Is HHSRS Fit For Purpose?
We do love an abbreviation in the property world don't we, the most common ones I see on Socials are BRR, ROI, BMV and so on. Cool if you know what they mean, right? But what is the HHSRS? It's something I very rarely see mentioned on socials yet if you own or manage a licensable House in Multiple Occupation (that's an HMO of course), it is highly likely that the HMO has been subject to an HHSRS inspection at some point (or will be), and it's really important that anyone letting ANY type of property in the UK and Wales is aware of the 'system' and its purpose.
What is the HHSRS
HHSRS stands for Housing Health and Safety Rating System, its 'a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health
and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales'. The system and its operating guidance were published in 2006. The system focuses on 29 hazards, and the operating guidance provides a methodology on how to assess each potential hazard, how to
'score' these hazards and what is the ideal situation.
The Housing Act introduced certain enforcement powers for Councils to reduce or remove significant hazards. Councils have a legal duty to reduce or remove significant category 1 hazards, however from my experience I see many Authorities abusing the system, over inflating and manipulating the scoring to present a more serious hazard to justify their actions. With any risk assessment methodology there will always be an element of subjectivity. Is this the main problem with the HHSRS? In my opinion there are many problems with the HHSRS (which I will summarise later), however the main problem is not the system itself but the officers enforcing it.
I've been involved in a case recently that really caught my attention. The focus was on the
'HHSRS' and how the officer scored the alleged hazards. The conclusions from the Tribunal were not something I had seen before. They usually uphold or dismiss the appeal. In this case they upheld the improvement notice saying that the Council were correct to have served it, however amended the notice with the works recommended by myself and the landlord. Is this a new way for the Tribunal to avoid cases being reheard and resulting in a fairer conclusion for both parties? Another reason that this case caught my attention was because the Council had instructed a Barrister to represent them. A very costly exercise for the Council, and not necessary at all in my opinion.
Case Summary
The full decision can be found at Residential Property Tribunal decisions. However, I will try and summarise it as simply as I can:
• The case was mainly focused on fire safety 'breaches'.
•The property is a mid-terrace, 2 storey 5 bed HMO. Rented to students on a joint tenancy agreement. This is an important point.
•Inner rooms identified - An inner room is a room that is only accessible via another room. Due to the open plan layout at the house, all the bedrooms are inner rooms as residents must pass through another room to escape. Again, something we all agreed on.
•What we didn't agree on was the officer's assessment and scoring of the hazards and the recommended works. I would add that the officer was new to the role at the time of the inspection and was unlikely to have been given the correct support and training. It is a shame that an experienced member of staff did not re- evaluate this, as the HHSRS assessment was clearly flawed in many areas. I had dealings with this officer on another property and her views in that instance were very fair and reasonable.
•The only option for the landlord outlined in the Improvement Notice was for the landlord to rebuild the original wall to create a corridor again or to install a fire suppression system (sprinkler system). My opinion was that this was total overkill and that the hazard was significantly reduced due to there being means of escape windows present, fire doors and an extended early warning system (smoke detectors) in all bedrooms. Something that was clearly explained in the fire risk assessment which I had completed on behalf of the landlord. All in line with the recommendations in Lacors (Fire Safety Guidance).
• On questioning, the officer struggled to justify her reasoning behind the scoring and
the recommended works.
It was clear from this case that the officer had not documented their reasoning for the HHSRS values at all, in any report or as text entry in their HHSRS system
At no point did they consider the impact or implications of their proposal or try to balance risk with impact.
When the Tribunal instructed the authority to send a copy of the HHSRS records –they fabricated the detailed HHSRS justification report to put forward as evidence– this was admitted by the officer in the hearing.
•The conclusion by the Tribunal was that the Council was correct to have served the notice as 'it was clear the applicant did not respond to the Councils concerns in a reasonable manner; their correspondence did not indicate a willingness to engage in an informal process'. However, they did not agree with the content of the notice and agreed with the Applicant in that the works were excessive. They have ordered the Council to amend the Improvement Notice.
Is HHSRS Flawed?
In my opinion, the HHSRS isn't necessarily flawed but the way in which it is used often is. The case I've discussed is a great example of how officers are interpreting the HHSRS incorrectly. The system is out of date and the Government have recognised this, it has been under review for around 3 years now; goodness knows why it's taking so long. I believe this is still under review but it is evident the new Labour government wants it to be clear that the work and reports produced so far are nothing to do with them as there is a banner at the top of the page claiming, 'This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government'. I shall wait in anticipation for the next update. The most recent update can be found at Summary report: outcomes and next steps for the review of the HHSRS
I've briefly summarised the report…
1. Combine some of the hazards into one group. There will be 21 not 29 hazards.
2. Introduce 'baselines' to make it easier for landlords and tenants to understand. Eg 'stairs must be safe, secure, in sound condition, free of defects and projections, well maintained'.
3. Ensure assessments are consistent by publishing new operating guidance. New training requirements and competency frameworks to be introduced (I think this is particularly important as competency of officers has slipped in my opinion, and the current training isn't great). In some local authorities there is a lack of professional training in this area.
4. To make sure the risk of fire in tall buildings can be assessed effectively. Looks as if they will be introducing specific minimum standards in relation to fire safety (music to my ears). Let's just hope they don't forget about all the other homes that can have fires too.
Another area of concern that was identified in the above-mentioned case was the incorrect use of the worked examples. When the HHSRS was introduced, an array of worked examples were published to help assist officers in evaluating properties and to use as comparisons. They are grossly out of date in that the one the officer used as a comparable had no heating, none at all! And therefore, using paraffin heaters which are a huge fire risk. The house also had rubbish flimsy doors and no smoke detection. Yes, absolutely a category 1 hazard, but absolutely nothing like the property in question. See them here: HHSRS WORKED EXAMPLES
So, to conclude, it's all well and good having all these laws, rules and regulations, but only if the people who enforce them are competent, otherwise what's the point? Local Authorities need more funding and that shouldn't (in my opinion) be generated by way of licensing schemes. I go into hazard riddled HMOs daily that have been licensed for many years. So, no I don't personally believe the HHSRS to be a total disaster, I agree it needs work and many areas of the system need to be updated but the main area of concern is the people using and interpreting the guidance.
Alice Ibbotson, BSc MSc MCIEH
