… appear to have been more interested in silencing (questions and critics) than in resolving residents’ grievances.”
The council has a statutory duty to investigate rogue landlords and has had this for years. There is no need for licenses to do this, indeed licenses add costs to honest landlords who then pass these costs onto tenants.
Not enough funds from general council income have gone into housing enforcement for years.
My place has damp and mould issues and 2 years in, painting cracks on the walls and I now have a new landlord..and the flat is now on auction..?
it seems to be a landlord hot potato driven by poor health and safety standards rooted on systematic failures that promotes poor quality of materials all in the name of profit margins.
I get it though, why bother using the appropriate quality material when you can save a couple and you gonna get the rent money regardless cuz of the housing bubble and dodge accountability and just sell it off for the next landlord to deal with.
There should be a system that discourage these practices but time will tell if we have the collective intelligence to put something in place