Welcome to the Northern Ireland Assembly

VOLUME 2 - WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT

COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

1. The Committee for Social Development is a Statutory Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order No 46.

2. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department for Social Development and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

3. The Committee has power:

to consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;

to approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation;

to call for persons and papers;

to initiate inquiries and make reports

to consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister for Social Development.

4. The Committee was established on 29 November 1999 with 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5. The membership of the Committee is as follows-

Mr F Cobain (Chairman)

Ms M Gildernew (Deputy Chairperson)

Sir John Gorman

Mr T Hamilton**

Mr B Hutchinson

Mr G Kelly

Mr D McClarty *

Mr D O'Connor

Mr E ONeill

Mr M Robinson

Mr J Tierney

Mr S Wilson

5. All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk to the Committee for Social Development, Room 419 Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast BT4 3XX.

* Mr McClarty was removed from the Committee on 6 February 2001.

** Mr Hamilton was appointed to the Committee on 6 February 2001.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 2

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Belfast City Council
Castlereagh Borough Council
Simon Community Northern Ireland
Council of Mortgage Lenders Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland Housing Executive
The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Environment and Heritage Service
Ards Borough Council
Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association Limited
Environment and Heritage Service
Northern Ireland Tenants Action Project
Ballynafeigh Housing Association Ltd
Hearth Housing Association
Ballymoney Borough Council
Queens University Belfast
Council of Mortgage Lenders Northern Ireland
Fermanagh District Council
Chartered Institute of Housing in Northern Ireland
Paddy Hillyard, Paddy Gray and Ursula McAnulty
Housing Rights Service
Chartered Institute of Housing in Northern Ireland
Shelter (Northern Ireland)
The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Health Action North and West Belfast
Coleraine Borough Council
National Union of Students (UK) and the Union of Students in Ireland (NUS - USI)
Disability Action
Cookstown District Council
Northern Ireland Tenants Action Project
Co-ownership Housing
Simon Community Northern Ireland
Donacloney Housing Association Ltd
Presbyterian Housing Association (NI) Limited
Northern Health and Social Services Board
Ballymena Borough Council
Flax Housing Association Ltd
Ballynafeigh Housing Association Ltd
Craigavon Borough Council (Public Services Liaison Committee)
Habinteg Housing Association (Ulster) Ltd
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Hearth Housing Association
North Belfast Mission Housing Society Ltd
The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Newtownabbey Borough Council
Open Door Housing Association (Northern Ireland) Ltd

top

Written Submissions

Written Submission by:
THE NORTHERN IRELAND FEDERATION OF
HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

16 May 2001

Many thanks for your letters of 9th and 10th May 2001.

Draft Transcript of NIFHA's Oral Evidence

I enclose minor amendments to pages 4 and 5 of the transcript. Mr Kelly felt these will clarify the points he was making.

Further Comments of Relevance to the Housing Inquiry

We appreciate the opportunity to make a few points to supplement what we said during the abbreviated session on 3rd May.

They are:

(a) The policy questions should be considered in the light of the Programme for Government's overall aim of housing policy and the following more specific criteria:

the best long-term interests of existing tenants of social housing;

the needs of present and future housing applicants;

the best use of taxpayer's money; and

maintaining the stability and efficient working of the housing market.

(b) Small-scale transfer of NIHE stock should be tried in appropriate circumstances. It has the potential to deliver earlier improvement work to the tenants while "freeing up" millions of pounds of the Assembly's housing budget.

Thirty years on, in the context of a local Assembly and transformed housing conditions, we feel it is appropriate for the Committee to review the role of the Housing Executive.

Under devolution, Northern Ireland has ten government departments including the Department of Social Development whose work is scrutinised by this Committee. For a population of only 1.7 million, we believe it would be logical for housing strategy to be the direct responsibility of the Department.

The Housing Executive staff engaged in strategic work should be given every encouragement to take up new posts in the Department, where their skills and experience would be invaluable.

The new Housing Executive would concentrate on its landlord function, it would be "business as usual" for the great majority of Housing Executive staff and tenants would be unaffected.

This redistribution of functions would put the DSD in a better position to integrate housing policy with related social and economic policies such as employment, education and health.

The Department would be ideally placed to impartially inspect the quality of service delivery by all the social landlords.

In Scotland, Wales, England and the Republic of Ireland the appropriate government department has responsibility for housing strategy. We feel there are even sounder reasons for adopting this arrangement in Northern Ireland.

(d) A policy of giving public subsidy to encourage tenants of social housing to become owner-occupiers is worthy of consideration but it needs to strike a reasonable balance between the aspirations of existing social tenants and the needs of those who badly need social housing.

It should also carefully consider the total value of the public subsidy per year and how it should be distributed between tenants wishing to purchase.

Thirdly, the policy should take account of the fact that housing associations are independent voluntary organisations which are funded in an entirely different way from the NIHE. The policy should not undermine the viability of any provider of social housing.

The Federation has commissioned independent research which will illuminate the subject and point towards a more appropriate scheme to help social tenants satisfy their home ownership ambition.

We trust the Committee and the Assembly will draw on our research to inform their deliberations.

CHRIS WILLIAMSON
Director

top

Written Submission by:
BELFAST CITY COUNCIL

1 May 2001

I refer to your letter of 12 April 2001 regarding the above Housing Inquiry.

I have enclosed for your attention a response from the Health and Environmental Services Department. A copy of which was faxed to you last week.

I would emphasise that this is an officer response which has been based on the Council's previously stated positions regarding Private Sector renewal, Houses in Multiple Occupation and the regulation of the Private Rented Sector. The response will be considered by the Council's Health and Environmental Services Committee at its meeting on 21 May 2001.

Should you require any additional information please contact me or Andrew Hassard, Head of Health Protection at extension 3281.

WILLIAM FRANCEY
Director of Health and Environmental Services

Introduction

Belfast City Council's Health & Environmental Services Department welcomes this opportunity to make a formal submission to the Social Development Committee's Housing Enquiry. This is a departmental submission and will not be considered by the Health & Environmental Services Committee until its meeting on 21 May 2001. However the content of this submission is based on the previous comments made by the Council during the 1996 Housing Policy Review 'Building on Success - proposals for future housing policy'.

Any review of Housing Policy is of considerable interest to the Council in light of its historical and continuing role in housing and the profound impact which housing policy has on public wellbeing.

The Council's Health & Environmental Services Department has considerable housing experience particularly with regard to the regulation and enforcement of standards.

Private Sector Renewal

In recognition of the need to make the most effective use of the public resources which are currently available for grant work a shift in the balance between mandatory and discretionary approaches to grant schemes could be supported but we believe that there is still a need for mandatory grants in some circumstances. Criteria based on need should also be established to enable the appropriate exercise of any discretion which may be allowed to the Housing Executive for grant purposes.

The Council has always supported the link between Public Health Notices and Repairs Grants on the grounds that expenditure on first aid repairs to deal with conditions which are prejudicial to health should be assessed against the considerable hardship relieved rather than against the short-term nature of any improvements in the housing stock. However the present regime, which provides mandatory repair grants for work carried out under public health notices, has not always resulted in the appropriate targeting of public funds and has created some operational difficulties for Environmental Health Departments. In 1996 the Government introduced legislation to limit to £500 the maximum amount of repairs grant available to owner occupiers, however landlords in the private rented sector and the owners of vacant properties can still qualify for repairs grant up to a maximum of £5,500 for each notice served regardless of their means or of the potential income from their property.

It would therefore be considered appropriate that more targeted means testing should apply to most cases of work carried out under public health notices. There are however exceptions which should apply. Landlords of protected tenancies which are controlled under The Rent (NI) 1978 can only charge what the Rent Officer sets as the legally recoverable rent for the property. This will usually be equivalent to a Housing Executive (subsidised) rent. Indeed some protected tenancies even have their rent limited to their 1978 value. We would suggest therefore that it would be appropriate, in view of the limited income from protected tenancies, to continue to apply where work is carried out following the issue of a public health notice or a certificate of disrepair.

The increasing level of owner occupation is likely to involve a proportionate increase in the number of owner occupiers who will face difficulty in financing necessary maintenance. Consideration should be given to mechanisms, including grant assistance, to assist owner occupiers to ensure that the housing stock is maintained in an appropriate level of repair.

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

The Council welcomed the emphasis that the 1996 Housing Policy Review placed on the necessity of separating regulatory and delivery functions. However the Council was disappointed that the review failed to acknowledge the current role that District Councils have an improving housing standards through the enforcement of statutory repair remedies and to consider the merits of further developing that role.

It is clear that District Councils are in many respects better placed to fulfil the role of regulator of housing standards than the Northern Ireland Housing Executive due to their greater accessibility, democratic accountability and their independence from owners of property. The Housing Executive is not only the major landlord in the province but has also, in certain circumstances, received a number of housing enforcement notices issued by Belfast City Council. In addition district councils have wide ranging and extensive enforcement and regulation experience, including the enforcement of housing standards. In this context we would suggest that the regulation and enforcement of housing standards, including the assessment of fitness, would be better placed with District Councils.

It should also be noted that the existing statutory remedies for dealing with disrepair in the private rented sector are inadequate. They compare unfavourably with those in England and Wales where section 190 of the Housing Act 1985 allows local authorities to require a landlord to effect repairs to those of their properties which are in disrepair but not unfit. This provision has never been extended to Northern Ireland and the Council is of the opinion that its introduction would provide a means to prevent significant numbers of houses from slipping into unfitness. In line with the Council's stated position regarding regulation and enforcement it is of the opinion that such a power if enacted would best be discharged by district councils.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

It has long been recognised that some of the worst living conditions are to be found in houses in multiple occupation. The existing powers have often been less than effective in remedying many of the unsatisfactory conditions that regularly arise in this section of the privately rented sector. It is clear that there is a need for a properly targeted pro-active policy of enforcement supported by an appropriate legislative framework if the health and safety of all people living in HMOs is to be protected. It would be a matter of concern if cash limits on available grant aid were to determine the level of regulatory activity being applied to ensure adequate standards of health and safety in HMOs. Figures contained within the Housing Executive's draft strategy for HMOs published in June 1999 would tend to raise some questions in this regard. These indicate that since 1993 a total of 893 notices had been served however only 267 grant schemes had been completed, and only 7 prosecutions had been taken. It should also be noted that the section of landlords within the private rented sector who are least likely to apply for grant are often providing accommodation for the most vulnerable people in society. Against this background we believe that consideration should be given to separating the grant aiding and regulatory roles. District councils who are already involved in HMOs with respect to a number of public health issues and for the reasons previously outlined, are well placed to take on the regulatory function with regard to HMOs.

The current definition of an HMO has given rise to a number of difficulties. Many shared houses particularly those occupied by students are excluded from the provisions. The DETR in Great Britain has recently suggested that there should be a new clearer definition of an HMO namely:

a house occupied by persons who are not all members either of the same family or of one or other of two families.

The application of this definition should be applied in Northern Ireland.

The Government has previously given a commitment to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs in England, Wales and N Ireland. In Northern Ireland the Housing Executive have proposed a voluntary licensing scheme however such a scheme is unlikely to adequately address the worst houses in multiple occupation which often house the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The Council would like therefore to see the introduction of a mandatory licensing scheme as soon as is practicable within Northern Ireland.

The Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978

Any review of the private rented sector needs to include a review of the Rent Order. It is understood that the Minister for Social Development has commissioned a review of this Order and the Council looks forward to being consulted during the review. However the Council would draw the Committee's attention to the shortcoming in the Rent Order which it has previously brought to the Department's attention during the 1996 Housing Policy Review.

The restrictive definition of 'owner', in relation to regulated tenancies, and the opportunity for landlords to place all of the responsibility for repairs on tenants continues to create circumstances which place tenants in this sector at a considerable disadvantage.

It is therefore the council's view that the definition of 'owner' under the Rent Order should be extended to include the person who receives the rent of the property and that statutory repairing obligations under the Order should apply irrespective of any express or implied terms of the contract of tenancy.

The Council would also wish to see the enforcement procedure for Certificates of Disrepair extended to allow the courts to impose a daily penalty where an Order of the court has not been compiled with. This would ensure that landlords who had previously been convicted for contravening an Order of the Court would not be able to escape further sanction if they continued to fail to honour their repairing obligations.

The Rent Order requires all landlords to provide tenants with rent books, and appropriate regulations have been enacted. However the Rent Order does not designate any enforcing authority for these provisions. It is the experience of the Council's environmental health staff that many landlords ignore these requirements. Consideration should be given to allocating this enforcement responsibility to district councils. This would not only provide tenants with greater security but would also facilitate many of the investigations carried out by Environmental Health Officers into allegations of harassment and illegal eviction.

top

Written Submission by:
CASTLEREAGH BOROUGH COUNCIL

27 April 2001

Terms of Reference

Private Sector Renewal

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of Private Rented Sector

Introduction

The Northern Ireland Chief Environmental Health Officers' Group (CEHOG) is made up of the Group Chief Environmental Health Officers from Northern Ireland's four Environmental Health Group Committees, the District Chief EHOS or Directors of Environmental Health from each of the country's twenty six District Councils, along with the Chief Environmental Health Officer of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Their principal purpose is to bring a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of Environmental Health services throughout the Province and, where appropriate, to advise and respond to proposed government policies.

District Councils, through their Environment Health departments, daily contribute to the protection of people's health, safety and welfare in the field of housing, primarily through their powers under the Public Health Acts and the Rent (NI) Order 1978. The Environmental Health profession (and their historical predecessors) have long had an interest in housing and would welcome any opportunity to comment on factors that impact on housing conditions.

Private Sector Renewal

The 1996 House Condition Survey estimated that there are 602,500 dwellings in Northern Ireland. One fifth of the housing stock was built before 1919 and two thirds was built post 1945. The social rented sector (NIHE and Housing Associations dwellings) has dropped to approximately 25% of the stock primarily because of the house sales policy.

Disrepair and unfitness are primarily problems of the private sector. The CEHOG consider that the current unfitness level of 7.3% is unacceptable. Of these 50% are owner occupied, 29% are vacant and 12% are privately rented. There is a similar picture of disrepair with 88% of privately rented dwellings having repair problems. The age of the dwelling is particularly significant with six out of seven pre-1919 houses having disrepair problems.

Addressing Disrepair

CEHOG understands that it is government policy to move from a mandatory to a discretionary grants system. It is recognised that grants play an essential role in supporting the maintenance and improvement of housing stock but would urge that these be directed at those most in need. In particular the present system which provides for a mandatory repairs grant for work carried out to fulfil the terms of a Public Health Notice is not the most appropriate use of public funds. The use of the legislative system by owner occupiers is resource intensive for Environmental Health departments and, given that individual repair grants are generally of low value (limited to £500 maximum to owner occupiers since 1996), the overall gain in most cases is insufficient to halt the slide into disrepair.

Notwithstanding CEHOG's concerns about conditions in the private rented sector, it is also considered inappropriate that landlords, as well as owners of vacant property, can still qualify for a repair grant up to a maximum of £5,500 irrespective of their own means or any potential income from the market rents that they charge for their property. CEHOG believe that this grant should be means tested.

CEHOG would therefore support a move from a mandatory to a discretionary grants scheme with appropriate targeting and means testing.

