Does "The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill" Make A Difference

There is a Private Members Bill making its way through the Houses of Parliament which has almost universal support - however, some people are expecting it to solve problems that it cannot and we also see statements which do nothing to reduce the bad press landlords get considering the amount of time and effort we expend helping those most in need and most vulnerable.  Read on to see our explanation of some of the considerations that we sent to Portsmouth South MP, Stephen Morgan and his positive response.

"Stephen,

Like you and many organisations around the country, including numerous landlord associations, we support Karen Bucks Private Members Bill.

However, I"d like to comment on behalf of the PDPLA on your remarks on your webpage that, "Currently, landlords have no obligation to their tenants to put or keep the property in a condition fit for habitation and this simply isn"t good enough. "

You are correct that there is no specific law that says we must "keep the property in a condition fit for habitation". However, there are many laws that enable the local authority to act against landlords that do not meet certain standards. We accept that this is not the same thing and there would be no point in Karen Buck"s bill if there was already such a law in place.

However, there are several issues which need to be understood and a couple, which this Bill will not help with:

• Firstly, the vast majority of private sector tenants are very happy. 84% according to English Housing, a much higher proportion than those in social housing apparently.
• Also, the average tenancy (from the same report) is just over 4 years increasing to 17 years for those over 75 and 90% of tenancies are ended by the tenant, not the landlord. So, when trying to resolve the problems, please do not lose sight of the fact that generally, the sector works well.
• Ignoring where there is licensing, currently housing standards are only maintained by local authorities (LA) reacting to tenant complaints. They have a full range of powers under HHSRS and the Housing Act to enforce improvements and ensure standards.
• The issue is that tenants don"t complain to the LA for fear of retaliation. There are measures to try and stop retaliation but I doubt tenants understand this. I don"t see how the new bill will give tenants any more confidence in complaining. 
• Tenants who can afford to, pick and choose where they live and thus self-police that part of the sector. The problem is usually where tenants are on benefits, which are not enough to make supplying accommodation of a satisfactory standard a viable proposition. There is such a shortage that the unscrupulous can take advantage and the inexperienced can fall into a situation which they themselves cannot afford to resolve.  
• If PCC looked at all properties that were occupied by claimants they would get a true picture of the problem. We know that they do not because they do not have the resources to rehouse the tenants they would be obliged to take responsibility for. 
• So, the issue here is more fundamental than simply telling landlords to upgrade their properties, though where it is needed, they ought to and should.
• We have a massive shortage of accommodation for those most in need and the PRS is being asked to solve this problem without any solution in place that would make the proposition viable. There are many potential solutions to this, dependent upon your political persuasion, but whichever you prefer, the key point is that this Bill will not change this situation."

In his response, Stephen said, "Yes I am aware there are many laws that enable the local authority to act against landlords that do not meet certain standards - so do feel the post on Facebook by my office was correct"

Separately from this communication, we have been talking to Stephen about him attending one of our member meetings in the new year. Unfortunately, the House of Commons invariably sits on a Monday so we are looking for an alternative day and time either for our January or February meeting, so that we can hear his views on housing and share our experiences with him. Once details are finalised, we will let you know.