Council Pats Own Back Over EICR Status

Last month we reported that Portsmouth City Council admitted over 1,000 fire safety issues in its property portfolio and major issues with it's EICR policies, see it here. We raised some of our concerns at the February 'Housing Cabinet Meeting' but were assured (or were we admonished) that our concerns were unfounded and PCC are doing a great job.

What Transpired

Council staff explained that everything was hunky dory and as a property's EICR fell due, the new paperwork would now say that the next inspection was due in 5 years rather than the previous 10 and as a result, nothing needed to be done as everything would become compliant under the current process. (The fact that this implies some properties will still be on the old scheme until 2034 and checks introduced in the interim or faults that develop in that period will go undetected appeared not to be a concern).

The issue with EICR's is that they are focussed on very specific continuity and resistance tests which will not be picked up by noticeable faults or any other type of testing and these faults, when present can be very dangerous – so it was with some incredulity we listened to the council officer who stated that 'we do a lot of these EICR tests and most never find anything' (implying they are an expensive waste of time)- that is akin to deciding  to stop cancer screening 'as most people do not have it'. He went on to describe the regular visual checks that take place and the reactive approach when faults develop, confirming he had no understanding of the point or role of testing associated with EICRs.

It was with mild amusement we then listened to Cabinet chair and councillor responsible for housing in the city, Darren Sanders, when he justified some of these actions with the comment, "For many people, what they see in these judgements isn't necessarily what they see in their homes. Our tenants' satisfaction measures for things like repairs are ten points higher than housing associations."- So, whilst PCC tenant satisfaction is considerably lower than tenant satisfaction in the private sector it does not matter because we can compare ourselves to Housing Associations who are the worst of all landlords for repairs and maintenance and anyway, tenants don't see electrical problems of this type until it kills them, and then they won't fill in satisfaction surveys anymore.

And people wonder why the good landlords are giving up and leaving the industry in droves…

In Darren's defence he did say, "We accept the judgement, we'll work constructively and proactively to get out of the League One play-offs and onto some form of promotion"- so at least he accepts his team are in the 3rd tier and need to at least try and get up to the Championship / 2nd tier even if Premiership ambitions are obviously beyond them.

However, he ended with a comment that private and social landlords are regulated differently, noting that private landlords don't have to meet Decent Home Standards, which set minimum social housing conditions, and are not subject to rent caps, allowing them to set prices without the same restrictions faced by social landlords. He is obviously not familiar with the 'space and amenity standards' imposed on private sector HMOs by his officers, the EPC, electrical and gas regulations that we have been meeting since their inception and the obligations to conform with HHSRS, LACORs and several dozen other such pieces of safety legislation soon to be extended in the forthcoming Renters Rights Bill with the inclusion of Awaab's Law and several others. True we have no obligation to replace kitchens every 10 years but in the obtuse way councils and housing associations apply these rules, they take an average age across their portfolio rather than treating it as an absolute limit as would be the case if officers were enforcing in the private sector.

One of the issues is that the Council 'self-insures' so whereas we would have a major problem and find ourselves uninsured if a property did not have a valid / current EICR, PCC can create their own policy without worrying about such things.

It is also true that we set prices without the restrictions faced by social landlords but we also face much higher costs due to the higher standards expected in the private sector and we hope the comment was not a suggestion that Cllr. Sanders would support the introduction of rent controls were he able.  It should also be noted this was the meeting where they also increased Licensing fees on private sector rentals by 11% because they were not constrained like the social sector - so if Cllr. Sanders sees our freedom to price as a benefit, it obviously works both ways.

I am sure that most landlords would be happy to bring their properties into line with their social counterparts and thus reduce rents, but sadly, PCC would then penalise us for lowering standards in the sector.