Addressing Unfitness

Although unfitness has fallen from the unacceptably high levels of the early 1970s CEHOG considers that even the present level of 7.3% is still unacceptable. It is particularly concerned about unfitness in some of the more rural areas, like Fermanagh and Mid-Ulster, where there are still significant problems with isolated, country dwellings often occupied by single, elderly people.

The reduction in unfitness is probably due to three main factors; new build, slum clearance and the grants system. It would, however, be an over simplification to look at any of these factors in isolation as the "flow" of dwellings into and out of unfitness is a complex issue.

Although the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has achieved a great deal over the last 30 years CEHOG still has certain reservations regarding current policy. As with disrepair, CEHOG would like to see the Housing Executive targeting those sectors in greatest need, in particular, the high levels of unfitness in the private rented sector and some parts of the owner occupied sector.

CEHOG would also wish to see the Housing Executive make greater use of their powers to deal with individual unfit dwellings. At times there is a perception that the NIHE is more comfortable with its role as a housing provider rather than as a regulator of housing services.

The proposed Housing Bill provides the opportunity to release the Housing Executive from its current conflicting role as the province's largest landlord whilst simultaneously being responsible for regulating housing standards. Environmental Health Officers working for local authorities have the expertise to interpret the fitness standard (they do so for the Rent Order) and have ample experience in the enforcement field. They can act independently and objectively, and their general background and expertise in health and safety will be invaluable when the anticipated Health and Safety rating system replaces the current fitness standard.

Addressing Problems with Area Action

Although there is not the same potential for the widespread slum clearance and redevelopment action that was undertaken in the 1970s and early 1980s, CEHOG believe that any future urban renewal must be based on objective and accurate information. Some of the recently designated Urban Renewal Areas were previously Housing Action Areas where the Housing Executive invested heavily to improve housing conditions and reduce unfitness. It is difficult to accept therefore the reported high levels of unfitness in these areas given the previous initiatives.

CEHOG believe that there should be independence in the assessment of the fitness standard by a body such as the District Council's Environmental Health department.

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Houses in Multiple Occupation

CEHOG recognises that HMOs have an important role to play in the provision of housing for some sections of society. For young people, such as students in college, or those needing ready mobility to follow work, such accommodation fulfils a purpose. Unfortunately however HMOs can also be a permanent home for some of the most socially or economically disadvantaged in our population.

Poor fire and health and safety standards are all too common, along with disrepair, overcrowding and inadequate facilities resulting in some of the worst and most dangerous living conditions.

CEHOG supports the government's aim that HMOs should be safe and should provide acceptable living conditions and would therefore see the proposed housing bill as an opportunity to address some of the present shortcomings.

Definition of HMO

CEHOG recognises that there are concerns with the legal definition of HMO. The present definition is "a house that is occupied by persons who do not form a single household". It is considered that this is too restrictive. It has given problems in that many shared houses, particularly those occupied by students, have been excluded from the provisions of the legislation. CEHOG would welcome the adoption of the new definition suggested by the DETR in their consultation paper "Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation - England", namely; "a house occupied by persons who are not all members either of the same family or of one or other of two families".

Enforcement Strategy

CEHOG is concerned that the Housing Executive's strategy in relation to HMOs is primarily grant led rather than enforcement led. It is CEHOG's opinion that a strategic approach is needed to identify and prioritise those HMOs where problems are most severe and then utilise the appropriate mechanisms to ensure statutory compliance. Grant assistance should be a separate consideration. Public safety, rather than the willingness to seek grant aid, should be the driving force. CEHOG believe that there is a compelling argument for separating the two functions of statutory enforcement and grant provision and the proposed housing bill could be the vehicle to give effect to these proposals.

Area Approach

While recognising that there is wisdom in he Executive's strategy in having dedicated HMO units, CEHOG would question the fact that there are only two to cover the whole of Northern Ireland. It would be difficult to pursue an active enforcement policy for premises in, for example Enniskillen, when the officers involved are based in Coleraine. Grant provision however can be much more easily administered from afar compared to statutory enforcement.

Licensing

CEHOG supports the government's commitment to the introduction of a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and would call for this to be implemented locally as soon as is practicable.

It is considered that the Housing Executive's proposed voluntary licensing scheme, though laudable, would not be successful in addressing the main problems associated with HMOs. Environmental Health officers' experiences with this sector would indicate that such a proposal was unlikely to attract those landlords whose properties present the greatest risk and which often house the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society.

Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Some aspects of the problems of regulation of the private rented sector have already been touched on in the Private Sector Renewal section.

Houses in Disrepair (but not unfit)

In England and Wales local authorities have powers to require a landlord to carry out repairs to tenanted property which is in disrepair but is not unfit (Section 190 Housing Act 1985). This helps in that it can prevent some houses from "sliding" into unfitness. Such powers, however, were never extended to Northern Ireland. Locally District Councils can usually only bring about repairs by using the Public Health Act. This however is limited in that it can only be used in respect of disrepair that could give rise to risk of illness or disease, rather than risk of physical injury.

CEHOG would urge that powers similar to those in Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985 be granted to District Councils in Northern Ireland.

Amendments to the Rent Order

A provision of the Rent (NI) Order 1978 requires all landlords to provide their tenants with a rent book and appropriate regulations were made. Unfortunately though, the primary legislation failed to designate any enforcing authority for these provisions so many landlords deliberately ignore the requirements. CEHOG would urge that any future Housing Bill would contain an amendment designating District Councils as the enforcing authority for the Rent Book Regulations.

Enforcement of the Housing Fitness Standard in NIHE Property

Although not strictly a matter of regulation of the private rented sector, this is a matter that could well be addressed in a future Housing Bill.

In theory the fitness standard is applicable to all housing but in practice it does not apply to NIHE owned property for the simple reason that the NIHE cannot take enforcement action against itself. The 1996 House Condition Survey would indicate that the Executive owned some 23% of the total housing stock (138000 dwellings) of which over 3000 were unfit. Executive tenants undoubtedly should be afforded the same protection as those in the private rented sector. CEHOG therefore believe that District Councils should be given the responsibility for enforcing the fitness standard in NIHE owned property.

Conclusion

The Chief Environmental Health Officers' Group are grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Social Development Committee's letter of 15 February 2001.

Whilst we acknowledge the work done over the years by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive we would nonetheless recommend that Environmental Health departments should play a much greater role in the enforcement of housing standards. This could be done by increased partnership working with the NIHE, using service level agreements or by the transfer of certain regulatory functions to District Councils. This would allow the Housing Executive to concentrate on their strategic and facilitating functions while reducing any potential conflict of roles that they may face.

Summary of Recommendations

Grants should be discretionary, targeted and means tested.

Unfitness action should be targeted with a greater use made of statutory powers.

District Council Environmental Health departments have the necessary expertise and enforcement expertise to undertake or assist in unfitness and HMO enforcement action.

A new definition of HMO should be adopted.

Mandatory licensing of HMOs should be introduced.

Powers similar to those contained in Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985 for dealing with disrepair in otherwise fit houses should be made available to District Councils in Northern Ireland.

District Councils should be designated as the enforcing authority for the Rent Book Regulations under the Rent (NI) Order 1975.

District Councils should be responsible for enforcing the fitness standard in NIHE owned property.

HEATHER MOORE
Secretary
Chief Environmental Health Officers' Group

top

Written Submission by:
Simon Community

26 April 2001

As discussed, thank you for providing the opportunity for Simon Community NI to put forward a couple of points in relation to topics 3 and 4 in the Social Development Committee's inquiry to housing issues in Northern Ireland.

Our points are as follows:

ITEM 3 Large Scale Voluntary Transfers and the NIHE:

23.2% of the housing market comprises social rented accommodation:- 20.8% managed by NIHE and 2.4% by Housing Associations.

Given the size of the population living in this sector, it is therefore vital that the best possible arrangements for the functions of allocation, housing management, landlord responsibilities and repairs/maintenance are in place. As part of the renew in this area we suggest that it is critical that the following questions are answered:

What added value would large scale voluntary transfers bring to the tenant?
What cost would be incurred in the process, and could this not be used in some other way to increase or improve the stock of socialised housing?
What evidence is available about the current processes/outcomes for tenants in social rented housing, ie who are the better landlords?
what impact do such transfers have on the remit and role of the Housing Executive and Housing Associations respectively?

ITEM 4 - The Rights of Housing Association Tenants to Buy Their Properties:

We are concerned that the right to buy will firstly reduce the overall stock of social rented housing in Northern Ireland and secondly reduce the stock of "better" social rented provision in desirable areas. The reduction in stock and specifically desirable stock will significantly reduce the options available to those on income levels who are unable to access owner occupation and the private rented sector. The Simon Community are concerned that given the level of homelessness and urgent housing need in Northern Ireland, evidenced from the Housing Executive's figures (10,997 and 11,734 households respectively) that the Assembly should be seeking to maintain and indeed increase housing options to all sectors of the community, and not to reduce these. In addition, given the already high level of owner occupation in Northern Ireland (67.8% of the total housing stock) the increase in house prices and connected increase in mortgage payments, we are concerned that increasing owner occupation will result in an increase in the level of mortgage default, a further reason for homelessness.

Finally on this point, we support the concerns put forward by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, that allowing housing association tenants the right to buy could prove a serious threat to smaller housing associations.

Conclusion

Given the interconnections between availability of and access to social housing and homelessness, we welcome this opportunity to put forward our concerns on these 2 issues to the DSD Committee. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.Many thanks.

FIONA BOYLE, Director - Research & Development

top

Written Submission by:
Council OF Mortgage Lenders Northern Ireland

20 April 2001

Introduction

1. CML Northern Ireland is pleased to respond to the inquiry into housing issues in Northern Ireland initiated by the Social Development Committee. This response focuses on the issues of Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVTs) and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and on the proposed extension of the Right to Buy (RTB) to tenants of housing associations.

2. The Council of Mortgage Lenders is the representative trade body for the residential mortgage lending industry. Its 118 members currently hold over 98% of the assets of the UK mortgage market. CML Northern Ireland represents those lenders active in Northern Ireland.

3. The Committee of CML Northern Ireland has discussed the above issues over several months and this response therefore reflects the views of members in Northern Ireland.

Large Scale Voluntary Transfers

4. CML Northern Ireland supports the proposal by the Department for Social Development (DSD) that the right of one tenant to halt a stock transfer proposal in a ballot should be scrapped. It is clearly right that a decision to transfer or not to transfer a significant amount of the housing stock should be taken by a majority of those affected and not by a single individual. The Committee has indicated that it wishes to discuss the broad issue of LSVTs and the NIHE however, and this response will therefore go on to consider that issue.

5. LSVTs have been the major development in the organisation of social housing in the UK over the past twelve years. To date over 500,000 homes have been transferred in a total of 137 LSVTs. Some £21 billion or private finance has now been raised via direct borrowing by Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) or through transfer. One hundred and fifteen different lending institutions have been involved. To date almost all stock transfers have taken place in England, but in Scotland the Scottish Executive has been promoting stock transfer via the New Housing Partnership Programme and the expectation is that the first transfers will take place shortly. Wales currently lags behind England and Scotland; there have been no large-scale transfers and the National Assembly has yet to give a clear lead to Welsh local Authorities over the issue. The impetus for stock transfer has been fuelled by the need to make up for years of inadequate public investment in the social housing stock and by the unwillingness of Government to commit adequate public resources for the future.

6. LSVTs are rightly perceived to offer a number of advantages:

they enable private finance to be levered in to undertake much needed repairs and improvements, circumventing the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) and supplementing inadequate public investment;

transfers mean that public investment is protected within a not-for-profit, regulated sector;

tenant participation is maximised; typically receiving RSLs have one third tenant representation on their management boards; and

local accountability is maintained through management board representation for the local authority while the organisation is locally focussed.

7. LSVTs have been popular with tenants. A recent survey of tenants by DETR showed that tenants of LSVT RSLs are more satisfied with their landlord than local authority tenants and former local authority tenants who have transferred are more satisfied with their new landlord than with their former landlord.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive

8. While there have not as yet, been any LSVTs in Northern Ireland, Housing Associations have around £126 million of private finance outstanding at the present time. Northern Ireland is different than elsewhere in the UK, since the NIHE rather than local authorities owns all non-housing association properties. The NIHE has had a good record as a housing provider. NIHE stock is newer than that in the private sector and the rate of unfitness is lower. NIHE stock is also in better condition than social housing in other parts of the UK due to relatively high levels of public expenditure maintained by successive Governments in Northern Ireland.

9. Therefore, there are fewer immediate reasons for introducing private finance in Northern Ireland as there are in the rest of the UK. Nevertheless, there are reasons to consider opening up access to private finance in the longer term. Supplementing public investment with private finance enables public investment to go further. While NIHE stock is in good condition further improvement remains desirable, there is significant disrepair in the private sector that the NIHE does not currently have the resources to eliminate. In addition the historically high levels of Northern Ireland public expenditure relative to the UK as a whole cannot be expected to continue indefinitely as political normality returns. There is a prudent case for considering the possibilities offered by private finance.

10. There are also good reasons why the model for social housing management offered by the NIHE should be examined -

the housing association sector in Northern Ireland is smaller than in England and Wales, and individual associations are themselves smaller than the UK average;

there is a case for subjecting the NIHE to a degree of competition and allowing individual tenants a greater degree of choice; and

the NIHE has seen its stock levels falling to less than 125,000 over recent years due to the effects of the Right to Buy (RTB) and to the transfer of new build to the housing association sector. There may come a time where economies of scale may begin to work in reverse and the future of the NIHE as a landlord will need to be considered.

Options for Private Finance

11. A number of options have been discussed in terms of their ability to bring in private finance. These include Arms Length Companies, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and a changed status for the NIHE as well as the LSVT option.

12. Arms length companies, owned by local authorities, have been seen as an option in England. They provide for transfer of housing stock to a wholly owned company with some consequent relaxation in borrowing within the PSBR. There has been only limited progress towards this option in England, with local authorities struggling to meet the criteria set by the Government. It is also not clear that following this option would provide a solution to the near monopoly status of the NIHE, and in any case, there is no release from the PSBR and thus the option does not bring in increased private finance.

13. PFI for social housing is currently being piloted in England. While not wishing to rule out PFI, CML Northern Ireland would point out that it is still very much untried in housing and that it is considered to be expensive by some. In addition it does not fit into the established regulatory framework which applies to housing associations and which gives comfort to tenants.

14. There has been some discussion about changing the status of the NIHE itself to facilitate the introduction of private finance. One option could be for the NIHE to become a wholly owned public corporation, like the Post Office. This would offer more freedom to borrow within PSBR limits but would not enable those limits to be transcended. To escape PSBR limits the NIHE would need to become genuinely independent; perhaps constituted as a large RSL. While this would enable it to raise private finance it would also raise serious questions as to the public accountability of the NIHE, its ability to carry out its strategic functions and how it would sit with the existing housing associations in Northern Ireland who each manage on average less than 400 properties.

15. While the above options could be applied singly or in combination and cannot be dismissed without consideration, they are all relatively untried and potential problems have not yet been resolved. LSVTs by contrast, are well tried, have produced good results and can be initiated relatively straightforwardly.

