People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, according to the old proverb, and a recent official report shows that this is a lesson that the council ought to learn.
The critical report from the Regulator of Social Housing highlighted “serious failings” at Brighton and Hove City Council and said that “significant improvement” was needed, specifically in safety and quality.
This is the same council that has spent several years demonising private landlords and bringing in registration to regulate them, adding costs that are passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents.
The council already had a range of enforcement powers for tackling sub-standard landlords although it would be in a better position to use them if it put its own house in order.
The regulator’s judgment came before councillors at an overview and scrutiny meeting at Hove Town Hall and the council’s response gave rise to many questions.
Fire safety – The report does not adequately address smoke alarms and sprinkler systems. All it talks about is signage and ticks boxes for the fire authority.
The council talks about tenants “feeling” safe. What are we actually doing to ensure our tenants and buildings are safe? And that leaseholders in our tower blocks are complying with our legal duties and obligations?
Because, as we know, if just a couple of flats do not have smoke alarms and sprinklers systems, the whole block is still vulnerable along with all the tenants too.
Installation has apparently gone up from 50 per cent in February this year to 83 per cent in July. If that’s true, then why are the regulators flagging this?
There is 100 per cent compliance on carbon monoxide alarms but much less for smoke alarms. You can see why I have concerns.
Electrical safety – I asked about 18 months ago at a housing committee meeting about the electrical safety checks and certificates. I was told: “Oh, the local authority doesn’t need them.”
Yet here we are. We now have this report stating that we should have had them. What guarantees do we get from officers and the cabinet that this is now a priority?
Water safety – In my ward just last month, a sheltered housing block had a contaminated water supply so I wasn’t surprised to read in this report that the council was only 79 per cent compliant.
Five or more years ago, we were always concerned about legionnaires’ disease and so on and made sure that water safety checks were a priority.
Our older population deserve better so how and why has that deteriorated? Was it lack of funding – or lack of care?
Routine repairs – We have known since the covid pandemic that the repairs service is poor. And at housing committee meetings we were repeatedly told that it was a priority but the list to do just kept getting bigger and bigger.
One of my constituents is 82 years young and had been waiting for over five years to get anything done to their council home. I find that disgraceful and am pleased that they came to me for advice. It seems repairs were never a real priority.
Energy ratings – The council should have energy performance certificates (EPCs) for all its properties, especially those that don’t meet the minimum legal standard – Band D – of which the council still has quite a few.
It also has several Band E properties and one Band F. That’s quite ridiculous. They are apparently below liveable standards. But we have people in them – and that’s not acceptable
It shows that our properties are well below habitable standard for anyone to live in – and if that had been a private landlord, we would have taken them to court by now.
In the first part of the council’s report to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee, I was quite surprised to read that there were no financial implications for these works. None at all!
Yet in the budget papers in February, it said: “Current trends indicate a growing underlying deficit in the HRA (housing revenue account) over the medium term, falling to a £3.183 million deficit. This is an unsustainable position and needs addressing.”
Meeting papers also mention a revenue budget of £2.689 million and a capital budget of £14.714 million, specially related to health and safety.
I have been trying to marry up the figures from the budget set in February to the amounts detailed in the report to the overview and scrutiny committee – but I can’t.
Is the £14 million coming out of the major works capital investment programme? If so, what works will not be completed? Is it from the health and safety budget which only has £12 million in it?
We could do with more clarity. I would like to understand where this money – extra funding – is coming from and what work will be put off as a result? The bottom line is that tenants will inevitably foot the bill.
Some in the council have been so busy attacking private landlords that they have taken their eye off the ball and let down our tenants.
The council is the largest landlord in Brighton and Hove and tenants might wonder why it isn’t being taken to court as some would suggest for any other landlord responsible for so many “serious failings”.
Yes, it’s worth remembering the old saying about people in glass houses but it’s even more important that the council acts. It should not behave as though it is above the law.
It must show that tenants are safe and carry out checks and repairs promptly and to a proper standard and put its own house in order.
Councillor Anne Meadows is a former chair of the Housing and New Homes Committee on Brighton and Hove City Council and a Conservative member of the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
the council is introducing licences to all privately rented homes – initially mainly in the east of the city but planning to spread across. The councillor states the effect of this will be to increase rents. Yes, that’s true however likely to have a much worse effect causing major challenges for the council.
If the private sector landlord licencing is to be worth doing (charging millions to landlords and so tenants) then it must find some major issues. However, if it does then resolving these issues will mean the tenants have to move out to fix the scale of the issue. That means more homelessness and more demand for an overstretched council budget.
In addition, some landlords will look at all the costs and paperwork involved and decide it’s not worth it. Sell up and quit. The straw that makes them decide to quit. How many is a good question – but again it’s likely to put more demand on homelessness services. Great news for the richer first-time buyers who can buy these ex-rentals but for those who want or need to rent, further problems. For the council, there is more demand for homeless accommodation and costs for this – costs which could easily be greater than licence income.