Agenda item

[To receive an update from Chris Howell Commercial Regulation Manager in relation to Private Sector Housing Standards]

Board received an update from the Regulatory Services Manager to provide comment on the ‘BRE Client Report – BRE Integrated Dwelling Level Housing Stock Modelling and Database for City of Wolverhampton Council October 2017’, assertion that 21% of private rented properties had a cat 1 hazard.

Board understood that in 2016 the City Council had commissioned the Building Research Establishment to undertake a series of desktop modelling exercises on housing within the City of Wolverhampton. This modelling

was based on a variety of data sources including Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings, and the English Housing Survey 2012. This data was now nearly 10 years out of date.

The aim of the report was to highlight CAT1 hazards in the City, which was likely to have resulted in the way the data was reported. Using EPC statistical information meant that the CAT1 hazards mostly related to excess cold in

private rented accommodation, trip hazards were also included. How trip hazards could be guessed without visiting a property was an unanswered question. It was understood that private rented properties in Wolverhampton compared favourably when pitched against other regional properties however this was not the case nationally. The number of CAT 1 hazards in the City was still unknown and to find this information would require an inspection of every property in the City by a qualified officer, which was not considered feasible for many reasons including, resources, costs, access to homes and time.

Historically the case management system that was used by the Private Sector Housing Service had been configured poorly making it difficult to produce meaningful statistics. Previously reported statistical information could not be replicated and officers stated that there was no confidence in any data prior to

April 2021.

It was considered reasonable to assume that in in 2021 - 2022 that the Private Sector Housing Service would receive around 60 Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Cat 1 hazard complaints from the 19,443 private rented houses in Wolverhampton. This did not mean that there were very few housing problems in Wolverhampton. Private Sector Housing was a reactive service, only responding to complaints that were received. There were rogue landlords who would stop tenants complaining and there were tenants who would not necessarily know how to complain, especially those new to the country and where English was not their first language. The Team were carrying out work with landlords to ensure that tenants knew how to complain about hazards. Work was also being carried out in relation to illegal evictions, and a Trading Standards Officer had been employed to work to stop this. The Team had been successful this year and no illegal convictions had gone to court.

It was noted that in previous years, work had also been carried out with the Refugee and Migrant Centre to ensure that tenants were aware of their rights and how to report hazards, further work was planned in this area. The Rent with Confidence Scheme had been relaunched with an emphasis on landlords and landlord forums would resume soon.

All houses would have elements that needed repair or improvement from time to time, some of which would create a HHSRS Cat 1 hazard. The real issue for Private Sector Housing was where those repairs or improvements were not carried out in an appropriate time scale or at all.

Board noted that the introduction of effective strategic planning and operational management had created a strong foundation to move forward for the Service. The initial focus would be to ensure that ‘business as usual’ was delivered robustly, expediently, and efficiently, providing reassurance that the service was delivering its core objectives of addressing poor housing and the poor treatment of tenants.

It was stated that Private Sector Housing was now delivering a good service and was in a process of constant improvement with the aim to become an excellent delivering service. The ongoing improvements would allow the

City Council to make significant improvements to the private rented housing stock and the lives of the tenants occupying the properties in Wolverhampton.

The Board welcomed the report. Clarification was sough as to the category one definition. It was confirmed that issues such as excessive cold in a property in an affluent area might be managed well by the owners but in a less affluent area, the owners might not be able to keep the house warm and that this would then count as a category one hazard.

The Board also queried the issue of overgrown gardens in private rented properties, and it was confirmed that this could be reported to the Council and that action could then be taken.

The Board requested information about disabled tenants who required adaptations and what action the Council could take to encourage private landlords to fit these adaptations and support the tenants.

The Board requested clarification about the price differences between houses that were the same but where it appeared that WV Living houses were more expensive more that the help to own homes.

The Board were concerned as to how rogue landlords were tracked down and an overview was given as to the legislative powers and options that the council had in relation to this. It was also noted that there were many good landlords out there and some with bad tenants. The Council sought to support these good landlords to bring them onboard to ensure a good standard of housing for all residents.

The Board were pleased so see improvements in relation to private sector housing standards and in particular the work being carried out with landlords. It was noted that rogue landlords had been prosecuted but Board considered that it was a constant battle with the Council needing to remain robust to ensure citizens had decent housing and good living conditions. Board enquired as to the current resources in the Council’s Housing Team, the matter of damp and what the current legislation was in relation to overcrowding in rented properties.  It was stated that that the Team included 10.7 staff plus the Service Manager for Private Sector Housing, who was also currently looking for contractors to provide some extra support whilst the newly recruited team members settled in, it was a new team but a very good and passionate team. In relation to occupancy, houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) consisted of three or more people from two or more households sharing some facilities and for these there were minimum room sizes that were enforced. In relation to larger HMOs (five or more people from three or more households) there was a licensing scheme in place that the Team were looking to extend. In relation to overcrowding in family properties, it was considered the occupants choice to live in such a way and as such the Council was not able to carry out any enforcement other than to signpost occupants to Wolverhampton Homes or other services that might be able to support them.  In relation to damp and mould it was a very difficult issue to deal with and was not always an issue with the property. This was due to a large number of houses, that were built as older stock that were then modernised and sealed up which produced a large amount of moisture within the house. The Council in partnership with Wolverhampton Homes had launched a piece of work to investigate this to try and identify robust and efficient ways to deal with the issue.

A question was raised in relation to cladding and low rise and commercial buildings. The Board enquired as to whether any database existed in relation to buildings such as these, identifying the type of cladding, any risks to residents and whether there was a works programme in place to rectify any issues identified. It was stated that the Ministry for Communities, Housing and Local Government (MCHLG) had sent out guidelines in relation to private Sector housing following the Grenfell tragedy and there had been a collection of information in relation to high rise buildings (over 18 metres tall). There were 46 buildings identified in the City, mainly managed by Wolverhampton Homes and six or seven in private ownership. Those that had the specified cladding were identified and remedied very quickly, no other buildings were identified at the time. It was thought that MCHLG might be considering a similar project in relation to medium rise buildings but noting had been confirmed yet.

Resolved:      That the update be received.