LSVTs and Northern Ireland

16. LSVTs can make a valuable contribution to the provision of social housing in Northern Ireland -

they provide a proven means to lever in private finance outside of the PSBR;

transfer to a number of associations would assist in building the housing association sector in Northern Ireland and end the near monopoly of the NIHE;

successive transfers could be undertaken over time allowing lessons to be learnt;

the regulatory framework exists to offer security to tenants and comfort to lenders; and

transfer to housing associations offers an established way of increasing tenant participation.

17. For the above reasons and because of the absence of an obviously appropriate alternative CML Northern Ireland recommends that the Social Development Committee give serious consideration to LSVTs as a means of securing the longer term future of social housing in Northern Ireland.

Housing Association Tenants and the Right to Buy

18. CML Northern Ireland supports the right of NIHE tenants to buy their own homes. The application of this policy has contributed to Northern Ireland having the highest rate of home ownership in the UK at 71.9%. More than 40,000 tenants have been able to fulfil their aspirations to homeowner ship since 1989. Eighteen percent of owner occupied properties in Northern Ireland are former NIHE homes.

19. The extension of RTB to tenants of housing associations can present some difficulties however, particularly at the rates of discount currently offered by NIHE under its scheme. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of individuals to buy their homes and the need to safeguard public and private investment. CML Northern Ireland has had concerns about the proposal that -

receipts from sales could be insufficient to meet housing associations' debts; and

growing organisations could be transformed into shrinking bodies with poor morale and lack of forward vision.

20. The Department has indicated that in extending RTB to housing association tenants it would also extend the Voluntary Purchase Grant (VPG), which is currently paid on voluntary sales. This would have the effect of compensating housing associations for discounts paid out under RTB on the condition that this grant was reinvested. The extension of VPG has alleviated concerns about lender's security and about the ability of associations to meet their debts. Nevertheless the Committee should consider the longer-term implications of this policy. VPG will be expensive, particularly if the NIHE level discounts to be offered create high demand for properties. Should public finances come under pressure in the future, the Executive could be faced with the choice of cutting VPG or eroding funds for other programmes. Reducing VPG could cause the above concerns about the security and viability of housing associations to re-emerge and would cut across any plans for stock transfer since receiving landlords would be 100% debt funded and thus more vulnerable to the effects of RTB.

21. CML Northern Ireland therefore urges the Committee to carefully consider the long term as well as the short-term implications of extending the RTB to housing association tenants

This response has been prepared by Andrew Heywood. Comments or queries should be addressed to Andrew:

Telephone: 020 7440 2227
E-mail: andrew.heywood@cml.org.uk

top

Written Submission by:
NORTHERN IRELAND HOUSING EXECUTIVE

20 April 2001

1. Thank you for inviting the NIHE to make a submission to the Social Development Committee enquiry within the terms of reference that you have set down.

"To investigate current proposals in Northern Ireland relating to the Rights of Housing Association Tenants to buy their own properties; to examine the benefits and disbenefits of such proposals and produce a report."

2. The document attached places the proposal in the context of present tenure patterns, the ability of housing association tenants to buy in England and Scotland, the scale of the housing association movement in Northern Ireland, and the impact of the NI Voluntary Sales Scheme on housing association stock.

3. In summary the NIHE believes that similar rights should exist between all tenants of the social rented sector including the Right to Buy (RTB) in whatever form it takes. The Committee should note that the Executive is currently reviewing its House Sales Policy and will be issuing its proposals for discussion in early summer.

4. Arguments against the principles of applying RTB to housing associations, who are now the providers of new social housing in Northern Ireland, are difficult to sustain. However, it is recognised that the Housing Association movement has reservations about RTB. Up until April 2000 only 14 out of 45 associations had sold to a total of 214 tenants; a small proportion of the 24,302 dwelling stock. However it must be recognised that because of the historic focus of the movement on supported/sheltered/elderly schemes there would be concerns about such property being available for sale. Under the current Housing Executive Sales Scheme they would be excluded from purchase.

5. In addition, housing associations will wish to see exceptions over and above those that apply to NIHE house sales. These include smaller associations where it is felt that house sales may threaten viability. 12 of the 45 associations have less than 100 units of accommodation. There is a view that the number of associations in Northern Ireland is too large in any event and that some consolidation would assist financial and housing management, and the achievement of performance standards. Consolidation could reduce the impact of exemption from RTB on the basis of size.

6. Similarly, it has been suggested that tenants more than 4 weeks in arrears should be excluded. This is contrary to the NIHE Sales Scheme, which obliges tenants in arrears to settle up before sale completion. It would be reasonable to apply the rules of the NIHE scheme (which has delivered over 90,000 sales to tenants) to housing associations RTB thus ensuring consistent treatment of tenants in the social rented sector.

7. Representations have been made that the RTB if applied to Housing Association Schemes would from a lender' perspective have a negative impact on the securing of private funding for existing or new schemes. There are several points to note in relation to this argument.

Most supported/sheltered schemes are 100% Housing Association Grant (HAG) funded with no private funding and would generally be excluded from RTB.

The new RTB would apply to housing provided for general needs purposes (which would previously have been provided by NIHE) and which is funded under mixed funding arrangements. We believe the financial arrangements to compensate an association for loss of its assets goes a long way to satisfying the concerns outlined in para 1.8 and 2.5 of the supporting report.

8. Finally, the Committee is asked to note that the NIHE is reviewing its house sales scheme. It is anticipated that proposals (which will deal with joint purchases, tenancy qualification, over 60s exclusion and maximum cash discount ceiling) will be available for consultation in the early summer. The scheme is currently subject to an Equality Impact Assessment under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

P McINTYRE
Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
THE NORTHERN IRELAND FEDERATION OF
HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

20 April 2001

Introduction

I refer to your letter of 26th March 2001 requesting comments on the following housing issues in Northern Ireland:

Large Scale Voluntary Transfers and the Role of NIHE.

The right of housing association tenants to buy their properties.

The Federation is the representative body of all DSD-registered housing associations and of a number of unregistered associations in Northern Ireland. As the voice of the voluntary housing sector, we welcome the opportunity to outline our perspective on these important matters.

NIFHA would be glad to discuss our views with the Committee and send further written material to expand on the points made in this brief submission. In particular, the results of the major research we have commissioned on house sales policy in Northern Ireland will contribute valuable new insights into a complex and under-researched field of public policy.

Unfortunately, the proposed Housing Bill has not emerged from a recent, comprehensive analysis of housing problems and policies. We understand it is likely to contain miscellaneous proposals that have emerged over a long period and which may not relate well to each other. NIFHA therefore recommends Assembly Members and other interested parties to "step back" from each particular proposal and consider it in a wider strategic context.

We suggest that the starting point for this strategic evaluation should be section 2.3.2 of the Programme for Government which the Assembly approved in March:

"The aim of our housing policies and programmes is to promote economic and social well-being by providing everyone with the opportunity to access decent, affordable housing, in the tenure of their choice."

It goes on to state:

"Working with the Housing Executive, housing associations and others in the voluntary sector, we plan to improve the quality of accommodation generally. We intend to increase the numbers of properties that meet special needs such as the needs of those with disabilities, older people and others. We also plan to make improvements in services to the homeless; traveller accommodation; energy efficiency in the social housing sector; and the number of households experiencing fuel poverty."

To supplement the broad aim of housing policy, NIFHA suggests that decisions on the two issues which are the subject of the present submission should be guided by the following criteria:

(a) the best, long-term interest of existing tenants in social rented housing;

(b) the needs of present and future applicants for social rented housing;

(d) the desirability of maintaining the stability and efficiency of the housing market.

Large Scale Voluntary Transfers and the Future Role of the NIHE

Although there is obviously a clear link between the two parts of this issue, for analytical purposes we shall sub-divide it and firstly consider the role of the Housing Executive.

The Role of the NIHE: Past and Future

When the Housing Executive was set up thirty years ago it was charged with the following main tasks:

absorbing the housing stock of scores of local authorities and unifying their management structures and policies;

promoting fairness in the allocation of housing;

improving the quality of Northern Ireland's housing stock, mainly by direct provision and grant aid to the private sector;

assessing aggregate housing need;

researching house condition; and

providing information and advice.

The Federation pays tribute to the generally excellent job which the Housing Executive has done in achieving these aims over the last thirty years.

In 2001, with much of this work completed and in a very different operating environment, the role of the Housing Executive deserves to be reassessed. Some of the major changes which ought to be taken into account are:

1. Devolution and the Programme for Government's commitment to review Non-Departmental Public Bodies and public administration generally (section 7.4).

2. The Programme for Government's determination to find new ways of financing our public services, notably by reviewing the opportunities for drawing in private finance (section 7.5).

3. Widespread acceptance of the principle that it is generally better to separate direct service provision from the planning and commissioning of services.

4. The demonstrated ability of registered housing associations to accept additional responsibilities including the development of almost all new social housing.

5. The need for "tailored" solutions to varied and intensely localised housing needs, rather than "broad-brush" responses to general shortages or substandard dwelling condition.

6. The growing residualisation and stigmatisation of social housing.

In these new circumstances, the Federation believes it would now be appropriate to transfer to the Department of Social Development the strategic functions which the NIHE currently carries out, leaving the reformed Housing Executive to concentrate on its roles of:

(a) landlord;

(b) enabler of housing development by others;

(d) energy conservation authority; and

(e) agent for the administration of vital public services including Housing Benefit and the proposed Supporting People Fund.

It seems logical that the Department for Social Development should be responsible for housing strategy since:

(i) it is directly accountable to locally elected representatives;

(ii) it would be easier to link housing policy to the Department's other responsibilities such as social security, urban regeneration, community development and voluntary activity;

(iii) it is woven into the new system of inter-Departmental working; and

(iv) it would be best placed to oversee all social housing providers, make impartial comparisons and promote sector-wide service improvements.

This type of reasoning seems to have led the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly to take direct control of housing strategy.

Transfer of Housing Executive Stock

In the Federation's opinion, the Committee is right to consider the transfer of NIHE stock to socially-motivated bodies whose borrowing falls outside the definition of public expenditure because such a policy:

1. Would release very large sums of the Assembly's budget for reinvestment in other aspects of housing policy and/or other programmes contributing to economic and social well-being.

2. Could enable some NIHE tenants to get their homes upgraded earlier than would otherwise be the case, while not disadvantaging other tenants.

3. Could open up new or enhanced opportunities to support community development, tenant involvement and neighbourhood regeneration.

4. Would offer more choice for tenants.

Please note that we have been careful not to limit our thinking to large-scale voluntary transfers. NIFHA feels that, given the generally good condition of the Housing Executive's stock, the most sensible way of proceeding would be to initiate a pilot programme of small scale transfers selected on the basis of objective, pragmatic considerations such as:

the length of time tenants of an estate may have to wait for publicly-financed improvements; and

the proximity of the estate to other stock already owned by the proposed new landlord.

The "Rights" of Housing Association Tenants to Buy their Properties

The housing association movement recognises the aspiration of many social tenants to become owner-occupiers. Most registered associations also agree that it is reasonable for the public purse to provide some incentive to help tenants exercise tenure choice.

We hope that a scheme can be devised, suitable not only for the great variety of registered housing associations but also the Housing Executive, which would give all social tenants access to similar help to purchase.

But the housing association movement is far from being satisfied that the present NIHER House Sales Scheme strikes the correct balance between:

enabling present tenants to achieve their home ownership ambition; and

enabling present and future housing applicants to satisfy their need for a decent affordable home.

In contrast to the situation in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, there has been no significant debate about how a House Sales Scheme contributes to the aim of housing policy or whether the present NIHE Sales Scheme is designed in the most appropriate way.

To illuminate the key policy issues the Federation is undertaking a major piece of research which will examine the rationale for, and impact of, discounted house sales to sitting tenants of social landlords. It is being conducted in two parts:

1. Independent research on the aims of house sales policies (commissioned to the University of Glasgow, under the direction of Professor Robina Goodlad - report due October 2001).

2. In-house research by NIFHA to assess the impact of a range of house sales scenarios on the ability of housing associations to meet housing need and remain financially viable.

The Federation will use the results of this research, which we will of course make available to the Committee, to inform our definitive policy position on the house sales issue.

In he meantime we have produced the attached discussion paper which we hope will stimulate debate. It has been issued, for comment, to our members, the Department for Social Development, the Housing Executive and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Northern Ireland. We trust the Social Development Committee will find it useful.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if any points require clarification.

We welcome the Committee's inquiry into these major housing issues and would be glad to discuss them face to face.

CHRIS WILLIAMSON, Director

top

Written Submission by:
ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE SERVICE

18 April 2001

With reference to your committee's call for comments upon the above, we would like to raise the following issues which you may wish to consider. These are based upon our experience in dealing with listed buildings.

1. Mandatory grant schemes have resulted in some instances in an overzealous renovation of historic buildings and we would encourage the committee to accept a discretionary approach to grant aid. In the present arrangements, many unnecessary renovations are to be carried out with the aim of addressing perceived problems. In particular, slate roofs and good quality timber windows are often replaced by inferior materials that have a much shorter life span. This is sometimes justified on the grounds of energy efficiency, modern construction standards or ensuring a thorough renovation. However, research has shown that this can be erroneous logic and in fact an expensive waste of resources.

Sash windows, in particular, have been shown in a recent study by English Heritage to work to adequate modern standards if properly repaired, and draught proofed. Slate roofs have lasted without felt for hundreds of years and their repair to modern standards is only really justifiable if they have failed. Slate as a material is much more durable than the man made alternative presently funded by the grant. EH have also proved conclusively that energy efficiency measures are much more cost effective if employed elsewhere in a dwelling than the windows. It takes on average 60 years to repay the cost of window replacement in energy savings according to their figures.

In relation to listed buildings many of our concerns are presently addressed by a cross check of all NIHE proposals by architects employed in this Department. We would argue however, that the unnecessary replacement of materials in all buildings in addition to being expensive and not cost effective (modern S/W timber windows have a life span of on average 25 years as opposed to historic timber taken from more mature forests which last hundreds of years) it also reduces the charm and character of much of our older buildings. These buildings form an important part of the tourist potential of our region and, though they are not listed owners should be given the opportunity to restore them sensitively. They should also be given the opportunity to restore them piece by piece as their funds allow, which is also more likely to maintain their character.

2. The idea of 'sub-standard conditions' should be carefully considered by the committee. At present low door heights, low ceiling heights, and kitchen work-surfaces of less than 3.6m are deemed to be sub-standard conditions eligible for grant. While we do not object to the principle of benchmark standards for grant eligibility we would point out that the Building Regulations no longer have minimum height requirements nor do they insist that existing dwellings be altered to comply with current standards. Quite considerable costs can result from the raising of doors and ceilings in particular. For example, the roof may also have to rise resulting in a massive increase in costs. Such conditions are often perfectly acceptable to the occupants of the houses. We would consider that this can often be an unnecessary cost and that the requirement should be reviewed.

3. The committee should also carefully consider the present Replacement Dwelling policy. When the cost of upgrading a dwelling to the required standard passes a threshold, the NIHE (sensibly on the grounds of cost effectiveness) will require a new dwelling to be built. However the corollary to this offer is that the original dwelling must be demolished. This is a 'statutory requirement' on the Executive from which they rarely deviate. The policy has resulted in a major loss of unlisted historic dwellings particularly in the countryside. Perhaps the greatest loss has been in the Government designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which has obvious implications in terms of future tourism. These areas often coincide with the areas of greatest rural poverty and have been targeted by the NIHE to improve living conditions in recent years. While we do not object to the cost effective improvement of housing standards across Northern Ireland, we feel that the requirement for demolition should be left to Planning Service to decide. Our understanding of the justification for this policy is that it will avoid future improvement applications with regard to a dwelling deemed unfit; could this not be addressed in a legal or recorded manner without recourse to mandatory demolition?

