Beyond the decent homes standard

Decent Homes: Will there be a Sequel?

The decent homes standard has been a part of the housing landscape for almost ten years. In 2010 it could all change – but will it?

Introduced in the year 2000, the Decent Homes Standard has driven much of housing policy in the last decade. Although an English standard, it prompted parallel standards In Scotland and Wales. Councils across Britain have had to prepare plans to prove that they can afford to maintain their housing stock to achieve these standards in time to meet the governments deadline of 2010 ( n England); if the proof is lacking they have been encouraged to look at stock transfers, the Private Finance Initiative and Arms Length Management Organisations. Housing associations have also had to prove that they have plans to meet the deadline.

At the frontline of housing maintenance the focus has been on how the Standard needs to be interpreted. The Decent Homes Standard has four elements, all of them “soundbite” promises; a decent house must meet the current statutory minimum standard; it must be in a reasonable state of repair; it must offer reasonably modern facilities and services; and it must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The problem with soundbites is that they lack the detail needed to specify work. What does “reasonable” mean in these promises? Which facilities and services need to be modern? So it was no surprise that government has issued guidance on what these high level promises really mean. And this guidance has turned out to be complex, and at times controversial.

This guidance has been revised several times, most recently in 2006. As we approach the 2010 deadline, attention is turning to what happens next? Will there be a further revision? Will there be a new deadline for landlords which have not yet met the Decent Homes Standard?

What follows is of course pure speculation. It is very likely that there will be a further revision of the guidance issued later this year. A recent report from CLG points to seven areas of “clarification” which could be made in new guidance. These are all fairly minor changes, of which the most significant is a suggestion that the standard will no longer be require flats in between other flats to have cavity wall insulation.. Other changes mooted in the report cover tenant refusals for access for surveys, how voids should be recorded (a non-decent void still counts as non-decent), clarification about when proposed demolitions can be removed from the non-decent count, and more advice on estimating HHSRS failures, particularly failures caused by cold and dampness. There is a welcome re-emphasis that landlords should not need to count as non-decent properties where it is impractical to reach the standard but which are otherwise acceptable. More disappointing is a discussion about removing component lifetimes (so that a decent home would be judged on whether components were in poor condition, regardless of their age). I have long felt that landlord’s repair properties which are in disrepair, however old the component might be; after all our tenants are living in these homes! CLG seems to be taking a different approach, concluding that variations in landlord approaches are “reasonable” and that no action is required on this point.

The CLG report only looked at issues which might cause the statistics to diverge. This is because their national house condition survey suggests different levels of non-decency than landlord’s own figures. But if new guidance is to be produced, will it not go further than these seven points? Surely one area that CLG will look at is our impact on sustainability. The recently issued Heat and Energy Saving Consultation sets a target for a 30% saving of carbon emissions from housing, and talks about the social sector leading the way. Ever higher insulation levels may help. Water saving measures also have a part to play in contributing to sustainability. The whole debate on “retrofitting” existing homes, how much it costs, and who will pay for it is still in its early days. And there are a raft of other more practical issues which most asset managers have always found to be surprising omissions; lifts, communal safety and the lack of clear guidance about what counts as an acceptable kitchen layout.

In the whole debate I detect a change of ownership about Decent Homes and reducing political motivation to make many changes. Decent Homes delivery has moved from CLG to the HCA, the TSA and the Housing Inspectorate. Politicians’ interest in housing is focussed on the “housing crisis” of falling house prices, mortgage lending and the problems of the housebuilders. Apart from the impetus towards energy saving, I fear we are seeing a drift of attention away from our exiting social housing stock, and back towards development. Well, maybe that will offer us a quieter life, with a breathing space to concentrate on our own priorities and the local aspirations of our own residents!

Greg Trimmer

Trimmer CS