In one recent example one of our architects visited a farm where the farmer, after great protest, had demolished his former farmhouse. The same farmer had created a lake nearby by diverting a river and had stocked it with fish. This person was a prime example of the rural diversification and initiative that the Government has said it would like to encourage. We are sure you will agree that this farmer's chances of success would have been much greater had his historic cottage remained to convert into fisherman's accommodation (without aid from NIHE). In a general sense, the policy implies the demolition of much loved family homes, perhaps continuously inhabited by the same family from Plantation times. Prosperous Victorian farms in our valleys often have the old homestead as a barn in the farmyard, why should today's improvers not be allowed to retain this link with their past?

In conclusion we understand that the committee's concern is primarily a social one and the concerns of architects at Protecting Historic Buildings are not paramount. However, in our opinion, the present grant situation could be adjusted to allow a more cost effective application of Government money and, therefore, tackle more social need. In the same way it could tie in with public concerns and policies of another branch of the Executive and become a good example of 'joined up government' in action.

JANIS LUNN RIBA
Senior Conservation Architect

top

Written Submission by:
ARDS BOROUGH COUNCIL

18 April 2001

I refer to your letter dated 15 February 2001 regarding the Social Development Committee's enquiry into housing in Northern Ireland in light of the proposed Housing Bill which will be considered by the Assembly in the near future.

At the meeting of the Council's External Affairs and Planning Committee held in March, members considered the contents of your letter and agreed to note its contents.

I hope this information is of assistance.

A BORELAND
Director of Administration

top

Written Submission by:
NORTHERN IRELAND CO-OWNERSHIP
HOUSING ASSOCIATION LIMITED

18 April 2001

Thank you for your letter of 26 March, inviting submissions to the Committee's inquiry into Large Scale Voluntary Transfers and the NIHE and also the Rights of Housing Association Tenants to Buy Their Properties. On behalf of this association, I would make the following comments:

NICHA appreciates the valuable role that tenant choice must play in social housing. If we accept the right to choose, it follows that we must explore ways to provide choice.

Large Scale Voluntary Transfers and the NIHE

The Northern Ireland housing environment has its own unique characteristics, and I would therefore be hesitant about commenting other than in general terms at this stage, before proposals have been developed. However, it is clearly important as a first step to assess the potential for LSVTs in terms of:

A. Stock.

B. New types of landlord.

C. Support from those likely to be affected (including the Housing Executive tenant base and those on the Common Waiting List).

Assuming it can be demonstrated that the potential exists, it is important that alternative options should not adversely impact:

1. Established performance standards for social housing management.

2. Mechanisms for control and accountability.

3. Policy and programme delivery.

4. The relative situations of individual tenants.

the rights of housing association tenants to buy their properties

The distinction between housing association and Housing Executive tenants is an important one. Housing Executive tenants may buy their homes, housing association tenants (largely) may not. The discounts available to sitting tenants through the Executive's sales scheme are both well known and attractive, accounting in no small measure for its continuing success. Taking this scheme into consideration together with the opportunity, open to all tenants, of choosing an alternative property and location through the Co-Ownership scheme, it could be argued that adequate home buyer initiatives are already in place.

Clearly extending the right to buy could have implications for the future supply of rented properties, particularly in urban areas.

Ultimately, it may be a matter of clarifying policy. If the underlying intention is to provide housing choice on an equal basis to all, which objective should take precedence: enabling the maximum number of households to buy affordable homes or enabling the maximum number of households to buy the homes in which they currently live.

K E BUTLER, Director

Written Submission by:
ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE SERVICE

18 April 2001

JANIS LUNN RIBA
Senior Conservation Architect

top

Written Submission by:
NORTHERN IRELAND TENANTS ACTION PROJECT

9 April 2001

I refer to the above and to my previous correspondence dated 22 March 2001. Once again I am pleased to enclose the comments and observations from the NITAP staff team by way of formal response to the issues you raise. It is worth noting that the consideration of possible large scale voluntary transfer of Housing Executive stock has sparked lively discussion within the organization and we are pleased to be participating in the consultative process.

As a public sector landlord, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive enjoys high levels of customer satisfaction in the delivery of housing services and many community groups enjoy a constructive and participative relationship with housing staff. It is hoped that nothing in the proposals serves to undermine that relationship and the benefits that accrue to landlord and tenant as a result. It is therefore hoped that any consideration of the long-term future of the Housing Executive will include the views of tenants and their representatives.

Further, I note your comments on the consideration of anti-social behaviour and look forward to participating in the discussion on these matters.

I hope you find these comments useful and informative and a positive contribution to the consideration at hand.

MURRAY WATT
Liaison Officer

Large Scale Voluntary Transfers
Comments from Nitap Staff Team

In general it is felt that this is a consideration of the long-term future of the Housing Executive as a landlord; as such, it needs to be given the widest consultation to ensure that the views of tenants are taken into account. The matter of LSVT can be seen on the one hand as an opportunity to widen choice and better target responses to diverse housing need; on the other it can be seen as a threat to high quality housing services and tenant consultation which the Housing Executive has provided over the years. It is important that the debate is constructed to ensure the participation of the widest range of interests.

There is a great deal of uncertainty as to how LSVT will impact on housing in Northern Ireland and how it will be initiated and a number of issues will need to be addressed before the discussion can mature:

will LSVT involve the transfer of mainstream housing services to existing housing associations;

will arms length housing management companies be established to take on the delivery of the landlord function;

on what basis will transfer be initiated; at the estate level, District or Area ;

why is the issue being considered at the present time;

how will transfers be decided eg through balloting tenants and will simple majorities suffice to effect transfer;

in the rest of the UK, LSVT is seen as responding to the failures of public sector landlords and leveraging in private sector finance, is this the case in NI?

Benefits of LSVT

It is argued that one of the principal benefits of LSVT is that it enables public funding to be extended by accessing private sector sources. It is clear that many tenants would be attracted by the prospect of seeing maintenance or improvement schemes carried out in the shorter term which would be a positive outcome of the transfer process.

In Great Britain LSVT has been seen as responding to the failures of public sector landlords and that alternative providers have been able to respond more directly to the needs of tenants not just through increased financing but also through the introduction of new and innovative thinking. It is also suggested that the transfer process has enabled business discipline to enter into the public rented sector.

There may also be benefits in separating the regulatory function of social housing from the delivery mechanism which may suggest a different future role for the Housing Executive, more in line with the Housing Corporation or Scottish Homes.

One particular benefit of LSVT is that it might pave the way for greater tenant control of the housing service through the development of management or other co-operatives where neighbourhood services are effectively managed by the people who live there.

Community Participation Compacts currently being introduced might be the catalyst for instigating such change and LSVT the mechanism to develop the process further.

Disadvantage of LSVT

There are at present uncertainties as to the precise nature of LSVT as it may apply in Northern Ireland and indeed to whom stock would be transferred to should it apply. There is currently an absence of tradition in the province for examining housing policy, and time must be given to allow such a tradition to develop. Indeed the Housing Executive, the Housing Rights Service and the Chartered Institute of Housing are to be commended for their efforts to stimulate and encourage discussion and debate; this must be acknowledged as a stumbling block to a full and informed debate on the future direction of housing policy.

Nonetheless a number of disadvantages have been identified through discussions with NITAP staff and representatives of local community groups; these are as follows:

we do not know that alternative landlords have the capacity to deliver the landlord function as effectively as NIHE, some may be encouraged to take on tasks not suited to their organization;

there is a danger that in undertaking more mainstream housing services the experience of the smaller more specialist associations might be lost;

the need to adapt to ever changing roles, eg maintaining large investment portfolios and asset management may cause associations to move away from their voluntary ethos and not always to the benefit of their tenants;

many large estates have already seen a large change in tenure as a result of the Right to Buy, there is already confusion regarding services which may be complicated by further transfer of ownership;

NIHE has pioneered community involvement in NI and has made great strides in consulting tenants and residents on planned schemes and service delivery, there is a danger that this might be lost on transfer;

will the full rights of public sector tenancies be diluted on transfer from secure to assured, for example, and is this in the best interests of the customer;

there is a danger that the best stock is transferred leaving a residual public stock, marginalized and facing further under-investment;

as public life becomes more accessible, open and accountable, is there a danger that the transfer of stock will reverse this in the housing market;

will training and awareness raising on the issue be made available in all social housing areas, and if so who would provide such and how would it be resourced.

NIHE has provided considerable leadership in promoting community development and a vital role in sustaining processes in social housing areas whereas very few housing associations have any policies on consultation and participation;

through Consumer Panels and Community Participation Compacts NIHE has brought the customer closer to decisions on service delivery, there is a danger that other social landlords may not be able to sustain such participation;

what will happen in an area if a minority of tenants oppose transfer;

there may be an opening for some of the registered social landlords in GB taking over services or even ownership, which may not be in the best interests of tenants or NI based associations;

as a unitary authority, NIHE is able to deliver services uniformly across the province, LSVT may not achieve the same consistency.

An observation worth re-stating is the LSVT provides the potential for introducing new and innovative thinking into housing policy and would benefit from being regarded in that light rather than solely as a mechanism for introducing private finance into the public sector. It is therefore important that the structure in place whereby local community organizations participate in consumer panels with NIHE is utilized to develop the thinking on this issue. At the same time it is also important that housing professionals and the voluntary sector are involved in these discussions and that all groups can feel they have a stake in housing policy as it matures.

Community Participation Compacts, in line with GB, are being introduced across NI and there is no doubt that these carry the potential for developing alternative methods of delivering local housing services, but it is important that they are given time to develop and the opportunity to explore such ideas as LSVT. This will take time and it ought to be resourced. The absence of management and par-value co-ops in the housing sector and other such tenant run associations in NI is something which ought to be addressed and it is hoped that the proposed housing bill will open the door for such consideration; LSVT could be a mechanism to support such initiatives.

One further concern should be expressed. In considering this issue recognition should be given to the potentially damaging impact uncertainty over the future of the NIHE might have on the morale of its staff. There is no doubt that the housing service is being delivered in NI by experienced and skilled housing professionals and care must be exercised that this is not undermined by discussions on LSVT or other issue. Indeed it would be beneficial if housing staff are brought into these discussions not just through trades unions and professional bodies but also in the workplace; failure to do so might be very damaging.

rights of housing association tenants to buy their properties

There is no doubt that this issue presents a thorny issue for Housing Associations and it is important that policy neither limits the rights of tenants nor damages the long-term viability of the voluntary housing movement.

As housing associations have an increasing role in the provision of mainstream social housing, mainly as a result of the transfer of new development activity, the same rights should apply to association tenants as do to those of the Housing Executive; particularly as associations receive public funding.

At the same time it is acknowledged that this will present difficulties for associations under a mixed-funding regime. Concern will no doubt be expressed by associations that having spent time and resources developing, and long-term private finance obligations, they do not want to lose their best stock and face a declining asset base. An additional problem may face the smaller specialist associations who will have to either diversify their interests or face being swallowed up by stronger and better resourced associations. There is a danger that associations will have to move further away from their founding ethos just to sustain themselves and this does not bode well for the interests of their tenants.

top

Written Submission by:
BALLYNAFEIGH HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD

6 April 2001

Thank you for your letter of the 27th March, 2001 regarding various topics in relation to housing which will be brought before the Assembly.

I shall indeed be putting this Association's views on the relevant subjects to Mr Chris Williamson, Director of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations and trust that none of the concerns we may express will become diluted in a general reply.

Should you require any further information kindly do not hesitate to contact me.

P O'NEILL
Development Officer

top

Written Submission by:
HEARTH HOUSING ASSOCIATION

6 April 2001

Thank you for your letter of 27 March concerning the next stage of the Social Development Committee's inquiry into housing issues.

I understand that you have asked the NI Federation of Housing Associations to make a composite response to items 3 and 4 of your agenda, and we have written to them with our views.

Although we have many common interests, you will be aware that housing associations are not a monolithic body, and they embrace a number of special interests. In our case, we provide social housing through the restoration of historic buildings, and we have a number of special concerns which NIFHA may not feel are ones they can put forward on behalf of the movement as a whole. I would be grateful therefore if you would permit me to make these to you directly.

1. We would be keen to see an equity sharing scheme in operation. This would not necessarily be the same as that run by the Co-Ownership HA, whose tenants are expected to move on to full ownership in due course, and we would like to see a limit to the extent of equity a tenant could acquire. This would allow associations to retain an interest in the property, while at the same time permitting the tenant to take a proprietorial interest in it and to gain from any capital appreciation it experiences. We believe that this has the advantage of retaining rental accommodation where it is needed - in that the tenant with means would have in due course to buy elsewhere - while at the same time providing tenants with the foothold on owner occupation which is the aim of the legislation.

2. Unlike the Housing Executive, associations use private finance towards their work. In our case we have also used Heritage Lottery Funds and other private charitable resources in order to achieve good standards of historic restoration, and we believe that it will be hard to obtain such funds in future if there is seen to be an element of potential private gain by former tenants.

3. As a specialist association, we certainly cannot always replace stock in a given area. Many of our properties are unique, and we have invested considerable effort and resources into bringing them back from dereliction into use. Often other properties in the area which would have been of interest to us have been demolished.

4. Because of our own charitable status and also to fulfil the requirements of bodies like the Heritage Lottery Fund, we need to demonstrate that the properties will retain their historic interest, and this cannot be guaranteed if we no longer own them. We have concerns about the control of design features, particularly in terraced houses where owner occupiers may wish to change doors or windows and break up the architectural integrity of the terrace to the disadvantage of neighbours. It is possible to control such matters to some extent through covenants, but the leasehold reform act has made this more difficult. Formerly we might also have relied on the listing system protecting such properties, but as your Committee may be aware lack of planning enforcement has been a major issue in recent years, and many buildings are being de-listed as a result of unsuitable alterations.

I hope that you can include these points in your discussion paper.

>
MARCUS PATTON

top

Written Submission by:
BALLYMONEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

6 April 2001

Council recently considered your letter of 15th February regarding the inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland.

The Council has noted the Consultation Document by the Housing Executive to licence houses in multiple occupancy and welcomes progress in the provision of a voluntary scheme. However, it takes the view that a compulsory scheme should be introduced.

Members also expressed a view that as the houses in the multiple occupancy sector was increasing the properties ought to be better regulated than currently. It believes that the change of use to houses in multiple occupation should be included as a category in Planning Legislation so that Planning Permission and Building Regulation Approval would be required and aspects such as Fire & Safety matters could be controlled.

It is hoped that these matters can be taken into account as part of the inquiry process.

LIZ JOHNSTON
Corporate Services Officer

top

Written Submission by:
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST

3 April 2001

I refer to your letter dated 27 March 2001, addressed to Mr B Hannon at Malone Housing Association, Leslie Morrell House.

The property portfolio of the Malone Housing Association was purchased by Queen's University in April 2000. In light of this change in ownership and status, the University has no comments in relation to any of the items outlined in your letter and does not intend to forward a response to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations. I would be grateful if you would pass on this information.

Many thanks.

LORRAINE McCALLUM

top

Written Submission by:
COUNCIL OF MORTGAGE LENDERS NORTHERN IRELAND

3 April 2001

Introduction

1. CML Northern Ireland welcomes the opportunity to respond to the inquiry issued by the Social Development Committee into Housing in Northern Ireland in light of the proposed Housing Bill.

Licensing the Houses in Multiple Occupations (HMO) and Private Rented Sector (PRS)

3. The Northern Ireland Assembly should carefully evaluate the benefits and costs of introducing regulation to either the HMO end of the private rented sector (PRS) and the PRS more widely. The PRS has undergone a renaissance in the 1990s in Northern Ireland having grown from 3.5% to 4.4% of all dwellings between 1994 and 1999. However, it is still a relatively small sector by UK standards with the proportion of households renting privately in Northern Ireland less than half the proportion in Great Britain.

4. Clearly, there is a need to raise standards and protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords and poor quality housing in some parts of the PRS. But the Assembly needs to ensure that landlords and investors are not discouraged out of the sector by disproportionate regulation.

5. Any scheme should be unambiguous, consistent across the UK, and not duplicate or conflict with other regulatory regimes. Many investors in the PRS have portfolios across the whole of the UK and will expect similar regulatory standards to apply across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Similarly, Government should ensure the burdens on business is kept to a minimum.

6. Licensing HMOs could impact on the amount of affordable housing in the private sector, particularly for young people. Firstly, the costs of compliance with the scheme may impact on landlord overheads, resulting in increased rents. Secondly regulation could have an impact on the availability of property. A DETR study in England in 1999 on the impact of restrictions on rent eligible for housing benefit for single people under 25, revealed landlords were more likely to withdraw from the market than reduce their rents. HMO landlords may similarly choose to withdraw from the market if they consider the costs of compliance entailed by licensing, will reduce their rental return.

7. Despite Government initiatives to encourage investment in the private sector, lenders and institutions have remained cautious about committing to a long-term investment in the sector. Historically investors have been nervous about the threat of regulation. A licensing scheme for HMOs with the threat of extension to the wider PRS may send mixed messages to investors about Government's attitude towards the PRS. The PRS has experienced a renaissance in the UK as landlords and lenders have seen that renting privately is an attractive alternative to both owner occupation and social housing.

8. The Northern Ireland Executive should be extremely cautious about discussing licensing the whole of the PRS. There is always a concern amongst investors and landlords that discussion could lead to action without a proper evaluation of the consequences. Any review of the regulatory requirements will have to take into account the impact of onerous regulation on lenders' and landlords' future willingness to invest in the sector.

Private Sector Renewal

9. The CML believes the home improvement grant system is in need of substantial reform across the whole of the UK and would welcome a review of the Executive's grant giving powers. The Northern Ireland Assembly should look at the capacity for levering in private finance to make the existing mandatory grant funding go further than it currently does in meeting home owners' repair and improvement needs. There is a similar review currently under way in England and Wales.

10. As well as grants, NIHE should have the ability to make interest-bearing loans and also award grants, which are repayable. The current system is inflexible, especially given the varied financial circumstances of owners of poor condition housing Any new system should provide a range of assistance based on homeowners' needs and their ability to pay for repairs.

11. At one end of the spectrum lower income households with very limited equity need grant assistance. At the other end, homeowners on higher incomes and with equity in their homes, should be encouraged to unlock and use that capital to repay for repairs and improvements.

12. Homeowners with sufficient equity in their home need to be encouraged to use that equity to repair their property. The CML is working towards guidance on equity release products with a view to assisting homeowners who would like to unlock equity in their home to pay for improvements.

13. The UK Government's approach to Regulating Mortgages (HM Treasury, 2000) means that all loans over 5 years in length secured on land will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and no longer caught by the Consumer Credit Act. This makes it easier for lenders to make small sum advances for home repair, and would allow middle-income borrowers to pay for their own home improvements, rather than relying on mandatory grants.

14. The Assembly could also explore the option of providing guarantees for loans for home repair. The presence of a guarantee brings comfort to lenders and could lower the marginal costs to borrower and lender alike.

15. The CML believe that grants should be given where no other option is available or practicable. The Housing Executive is best placed to judge what form of help to give in each case. The grant could be made recyclable by insisting that the grant is repaid on the sale of the property, which would increase the sums of money available to the Housing Executive over the long term. We believe that the grant should always be ranked behind any mortgage in order of priority.

Comments or queries about this paper should be addressed in the first instance to Andrew Heywood, telephone: 020 7440 2227, e-mail: andrew.heywood@cml.org.uk.

top

Written Submission by:
FERMANAGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 April 2001

I refer to your letters of 15th February and 27th March 2001 regarding the Social Development Committee's deliberations into a member of Housing Issues in Northern Ireland and would confirm that Fermanagh District Council discussed these matters at their Environmental Health Committee meeting on 8th March 2001 and Council meeting on 2nd April 2001. The following is a brief synopsis of their discussions/recommendations:

Private Sector Renewal

Fermanagh District Council commends the present mandatory grants scheme and are of the opinion that it is the best policy for improving/replacing the large number of unfit dwellings. It is anticipated that the 17.5% unfitness level recorded for the Fermanagh District Council area in the last House Condition Survey of 1996 will show substantial improvement in 2001 but it is acknowledged that many more houses will require improvement/replacement before Fermanagh's housing unfitness rate falls to an acceptable level.

The present Minor Works Grant should in the Council's opinion, be extended to include people of all ages who are in receipt of means tested benefits and not limited to those aged over 60 years. This would also mean that there would be no necessity to continue with payment of grant to owner occupiers on the basis of Public Health Nuisance Notices. The payment of grant to landlords on the strength of a Public Health Notice/Certificate of Disrepair is, however, seen as a useful tool in having necessary repairs carried out to properties which are often occupied by the elderly and more vulnerable members of society.

Fermanagh District Council has a number of occasions raised the matter of grant eligibility in respect of replacement grant applicants form houses subject of Closing Order procedure (ie Closing Orders made by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive where grant applicants were not living in the property for 2 years). It is considered that this policy adopted by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is wrong and many genuine applicants are being refused grant aid as structurally better houses which are also subject of Closing Orders and where the grant applicant is living in the property for less than 2 years are eligible for Renovation Grant. This anomaly needs to be addressed.

Any Group Repair Scheme being proposed in new legislation should be adaptable to town/village locations. In the past area action was often seen by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as being applicable only to large urban residential areas.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

As the proposed licensing scheme recently announced by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is voluntary, it is considered that responsible landlords will be more likely to participate in the scheme. It is Fermanagh District Council's opinion that a mandatory scheme is the only way that the problems occurring in the worst and most dangerous properties can be addressed.

Private Rented Sector

It is understood that the Minister has recently convened a Working Group to review this legislation and the Council looks forward to having an opportunity to input into any subsequent consultation. It is recognised that the existing Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 requires amendment but it is a useful piece of legislation. Amendments should include designation of District Councils as the enforcement authority for Rent Book Regulations.

Fermanagh District Council would thank the Social Development Committee for this opportunity to comment on the above matters at this formative stage of the legislative process.

R C FORDE
Director of Environmental Health

top

Written Submission by:
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF HOUSING IN NORTHERN IRELAND

April 2001

The Chartered Institute of Housing in Northern Ireland welcomes the opportunity to make this written submission as part of the second stage of the Social Development Committee's inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland, in light of the proposed Housing Bill.

We note the intention to produce a single report on the first four topics identified as part of the review, to be released before the summer recess and trust that our comments, views and opinions will be of assistance.

Large Scale Voluntary Transfer and the NIHE

"To investigate current proposals in Northern Ireland for Large Scale Voluntary Transfers; to identify the benefits and disbenefits of such proposals and to examine the effects on, and future for, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and produce a report."

The Minister for Social Development has stated his intention to bring forward legislation on a range of housing matters, including Stock Transfer. However, the proposal as currently penned is devoid of explanation and appears simply to remove the power of veto that a single tenant can have, should stock transfer be proposed. In effect the legislation to facilitate stock transfer already exists in Northern Ireland, but, under current legislation, should one tenant in a scheme proposed for transfer object, then the transfer could not proceed. The proposal from the Minister is, therefore, to remove this veto and introduce a simple majority of tenants voting to agree a transfer proposal.

While the legislation exists but has rarely if ever been used, the question is why change the rules if you are not contemplating making use of these new powers? The Department for Social Development explains that this is simply a passive measure to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. However, such a change should not be taken in isolation from the debate on future options for the delivery of housing services both on grounds of investment and management. We are pleased that the Social Development Committee has been prepared to stimulate this debate through the current inquiry that has been initiated, and we welcome the opportunity to contribute.

Despite Northern Ireland's good track record in maintaining investment levels in housing, NIHE now has a growing backlog of repair and improvement work, with investment running at only two-thirds of what is required. In England, Government has set a target of tackling poor conditions in social housing within ten years. In Northern Ireland, the problem is not as big (even in relative terms) but given present investment levels the picture will get worse, not better, over the next decade. At present there is no equivalent target to the one set for England.

At the same time there is an issue about the appropriateness of NIHE as a structure for the future, given the institutional changes that have begun as a result of devolution. NIHE has a stock of 120,000. Until now, it has been able to compare itself as a housing authority with the likes of Birmingham (88,000 stock) or Glasgow (95,000 stock) but this will soon change as both these large local authorities head down the transfer route and break up the ownership of their stocks. Is it now time for the Housing Executive, too, to be re-invented in a new form?

Our comments here are a very preliminary look at some of the options for NIHE. This is against the background of what is happening elsewhere and the Programme for Government proposal to finance a programme for improvement linked to the disposal of remaining public housing stock to social ownership, managed by housing associations or self-managed community development trusts. (Programme for Government section (f): Enhancing physical mobility and the environmental fabric.)

Option 1
Do Nothing

In Northern Ireland there is general consensus among tenants and all shades of political opinion that the Housing Executive has been a successful framework for delivering housing services. So, if it is not broken why try to fix it!

However, maintaining the status quo does not appear a realistic option in the current climate, as funding to meet increasing needs is unlikely to be forthcoming. We have already seen the transfer of the new build function to Housing Associations, not because they had asked for this or, indeed, that it was felt that this could be delivered more efficiently by associations, but solely to allow the levering in of private resources. One consequence of this has been the break down of the current consistent pattern of rents, as associations have to set rents to service loans rather than on size, age, and amenity.

It is also clear that with the evolving political structures for governing Northern Ireland a new framework will be required within which the Assembly can set its own strategies and priorities. This will require the harnessing of resources and expertise and a mix of public and private investment, setting the implementation of future strategies within the context of nationally identified needs and priorities. This will require an evaluation of alternative models of delivery to develop a specific housing strategy, reflecting the political, social and economic situation in Northern Ireland.

Consideration of the additional options outlined below does in no way imply criticism of the NIHE or advocacy of change. Our comments are provided in consideration of what some of the options might be to improve service delivery, given developments elsewhere in the UK.

Option 2
Public Corporation with more Borrowing Freedom

This option would retain NIHE as a unit (although it would be linked to other options to devolve management). NIHE would become a wholly owned public corporation like the Post Office. It would then be given more borrowing freedom within public sector borrowing controls based on it maintaining a prudent borrowing regime. Its relationship with the Government might be based on a renewable contract, with subsidy related to delivery of services and targets set out in the contract. The Executive could finance more investment if it was able to increase rents, but would have to do so within an agreed business plan with limits on the rate of rent increases.

There may be ways of giving a reformed Executive more flexibility to meet its investment needs in other respects, for example:

capitalise the benefit of future rental streams to make new investment now (possibly through securitisation);

build up surpluses for the same purpose;

have more freedom to dispose of assets and re-use the proceeds;

transfer the NIHE debt to central government as is happening in England with stock transfer.

This option is the lease challenging to the NIHE current structure, but could be made a challenging option in terms of its business plan through the contract/subsidy relationship with Government.

Option 3
A Big Housing Association

This option has already been mooted by members of the Social Development Committee and would be akin to a whole stock transfer, with NIHE being reconstituted as a large housing association, able to receive grants, raise private finance, etc in the normal way. This option is relatively simple in principle, but raises a number of major questions and issues:

in relation to the other associations, it would be a massive fish in a tiny pond

How would it be accountable?

Would it carry on with it the strategic functions or would these be left with (say) DSD?

Would it be able to do new build?

How would it be regulated?

A variation of this option would be a group structure, with a big parent body and smaller local ones based on existing NIHE district offices. This would help solve the accountability issue, but some of the other questions would remain. Would local associations derived from the existing NIHE districts offices feel genuinely independent or would the structure remain monolithic in practice, if not in appearance?

Option 4
Several Housing Associations

Under this option the stock would be broken up between new housing associations set up at district level. They would be independent of each other and of any central body. This option, therefore, implies a strong strategic unit within DSD (or separately) to deal with overall strategy and private sector issues that are now handled or proposed to be handled by the Housing Executive. This option could be phased in, with transfer taking place over a period and the Executive, as currently exists, being gradually wound down.

The option addresses some of the issues raised under option 3 but might be just as threatening to existing housing associations as that option, as there would be a large number of new bodies competing for grant etc. Also, given the strength of the Housing Executives strategic role, it would be important to have a new arrangement to place that retained it and did not have all the key staff going to local level as new housing association Chief Executives (a problem occurring in England with stock transfer).

Option 5
Arms Length Companies

In this option the Housing Executive is retained centrally but is allowed/encouraged to set up arms length companies based on its districts. There would have to be performance thresholds before arms-length could be established and each would require a business plan (maybe operating in shadow from pre-ALC). The Housing Executive's existing business planning process should be robust enough to facilitate this option.

Consideration would need to be given to the financial arrangements that might accompany these changes. One possibility would be to introduce resource accounting for the ALCs, with the stock re-investment indicated in their business plans financed through a new Major Repairs Allowance, as in England. This would be public subsidy so would not in itself solve the problem of where new funds would come from. The ALC could borrow within prudential guidelines and could undertake PFI deals (though there may not be any clear advantage in the latter).

This option has the attraction of retaining a relatively strong central base for the Executive and being less threatening to existing associations, as they would (at least initially) still be the main agents for new build. The ALCs could have local boards and be the basis for greater local devolution at a later stage. The big disadvantage is that it does not bring in private finance.

Option 6
A Mixed Strategy

One way of addressing the weakness of the last option is to pursue a mixed strategy in which districts which could be viable within a resource accounting regime (because they have better quality stock) become ALCs, whilst those with poorer stock are transferred to benefit from private finance. In many ways this would give the best of both worlds and would create more diversity.

Option 7
A Mixed Strategy - With Competition

Another variation on the previous option would be to allow existing housing associations to compete to take over the stock as an alternative to a new association being formed from the existing district offices. This would be a more open approach but may be of questionable feasibility given the size of the majority of existing associations. However, it would have the advantage that in poor performing districts there would be an alternative to the present management set up (although staff would in any case have to move across through TUPE rules).

There, of course, may be more options than those mentioned, but this provides a basis to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches as requested in your terms of reference. However, fundamental to developing structures for the future is undoubtedly the issue of over-hanging debt.

Treatment of NIHE Debt

Any of the above options could be combined with the taking over of the NIHE debt to be serviced by central government. The advantage of this would be to simplify its financial preparatory to one of the above changes, by brining current expenditure more or less in line with revenue from rents and capital receipts. The precedent is the write-off of debt which takes place in England with LSVT, where the Treasury bears the costs and effectively takes the debt onto its own books. Such a move is neutral in terms of Public Sector Borrowing Rules. (PSBR)

The complication in the case of Northern Ireland is the same that has occurred in Scotland, that the Treasury may regard debt repayment as a call on the Northern Ireland block, so that (unlike England) it could affect current spending. This would need investigation and may depend on the status of the NIHE debt ad the historic level of debt from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) inherited from the 65 different housing bodies that were amalgamated in 1971 to form the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, a clear difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland is the NIHE receives substantial subsidy towards debt servicing costs direct from Central Government. (In Scotland's case, direct subsidy has already disappeared for most authorities and debt is serviced from rent income.) This distinction is undoubtedly an advantage in the argument for the Treasury to bear the costs of this overhanging debt.

In the halcyon days of the 1980's, when housing was declared to be the government's main social priority in Northern Ireland, it should be noted that some £366m of NIHE debt had been written off, together with an accompanying reduction in loan charge requirements. Without this write off a higher level of public expenditure would have been required from the Northern Ireland Block, without any benefit to the physical housing programme. Similar action now would facilitate the development of an appropriate model of service delivery with the investment required to maintain and improve the social sector.

More Modest Reform Possibilities

One further consideration of structures for delivering housing services could also involve the re-aligning of existing Housing Executive district office boundaries to become co-terminus with electoral boundaries, rather than district council boundaries. As the devolved structure of the Northern Ireland Assembly is on the basis of six representatives from each constituency, it is worth considering a move to eighteen District Offices, determined by population and stock size, rather than strict adherence to council boundaries, which have no relevance to delivery mechanisms. The current district structure of the NIHE is primarily the same as created at the establishment of the Housing Executive in 197` when there were 43 District Offices. A number of Districts have since amalgamated, within District Council areas, creating the current 37 District offices. However, at that time the stock levels numbered 212,000 properties compared to 120,000 currently, as a result, primarily, of slum clearance and house sales. Existing constraints have prevented the Housing Executive from doing little more than "tinker" with this structure, whereas a more fundamental review could achieve greater efficiencies.

Indeed, one could go further and create, for example, one office for Belfast, with an increased network of smaller neighbourhood offices, bringing delivery to the doorstep of local residents. Economies of scale can be achieved with this move from the seven existing offices, nearly all with city centre locations and simplify the administration of tasks duplicated in each individual outlet.

Such change could take place within current structures or as part of the introduction of the preferred option for the future delivery of housing services.

Finally, as the Social Development Committee is no doubt aware, the Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive have jointly commissioned research, to be undertaken by HACAS Chapman Hendy, into the future options for investment and management of social housing in Northern Ireland. As the terms of reference of that research project appears to overlap with this current review and to avoid duplication, it would seem appropriate for this research document to be incorporated into your report, as part of the ongoing review. CIH calls on the DSD and NIHE to publish the consultant's report, to stimulate the wider debate, which we have called for in this submission.

The Rights of Housing Association Tenants to Buy Their Properties

"To investigate current proposals in Northern Ireland relating to the Rights of Housing Association Tenants to buy their own properties; to examine the benefits and disbenefits of such proposals and produce a Report."

It is clear that the primary driver to extend the Right To Buy (RTB) to Housing Association Tenants is on the basis of "equity". It is argued that it is only fair that all social housing tenants in Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way and that Housing Association tenants should have the same rights as Housing Executive tenants. Those advocating this change point to the dilution of rights which those tenants, rehoused in new properties built by Housing Associations under current arrangements for accessing private funding, had previously enjoyed as Housing Executive tenants. However, such a blanket extension of the right to buy without proper analysis or debate on the short term and long term implications, is short-sighted and fails to take into account the likely impact on future housing provision and strategies.

The growth in owner-occupation in Northern Ireland is due in no small measure to the Housing Executive's House Sales scheme with over 90,000 sales completed to date. It is, though, predominately the better properties in the better locations which have been sold.

Former tenants have benefited, but in some areas, including many rural locations, there is too little affordable housing to meet local needs. There is clearly a need to review the current house sales arrangements across the sector to develop a scheme, which is more flexible so that it can take into account the needs of local communities. We can also learn from developments elsewhere in the UK, particularly in Scotland where the Scottish Parliament are to introduce their own house sales policy taking account of demand and capping discounts.

It is also important to understand how and why the RTB has developed in Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the UK. In Northern Ireland, for example, the Housing Executive sells properties to sitting tenants not under the provisions of the RTB legislation, but under the more generous provisions of its own voluntary sales scheme which was introduced in 1979. Under the latter, for example, a NIHE tenant is eligible to buy from the first day that he/she becomes a tenant. Under the RTB one would have had to be a tenant for a minimum of two years.

History of the Right to Buy

The original RTB was introduced in England and Wales in the Housing Act 1980, and the Scottish Tenants Rights Act 1980. It gave secure tenants of councils and non-charitable housing associations the right to purchase the freehold or leasehold of the property they occupied at a discount, dependent on certain conditions. In Northern Ireland the RTB was introduced in the Tenants Charter in 1984 and was modelled on an existing NIHE voluntary sales scheme, later enshrined in legislation in 1992. In fact all NIHE sales are under the voluntary scheme rather than the statutory RTB as it is less administratively onerous. Since 1979 over 90,000 properties have been sold, and sales continue to average over 4,000 per year.

Since 1989 in the rest of the UK, new tenants of both charitable and non-charitable housing associations have been granted assured tenancies under the 1988 Housing Act. This means that whilst existing secure tenants of non-charitable associations have maintained the RTB, new assured tenancies do not have this right. The Housing and Planning Act 1986 brought in the preserved RTB for tenants whose council properties are transferred to housing associations.

In Northern Ireland, we have a single secure tenancy for housing association and Housing Executive properties, but the RTB is not linked to the type of tenancy but the type of landlord.

The Right to Acquire (RTA) was introduced in England and Wales in the 1996 Housing Act for tenants of housing associations built after 1 April 1997 with the aid of public money. The RTA is significantly different from the RTB. In particular, housing associations can re-invest the receipts from sale and properties in rural settlements with population of less than 3,000 are exempt. The RTA does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Recent Changes in RTB

Modest changes to the RTB in England were introduced in December 1998, with the maximum discount allowed varying according to Region. It has been reduced from £50,000 in all regions and now ranges from £22,000 in the North East to £38,000 in London and the South East. In Wales the maximum discount is £24,000 across the country and came into force in 1999. However, Scotland, like Northern Ireland, has no fixed level discount: the maximum discount remains at 60% for houses and 70% for flats. One recent valuation in Northern Ireland, at over £100,000, allowed the sitting tenant a discount of over £60,000. Current proposals in Scotland will "cap" the discount at £20,000.

The RTB also has a "Cost Floor Rule" which has been modernised and harmonised in the rest of the UK and applies to works carried out on a property up to 10 years earlier (the previous period was eight years). The rule has been extended to include repairs and maintenance over the cost of £5,500 incurred in that period. There has been no equivalent change in Northern Ireland as the Cost Floor Rule continues to apply only to capital works carried out up to £5,000 over a period of 8 years.

There has also been a change to the Right to Acquire in England, which came into effect in December 1999. This amendment limits the discount available to 50% of the value of the property where that value is lower than the flat rate discount for the area. The discount available depends on the area and is currently between £9,000 and £16,000.

Reforming the Right to Buy - Scottish Executive Proposals

Following a lengthy consultation process, a number of important reforms to the RTB have recently been proposed by the Scottish Executive. The changes will affect new tenants rather than current tenants, with the latter retaining the right to buy under current terms and conditions. New tenants will have the right to buy under the reformed system and will apply equally to both council and housing association tenancies. The proposals include reforms in the following areas:

New tenants will become eligible for RTB after five years, rather than the two years for current tenants.

Discounts will start at 20% after five years, increasing by 2% per annum until they reach a level of 50% after 15 years. Discounts will apply equally to flats and houses and will be capped at a maximum value of £20,000.

RTB to be suspended for new and re-let properties (ie not current tenancies) in areas which are designated high pressure areas for rented housing. Councils would be able to apply for such a designation under the housing plan process and they would last for a specified period with the possibility of extension if pressures had not been eased.

Landlords would be able to offer tenants financial incentives (the "portable discount") towards the purchase of a property on the open market.

The current exemptions to the RTB would continue to apply for charitable housing associations and would be extended from sheltered housing to include all group housing provided for people with special needs.

Individual housing associations can choose to bring particular properties within the scope of the new scheme if they wish but if there is a concern about financial viability they can remain exempt for up to ten years.

The "cost floor rules" will remain unchanged at 10 years, following the amendment in 1998.

The principles behind the Scottish reforms are to make the discount scheme less onerous on selling landlords and making the RTB more responsive to local housing markets.

House Sales in Northern Ireland

The House Sales scheme in Northern Ireland has been seen as a resounding success, providing an opportunity for many tenants to move into home ownership for the first time. Indeed, the capital receipts from the sale to sitting tenants has been a vital source of income for the Housing Executive and had been ploughed back to fund mainstream development programmes. However, it was felt that the number of tenants applying to buy would eventually tail off, but this has not proved to be the case and, consequently, the Housing Executive is no longer permitted to keep all the money it makes from selling to tenants of its properties. In fact, in the last five years the Housing Executive has had to hand back over £60 million for distribution within the Northern Ireland Public Expenditure Block. Thus, the capital receipts are no longer ring-fenced for housing but to supplement the spending of other departments and agencies.

The house sales scheme continues to be more generous than the equivalent schemes operated in the rest of the UK with no account taken of demand or targeting as part of a strategy to develop mixed tenure. Tenants are entitled to 30% on taking up the tenancy; 32% after two years, rising by 1% per year to a maximum of 60%. In the case of flats, the discount is 40% on becoming a tenant, 44% after two years rising by 2% per year to a maximum of 70%.

The Housing Executive has also introduced a standard processing time of twelve weeks from the date of application. Properties specifically made available for elderly or disabled tenants are exempt from the scheme, as are squatters, those in temporary accommodation and those in rent arrears unless this debt is settled before purchase. Tenants who sell the property within three years from date of purchase have to pay back the discount on a sliding scale. Sale within one year requires the entire discount to be repaid; between one and two years, 66% is repaid; and between two to three years 33%. After three years there is no clawback of discount.

There is also no obligation on the tenant who has exercised the right to purchase to offer the property for sale back to the Housing Executive. Consequently, we have over the last few years witnessed the Housing Executive buying back properties at full market value, under the Acquisition of Satisfactory Housing Scheme (ASH), which had not so long before been within its own stock. Indeed, this year housing associations have similarly been invited by the Department to identify and re-purchase back former NIHE properties in high demand areas to meet demands for social housing in certain high demand areas, such as West and North Belfast. It is claimed that such action has fuelled property prices in these areas.

There is also some anecdotal evidence that former housing executive properties account for the rise in private renting in some areas, with market rents now being paid where formerly the property was owned by the Housing Executive. The Executive has recently invited the University of Ulster to undertake some research in this area and the report is awaited.

It is clear that the house sales scheme has benefited many former tenants, particularly in high demand areas. With the annual rise in rents, coupled with the reducing mortgages rates, house sales will continue to be an attractive option for many tenants. In particular, those paying full rent or those receiving benefits with relatives prepared to purchase on behalf of the sitting tenant will wish to take advantage of the discounts and the "minimum risk" investment opportunity that this presents. At a time when less than 2000 new social housing units are being built by housing associations each year, the annual loss of over 4,000 Housing Executive properties each year will continue to affect the ability of social housing to meet housing need. The sector will further contract and become a tenure choice only for those unable to buy for themselves, or with the help of relatives who don't even need to live in the property.

It should also be noted that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has expressed its concern about the possible extension of the RTB to housing associations, as lenders have funded housing associations to undertake new build with private finance on the assumption that the stock, and thus the security of the loan, will remain in the ownership of the association. They are anxious that the receipts from sales may not cover the outstanding debt and it is possible that some lenders may seek immediate repayment of outstanding debt on each property as and when it is sold. Future borrowing may, as a result, be frustrated.

CIH Policy on the Right to Buy

The CIH policy on RTB is long-standing and is stated in the policy reports Sustainable Home Ownership, Housing Makes the Difference, Putting the House in Order and Putting People First. The CIH is not opposed to the extension of the Right to Buy to all tenants of social housing. The Institute wants to see reforms of the RTB which achieve a better balance between the aspirations of individual tenants to own their own homes and the needs of communities to provide decent rented housing for people who need a home but cannot or do not wish to buy. Recent research in England has confirmed the view that many of those who have bought under the RTB have benefited considerably by doing so. In some parts of the UK, however, sales have undermined the sustainability of the social sector by depriving it of its best properties. In some cases, particularly in rural districts, sales have significantly reduced the overall supply of affordable rented housing. Given the low level of new development in the social housing sector, it does not seem sensible to continue providing substantial discounts for properties that still experience strong demand.

What is required is greater flexibility on discounts to enable the Housing Executive to reflect sub-regional markets and the local housing strategies. Within Northern Ireland, the ability to apply a more local approach would mean that discounts could be restricted on properties in high demand areas and relaxed in neighbourhoods where it is believed sales could help create balanced or stable communities. The application of the right to buy could then become a useful tool as part of a national housing strategy to ensure balanced sustainable communities.

There is also a clear case for reform the RTB to protect rural areas. Any extension of the RTB to housing associations should be "Rural Proofed" and brought into line with the Right to Acquire so that settlements with population of less than5,000 are exempt from the RTB.

The Department for Social Development clearly believe that the extension of the RTB to all housing association tenants is fair and equitable. However, the current scheme is neither fair or equitable as larger discounts are awarded to tenants living in high demand areas than those in lower demand areas with lower property values. The financial impact of extending the RTB to housing associations as it currently exists could also affect the financial viability of some associations, particularly locally based community associations who have up-graded their properties.

The CIH recommends:

Ending the obligation on the Housing Executive to sell under RTB.

Allow policies for both Housing Executive and housing associations sales of existing and new properties to be decided according to local strategies.

Allow discounts to be determined locally subject to a new national monetary cap.

Allow Housing Executive and housing associations to retain all future RTB receipts for housing purposes.

Introduce quota selling to preserve a certain percentage of homes or particular types of stock.

Introduce tighter rules on eligibility.

Standardise discounts for flats and houses.

Protect rural areas from losing affordable housing through exempting settlements of population less than 5,000.

Condition of sale that property offered back to former landlord.

Ensure financial viability of existing associations by allowing exemption for a specified number of years.

Introduce transferable discounts for tenants in high demand areas wishing to buy, allowing stock to be retained.

Cost floor rule to include repair and maintenance in addition to capital costs.

Examine the three year clawback period.

Introduce a system of monitoring and review.

The Housing Executive has operated a scheme to sell to sitting tenants since 1979. It is clear that after this time the operation of the Right to Buy is in need of fundamental review. The current passive proposals to extend the RTB to housing associations in Northern Ireland will not create equity as is intended. There is, however, an opportunity to modernise the house sales scheme for all social housing tenants with flexibility on discounts linked to housing need.

We welcome the review which the Social Development Committee has initiated, and trust that our views, comments and opinions will be of assistance.

KIERAN WALSH
Director

top

Written Submission by:
PADDY HILLYARD, PADDY GRAY AND URSULA MCANULTY

30 March 2001

Thank you for asking us to contribute to the discussions on the private sector. At the moment we are conducting a study for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on the privately rented sector in Northern Ireland, which also includes an examination of the current law in relation to that sector both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This element of the study is not yet complete, but we will forward the analysis when it is finished. The research in which we are engaged is on-going and we will be in a much better position to provide detailed comment on the areas which you have listed by the summer.

In the meantime we would like to make one general comment and a number of specific points. The general comment is that in order to carry out an adequate study of the private sector it is necessary to consider the fiscal and subsidy regimes in all tenures. We acknowledge that fiscal policies are outside the remit of the NI Assembly, however, it is our view that the owner occupier sector is in a more advantageous position than other sectors.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOS)

There are a number of issues which need to be considered in relation to HMOs: the voluntary licensing scheme, standards of accommodation and service delivery, grants, allocation of units to social housing tenants.

Voluntary Licensing Scheme

A number of problems have been experienced in voluntary registration schemes in Great Britain. These include levels of fees applied, who the registration agency should be, the amount and quality of service from the registration agency, and the reluctance of landlords to participate. It is important that any voluntary scheme should accommodate these problems and any voluntary scheme should be attractive to landlords.

Standards of Accommodation and Service Delivery

We support the idea of minimum standards but we would question the method of policing in the sense that once the standards have been met how are they maintained? We believe that minimum standards can be achieved by targeted grant support which reflects the actual costs of improvement in contrast to the current regime where estimated costs for grant purposes are substantially lower than open market costs. We also believe that not only should there be minimum standards but that there should be different categories of standard reflecting the quality of the dwelling and the quality of management. We further suggest that there should be a service level agreement between landlord and tenant. This could be introduced at the outset of the tenancy for an agreed period between the landlord and the tenant.

Grants

We support the introduction of discretionary grants which should be targeted on an area basis which must include dispersed rural areas given the high rate of unfitness in the west of the province. We also support group repair schemes. In addition, the allocation of any grant aid must be monitored in line with the equality and new TSN agendas.

Allocation of Units to Social Housing Tenants

In order to protect the public subsidy and to achieve equality objectives we recommend that a proportion of prospective tenancies which are created as a result of grant aid, be specifically allocated to social housing tenants.

Star System

Many of these issues could be addressed by the introduction of a grading scheme such as the awarding of stars depending on the quality of accommodation and the standard of service. This could be based on similar schemes operated by Tourist Boards whereby star categories can run from one to five. This would produce a sound basis for registration and also provide the tenant with a statement of what they can expect within each category. We would recommend a differential fee structure depending on the category awarded. There would then be an incentive for landlords to pay higher fees for higher category properties. These could then be widely publicised.

We hope these comments are helpful.

PADDY HILLYARD
PADDY GRAY
URSULA McANULTY

top

Written Submission by:
HOUSING RIGHTS SERVICE

29 March 2001

1. Introduction

1.1 Housing Rights Service is an independent voluntary organisation providing advice, information and training on housing issues to individuals and agencies throughout Northern Ireland. Established in 1963, the organisation deals with approximately 5000 enquiries each year from individuals who are homeless or in housing need. In the last 12 months just over 25% of the enquiries we received were from people who are experiencing problems with privately rented accommodation.

1.2 In the letter inviting our comments reference is made to "current NI proposals". I would like to emphasise that as we have not been made aware of the detail of any specific proposals, we are not in a position at this stage to offer comment on these. This response therefore focuses on highlighting common areas of concern for our clients and has been informed by our practical experience, on a daily basis, of providing advice and assistance to people who live in the private rented sector.

2. Context

2.1 Until now, only limited research has been undertaken into the private rented sector within Northern Ireland and therefore little is known about the character or composition of the sector or indeed the role which it plays in the wider housing market. It is however our view that, whilst statistically the sector may be relatively small, it plays a distinct and complementary role to the social sector and makes a very significant contribution to meeting the housing needs of those who are unable or unwilling to access social housing.

2.2 The private rented sector caters for a diverse range of people including affluent professional households who typically inhabit the high quality accommodation at the upper end of the private sector. Traditionally however it has also been an important source of housing for vulnerable groups including students, many of whom are experiencing independent living for the first time, and elderly people on low incomes who are long term residents in this sector. These groups tend to be concentrated in the lower end of the market characterised by disrepair, poor management standards and lack of rights for the people who live there.

3. Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Sector

3.1 Given the important role of the private sector within the general housing market there is an urgent need for a strategic approach to be taken to improving both physical and management conditions within not only HMOs but the private rented sector as a whole. Housing Rights Service believes there should be a legislative requirement to develop and implement a strategy for this sector and the formulation of this strategy should involve not only the key statutory players but also those from the voluntary and private sectors.

3.2 In our experience many private rented sector landlords do not have the necessary resources or expertise to provide a quality management service to their tenants. We believe that good practice within this sector should be encouraged through the development of resources for landlords and by ensuring networks are available for both landlords and tenants to advice them on their rights and responsibilities. In particular we would support the establishment of a tenancy relations service with an independent mediation role which aimed to prevent/proactively resolve difficulties which may arise between landlords and tenants.

3.3 A particular problem for private sector clients seeking advice from our agency is the threat of harassment and illegal eviction from their homes by their landlord. At present the Housing (NI) Order 1992 provides local councils with the power to investigate such incidents and to prosecute landlords. In practice however to implementation is on an ad hoc basis and the degree of protection afforded to tenants is largely dependent on the District Council area in which they live. We do not consider this lack of uniformity to be appropriate and believe that there should be a DUTY on councils to investigate allegations of incidents which have resulted in a tenant losing their home. Regrettably we have also been involved with clients where the Police have assisted the landlord in illegally evicting the tenant from their home and we are concerned about the general lack of awareness of the law in this area.

3.4 There is a need to clarify the legislative definition of "Houses in Multiple Occupation". Following the Barnes case there has been there has been uncertainty in this area and many properties previously regarded as HMOs would be excluded under the definition emanating from this case. This includes for example, student lets and buildings which are divided into self contained flats. In practice the Housing Executive has continued to adopt a broad definition but Housing Rights Service believes this matter requires legislative protection and recommends that an appropriate definition would be "any house (or flat) occupied by more than two persons who are not members of the same family".

3.5 There is also a need to strengthen the present regulatory framework in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation. Under the terms of the Housing (NI) Order 1992, the Housing Executive has the power to serve notices requiring landlords to remedy shortcomings in both physical and management standards within HMO properties. In practice however the Housing Executive has, at times, been reluctant to use these powers. Regularly our clients have been advised that the Executive was not undertaking inspections or issuing notices as they did not have sufficient resources to meet the demands which would be subsequently generated for grand aid. Housing Rights Service believes that the legislation should be amended to place a DUTY on the Housing Executive to act to remedy poor standards which compromise the welfare and safety of tenants.

3.6 Housing Rights Service welcomes the proposal to introduce a licensing scheme for HMOs from September 2001 and would agree with the suggested detail of the scheme contained in the consultation paper on this matter which was issued in January 2001 by the Housing Executive. We firmly believe however that to be effective in tackling the problems which exist in this sector, the scheme must be placed on a mandatory basis. It appears inevitable that the voluntary scheme will only be taken up by good landlords and will therefore have little real impact on conditions. We would therefore urge the Committee to ensure the inclusion in the forthcoming legislation of a requirement for compulsory licensing of HMOs. This would place no additional burden on responsible landlords - only those providing substandard accommodation would have anything to fear. The introduction of such a scheme would contribute positively to promoting social inclusion by guaranteeing standards to vulnerable tenants and ensure VFM by providing a mechanism for guaranteeing that public resources spent on housing benefits to tenants were supporting good standard housing.

3.7 Many of the people who currently live in the private rented sector, particularly within HMOs are not tenants but licencees. In practice therefore they enjoy very limited rights, have no legal protection against harassment and illegal eviction and can be asked to leave their home with virtually no notice (reasonable packing up time only). Whilst we accept this may be appropriate for some types of HMOs for example, Bed & Breakfast establishments we do not consider it to be appropriate in other types such as bedsits/shared flats, some of which are occupied by long term residents. Housing Rights Service believes people living in certain categories of HMO accommodation should be entitled to a written contractual licence which includes a specified notice period.

4. Private Sector Renewal

Housing Rights Service is unable to comment on the detail of any proposals which may exist to move from mandatory to discretionary grants schemes in Northern Ireland. We do however believe in the principle that people are entitled to adequate housing which meets basic fitness standards and is appropriate to their needs. We would not therefore support a proposal to make grants discretionary in any circumstances where the work is required to bring a property up to basic fitness standard or where the work is associated with providing a disabled person with accommodation appropriate to their needs. In particular we would be concerned that if disabled facilities grants were not available on a mandatory basis this would further restrict the accommodation options available to disabled persons, have an adverse impact on their ability to remain in their homes and subsequently increase demand for the provision of specially adapted dwellings in the social sector.

5. Should you wish clarification or additional information on any of the comments contained in this response contact:

JANET HUNTER
Housing Rights Service
72 North Street
Belfast
BT1 1LD

Tel No: 028 90245640
Fax No: 028 90312200

Email: janet@housing-rights.org.uk

top

Written Submission by:
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF HOUSING IN NORTHERN IRELAND

29 March 2001

The Chartered Institute of Housing in Northern Ireland welcomes the opportunity to make this written submission as part of the Social Development Committee's enquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland in light of the proposed Housing Bill.

The CIH is the only professional body representing all those working in housing. Our purpose is to take a leading and strategic role in encouraging and promoting the provision of good quality affordable housing. We have over 17,500 individual members working for local authorities housing associations, Housing Executive, educational establishments and the private sector.

As requested, this submission will pay particular attention to the stated terms of reference regarding Private Sector Renewal and Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector. In due course, we would welcome the opportunity to respond on the remaining topics that are to be considered as part of this review.

In general while we support many of the outline proposals in the proposed Housing Bill, the provisions are widely seen as a "tidying up" exercise to address a number of existing anomalies rather than a comprehensive housing strategy for Northern Ireland. We are pleased that the social Development Committee has commenced this consultation process which should assist in developing a more strategic approach to housing services which the piecemeal, incremental approach in the proposed legislation appears to lack.

Our comments are informed from the experiences of our members and colleagues from Northern Ireland and the UK, who are active in the areas of urban renewal, private rented sector and policy development.

Private Sector Renewal

"To investigate current proposals to move from mandatory to discretionary grants schemes and group repair schemes and, if appropriate, conduct comparisons with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and produce a report."

Research by the Housing Executive has shown that grant aid is the most important policy instrument available to tackle rural and urban unfitness. Given the financial pressures which the Executive has faced over the last number of years on its grant budget, it is felt that a change from mandatory to discretionary grants (except in the case of Disabled Facilities Grants) will ease the pressure on the grants budget and will ensure that resources are directed at the areas and people in greatest need. This, it is argued, will enhance the ability of the grants scheme to meet its main aim of targeting unfitness and directing financial resources to be spent as effectively as possible.

The proposal to move from a mandatory to a discretionary grant regime will mirror the legislative changes introduced in England and Wales under Parts I and IV of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Similar proposals formed part of the action plan prepared by the then Department of the Environment (NI) following the Housing Policy Review, "Building on Success", undertaken in 1996.

However, since 1996 there were a number of factors that precluded the introduction of the housing legislation proposed at that time, not least as a result of the evolving political structures for governing Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, such a singular move to introduce a discretionary grants scheme at this time fails to take account of developments since 1996; the impact of this change; proposals in the English Green Paper; calls for a move from fitness standards to fitness ratings and the recently released consultation document on Private Sector Housing Renewal which proposes Reform of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Local Government Act 1989 and Housing Act 1985.

As it seems clear that the proposed housing legislation for Northern Ireland is unlikely to be introduced before April 2002, there is, undoubtedly, an opportunity to consider and evaluate these additional matters as part of the process of housing policy development in Northern Ireland.

The experience of many Local Authorities in England is that the move to discretionary grants, while allowed targeting at low-income homeowners, led to the total grant budget not being spent and being redirected to other spending priorities beyond housing services. In practice, many authorities have made increasing use of home repair assistance, which is subject to fewer controls, and less use of the other main grants. Because of the controls on the other main grants, local authorities are using home repair assistance for small scale but urgent repairs (such as replacement of old electric cables). While justifiable, this was not the main purpose for which the grant was intended, which was to help older and disabled people with minor but essential repairs, improvements or adaptations.

In addition, it has been found that the widespread use of grants can sometimes have a perverse effect. For example, in some areas, targeted under the discretionary grant regime, where large grants are given as part of an area-based renewal programme, these can discourage homeowners with resources of their own from carrying out the repairs themselves.

Recently, in England and Wales, there have been far reaching changes to the Private Sector Renewal Support Grant. From this year, allocations from the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) is in the form of a single housing pot with a modest separate provision for disabled facilities grants of £75m rising to £89m in 2003/4. Funding for Private Sector Renewal will have to compete with other spending priorities. Since 1996 in England the move to discretionary grants has been in tandem with drastic cuts in the resources available under the grants regime. We would not wish to see such reductions replicated here.

In the recent Green Paper "Quality and Choice: a decent home for all", the Government expresses its aim to allow local authorities even more flexibility over grant distribution. They invited ideas on how to change the grant scheme and broaden local authority loan-giving powers to encourage home-owners to commit more of their own finance to improvements and maintenance. In addition the Government is looking at ways of allowing local authorities to make payments to third parties, such as Home Improvement Agencies, to lever in private finance for repairs and maintenance.

These proposals are now set out for consultation in the Private Sector Housing Renewal document issued by the DETR this week, with responses to be received by 29 June 2001. It should be noted that on the list of organisations and individuals to be consulted on these proposals, (provided by the DETR as an Annex to the consultation document), the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland is included, but not, it would appear, the Department for Social Development.

The CIH has been invited to respond to the consultation document and I am happy to forward a copy of this response on completion, should you require.

The Housing Executive in its response to the "Building on Success" policy review back in 1996, welcomed the proposed change from mandatory to discretionary grants believing that this would ensure that resources would be available to tackle a higher number of unfit properties. There are some 44,000 unfit properties in Northern Ireland, largely in rural areas and research has shown that around 75% of the reduction in rural unfitness has been achieved through grant aid. It remains a key objective of the Housing Executive to reduce unfitness across all tenures and some 9,000 grants are approved each year.

Another issue, which requires consideration as part of this Review, is the possibility of replacing the current fitness standards with a new fitness rating to be used to improve the overall condition of stock in all sectors, as well as dealing with properties on an individual basis.

Although enacted in different legislation, the statutory standard of fitness for Northern Ireland is the same as England and Wales and is based on a minimum habitable condition. Structural stability, freedom from damp, adequate lighting and ventilation, the piped supply of wholesome water and adequate drainage, facilities to prepare and cook food and a WC and bath/shower and hand basin with hot and cold water are all statutory requirements. Failure to meet just one of these criteria, making the property "not reasonably suitable for occupation" renders it unfit for human habitation and requires the Housing Executive or District Council Environmental Health Officers to use cost-benefit analysis to decide on repair, deferred action, closure or demolition.

In Scotland there is a "below tolerable standard" rating which closely resembles legislation for the rest of the UK except that disrepair and amenity provision are excluded but includes satisfactory access to all external doors and buildings.

Levels of enforcement of the existing fitness standards applicable throughout the UK are low as the discretionary grants system does make enforcement difficult especially in respect of owner occupiers who either may not be able to afford to or may not wish to carry out improvements. However, it may be possible to stretch available funds to a large number of households by combining partial grants with low cost loans in a "matched funding" arrangement. This may give some owners an incentive to invest in their homes and we welcome the new powers proposed by the Government in the recent consultation document to provide assistance across tenures through grants and loans.

The DETR is also currently working on a new Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Its underlying principle is that any dwelling should be a safe and healthy environment both for its occupants and visitors, and has identified 24 hazards compared to the ten in the fitness standards. It covers houses, flats, bedsits, including any shared access areas.

Such a rating standard could include internal arrangement, radon pollution, thermal efficiency etc and would be much more comprehensive and objective than the current fitness standard. The dangers of Radon Gas in homes, for example, is not currently a factor in determining fitness and yet is estimated to be responsible for 60 out of 800 cases of lung cancer in Northern Ireland each year. This reinforces the proven correlation between housing conditions and poor health.

The fitness standard could be introduced in Northern Ireland and widened to include more measures of condition and to provide an effective measurement for non-traditional stock. As a result, within Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive could have responsibility towards property fitness in all sectors and have a duty to enforce a nationally set basic level of fitness together with powers to enforce locally set aspirational targets. The duties should be proactive as well as reactive with a requirement to draw up local strategies to deal with unfitness. Reducing the level of unfitness would then become a measurable key performance indicator in meeting the stated objective of alleviating unfitness as set out in Housing Executive annual report. Current and future proposals for private sector renewal are almost exclusively reactive in response to a grant application.

The Housing Executive could promote the importance of property fitness and condition and to offer advice and assistance to homeowners and landlords. Home owners should be encouraged and landlords compelled to maintain their properties, possibly as part of a compulsory licensing scheme for the whole private rented sector, as discussed in the second part of this submission.

Other innovative approaches could be encouraged such as building on the Quality Mark scheme in England which identifies responsible builders for owner occupiers, and negotiating a reduced price for work to be carried out in bulk by a recommended contractor, using the "Egan principles" on rethinking construction.

A fitness or condition rating would be a useful tool for measuring condition, and making the condition public could be an incentive for individuals to maintain their property. Owners, for example, could be encouraged to incorporate the fitness/condition standard in the "sellers pack" which is being introduced as part of the house buying process in England and Wales but does not yet appear to have made it on to the current housing agenda for Northern Ireland.

Research has also shown that some 260,000 Executive grants have been completed since 1976 plus a further 110,000 small value Repair Grants issued by Belfast City Council, with a total spend of £250m. Investment in private sector grant aid in Northern Ireland easily outstripped investment elsewhere, and remains the highest in the UK. It is important that the level of investment is not diluted or put at risk with the proposed move from mandatory to discretionary grants.

It should also be noted that the grants available in Northern Ireland are broadly consistent with the grants available in England and Wales, subject to their own cost ceilings. However, the current Northern Ireland legislation makes provision for an additional and unique grant - the Replacement Grant. This grant, first introduced on an extra statutory basis in 1991, is only available in rural areas and allows the construction of a new house to replace an unfit home where improvement is uneconomic. To date over 1,300 replacement grants have been completed at a cost over £30,000 per property totalling nearly £40m. When the scheme was introduced the maximum grant was £50,000 but since 1996 this upper limit was reduced to £30,000. Now that the scheme has been operating for some ten years, there is an opportunity to assess the impact that this has had in addressing unfitness, particularly in Fermanagh where a third of the replacements have been completed.

Finally, it is important that the proposed move to discretionary grants takes into account the impact of other grants and funding priorities. The recently launched "Warm Homes" scheme has been criticised by some, including the Social Development Committee, for targeting support at the over sixties. The Minister for Social Development has responded to this perceived inequity by suggesting that others under 60 equally deserving support may qualify under the Housing Executive's Disabled Facilities Grant. However, such additional pressure on this grant can only lead to further delays with increased waiting times for those in greatest need.

It seems clear that rather than complimenting other grant programmes as proposed, the Warm Home scheme will add to the workload of Occupational Therapists who will be required to undertake assessments to determine eligibility, particularly as the Minister is seeking to have these cases fast tracked by the Executive. Clearly, additional funding will not be forthcoming to service these additional needs, as, if this were the case, this could have been simply incorporated in the DEES II scheme at inception. Cynically, the move the discretionary grants could allow additional resources to be redirected to achieve reductions in fuel poverty but at the expense of targeting unfitness, which is the accepted advantage of such a move.

In conclusion, The Chartered Institute of Housing is concerned that the Department is considering changes to the renovation grants without first setting clear targets for government policy in this area. In relation to the changes being proposed in England and Wales, the CIH will be calling for the reduction or elimination of unfitness in the private sector; equivalent to the ten-year target set for the social housing sector. In Northern Ireland no such target has been set, yet the fact that unfitness is concentrated overwhelmingly in the private sector suggests that a target is even more important here than in the rest of the UK. We, therefore call on the Department first of all to consider and consult on the objectives of the grant system, and a target for reducing or eliminating unfitness, before addressing the issue of whether or not a discretionary grant scheme would be a better tool than the existing scheme. Without clear objectives, a decision on the choice of tools is meaningless.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

"To (1) examine current NI law and policy in relation to the above, conduct comparisons with the UK and Republic of Ireland, summarise existing NI practice in relation to HMOs and the PRS; and (2) identify benefits/disbenefits of new proposals and produce a report."

The current legislation affecting the Private Rented Sector in Northern Ireland dates primarily from 1978, although the history of the sector goes back to the early years of the century, and indeed up to 1939, about 90% of the housing stock was privately rented.

The current make-up of the sector is unique and has not followed developments and deregulation as experienced elsewhere in the UK or the Republic of Ireland.

Historically, the inflexibility of the rent restriction legislation laid to a rapid decline in the sector and by the mid-60's the sector had dropped to 34% of housing stock. By the end of the 70's it was 12%, falling to just 3.5% in 1994. Data on the current size of the sector is poor, reflecting the size of the sector in comparison with owner occupation and social housing cohorts. According to DSD statistics for 1999/00 the current size of the sector is 30,500 units, or 5.1% of the total occupied stock.

By the 1970's the conditions in the PRS were so bad that the Government entered into a lengthy debate and consultation about what should be done. This started in 1973 with a committee chaired by Sir Robert Porter QC and his report in 1975 revealed that of the 50,000 properties in the sector about half of the tenants were paying rents of less than 50p a week, and three-quarters less than £1. These levels of rent had produced a vicious circle resulting in lack of repairs and maintenance and further deterioration and neglect, with half the stock deemed to be unfit.

This led to the Rent (NI) Order 1978 and the establishment and definition of restricted and regulated tenancies and uncontrolled tenancies, which remains today the basis of the legislation affecting the PRS. Some amendments have been made by later amendments but the four basic principles set out in the 1978 Order remain unchanged. These are:

Tenants should only be asked to pay higher rents if the dwelling is in a reasonable condition.

Rent in the Private Sector should be in line with public sector rents.

Tenants in the PRS on low incomes should get the same financial assistance as tenants in the public sector.

Tenants should have greater protection against bad landlords.

In addition the Rent Order set out five basic rights for all private sector tenants:

The right to a rent book.

The right to claim Housing Benefit.

4 weeks' notice to quit.

Due process of Law.

Freedom from Harassment and illegal eviction.

The most notable affect of the subsequent Housing (NI) Order 1983 was to introduce shorthold tenancies; to extent rent regulation to certain unregistered housing associations and to modify the regulated tenancy standard. The regulated standards have again been revised in the 1992 Housing Order and now correspond to the NIHE fitness standard.

The most recent DSD statistics for 1999/00 show that of the 30,500 private sector lettings, it is estimated that there are currently some 390 Restricted Tenancies and 6,126 Regulated Tenancies and 24,000 Uncontrolled Tenancies.

Restricted Tenancies are usually small properties registered with the DSD, possibly in a poor state of repair, for which the tenant can only be charged £1 per week, excluding rates.

Regulated Tenancies are usually properties of a better standard, for which the rent payable is limited to the amount registered with DSD which would be in line with what the Housing Executive would charge for the property under its Rent Scheme.

Uncontrolled tenancies can charge market rents without restriction and form the bulk of the sector in Northern Ireland.

The aims of the current legislation governing the controlled sector were to improve the property conditions, maintain security of tenure and to recognise the repair work of both landlords and tenants in the level of rent paid. Despite this, the 1996 House Condition survey shows that 88% of private rented properties are in need of repair and that 15.6% are deemed to be unfit. Clearly this situation needs to be addressed in terms of overall housing policy.

However, until now, little research has been undertaken into the Private Rented Sector in Northern Ireland and the CIH welcomes the recent announcement by the DSD that a working Group has now been set up by the Rent Officer for Northern Ireland to review the Private Rented Sector. The working group consists of representatives from Housing Rights Service, Environmental Health, Housing Executive, Estate Agents and landlords and will produce a report for further consultation in the autumn.

The remit of the working group will focus on developing a vision for the future of the private rented sector looking particularly at housing conditions; distinction between controlled and uncontrolled tenancies; security of tenure and rent.

At the same time the Housing Executive is pushing ahead with plans to introduce a voluntary licensing scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation in Northern Ireland with proposals to place such arrangements on a statutory footing by inclusion in the proposed Housing Bill.

The CIH has welcomed the opportunity to respond to previous consultation documents on this issue and are currently putting together our detailed comments on the proposed scheme to be introduced in September 2001.

We agree that the aim of licensing should be to raise property and management standards and that it should be cost effective, manageable, with as little bureaucracy as possible. However, whilst it is true that HMOs present particular hazards related to the fact that by definition residents are not cohesive family groups, poor standards are not limited to such premises. There are many instances of very poor standards of management and property condition in other privately rented property.

The CIH considers that voluntary licensing arrangements could be extended to the rest of the sector, made mandatory by legislation. In Scotland mandatory licensing of HMOs has been introduced, while current proposals for England and Wales suggests mandatory licensing of HMOs and encourages voluntary licensing for the rest of the sector. We do not believe that such a combination will necessarily be sufficient to raise standards across the sector in Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind the size of the sector here, there is an opportunity to establish a flexible legislative framework to extend licensing to all categories of private rented properties. This could be phased in over a period of time beginning with HMOs and then extended.

Not only would this ensure a better deal for tenants and better use of public money being paid to landlords as housing benefit, but it could also help to raise the image of the sector and act as a catalyst for expansion. Better regulation is a prerequisite to establishing a healthy, quality and professionally run private rented sector.

The CIH is very much aware of the practical problems that licensing can present. Research carried out by Herriott Watt University in Scotland, and on voluntary licensing schemes in England and Wales found that schemes varied widely in their success. We are also aware that unduly punitive legislation could have the effect of reducing the supply of this type of accommodation. However, we believe that voluntary licensing of HMOs is a useful first step but would suggest compulsory licensing across the whole sector that is kept simple, cost effective and to make sure that only landlords operating at unacceptably low levels are driven out of the sector.

In summary the CIH recommends:

Extending licensing across the whole private rented sector not just HMOs.

Licensee should be an individual resident within Northern Ireland.

Licensee to be a "Fit and Proper person".

Premises owned and managed by public sector bodies and universities should be adequately covered by other regulator mechanisms.

Applicants should be compelled to sign up to an independent ombudsman service as a condition of receiving a license.

Appeals need to be kept simple, inexpensive and resolved quickly and locally.

In general, properties should be inspected before a license is issued, although different arrangements may be appropriate for landlords with a large number of properties.

The inspection process should include a grading of properties that pass and fail. Longer licenses should be granted to properties with fewer problems and the action to be taken with respect to failed properties should depend on the severity of the risk to residents.

Licenses should be issued for varying periods up to five years, depending on the condition, standards and risks associated with the property.

Housing Benefit should not be available in respect of properties where a license has been refused. Renewal of a tenancy in such circumstances should be an offence and incur a heavy fine. In the worst cases it would be appropriate to issue a closing order.

Basic training could be a requirement for obtaining a license as suggested in the DETR consultation document on mandatory licensing.

There should be a licensing fee to cover administration cost of scheme. Currently licensing schemes vary from £35-£435, although the Housing Executive does not propose to charge for licensing.

Licensing should be seen as an accreditation or kite-mark of quality in terms of condition and management.

A "Certificate of Market Rent" should be required as a condition of obtaining a license setting the maximum rent on which to pay Housing Benefit to act as a consumer guide.

This certificate could speed up the processing of Housing Benefit claims and reduce fraud.

Enforcement action required on management standards.

Housing policy development in the past in Northern Ireland has primarily involved evaluating developments elsewhere and "cherry picking" the parts that are perceived as most appropriate to us. However, devolution provides an opportunity to diverge from UK policy and develop a specific strategy reflecting the political, economic and social situation in Northern Ireland. While the introduction of a licensing scheme for the whole private sector would be problematic for the rest of the UK, this is, undoubtedly, manageable within Northern Ireland, owing to the size of the sector. Consequently, there is an opportunity to promote specific measures, such as licensing, to improve standards across the whole sector to preserve the health and safety of those occupying privately rented property.

As part of your enquiry, you are also seeking comparisons with the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Details of regulation in the Republic of Ireland can be had from a private sector report completed last year from a government-established commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector. It is comprehensive and the most up-to-date publication, summarising and critically analysing all the relevant legislation and regulations relating to private renting. Basically these regulations are minimalist and tenants of the sector have very few rights.

The issue of subsidisation of the private rented sector in the Republic of Ireland is more complex. In the Republic they operate a very problematic and complex discretionary system of supports for tenants under the auspices of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme, which is administered by the Health Boards and not the Housing Departments. There is no system of grants or tax relief for landlords as government has abolished most of the schemes previously in operation in an attempt to curb house price inflation. The only exception to this is landlords who are purchasing accommodation for letting in designated urban renewal areas. The issue of subsidising the tenure is more complex than the issue of regulation and a raft of reports have been published on the issue.

I would recommend that as part of your review on comparing PRS in the Republic of Ireland that the Social Development Committee looks at the Commission report. It would also be worth contacting "Threshold" - the private rented sector advice and lobby group based in Dublin. Should you require any further details or contacts, I would be happy to provide.

I trust that the Social Development Committee finds these comments, views and opinions of use in consideration of the matters currently under review. I am happy to elaborate on any of the points and recommendations made. I shall forward further written submission on the additional topics under review by the 20th April, as requested.

KIERAN WALSH
Director

top

Written Submission by:
SHELTER (NORTHERN IRELAND)

29 March 2001

Shelter (Northern Ireland) would like to make this summary submission to the Social Development Committee regarding items 1. and 2. on the consultation list; namely:

Private Sector Renewal; and

HMOs and the Regulation of the Private Rented Sector.

We would be pleased to make a more detailed submission and/or present direct evidence to the Committee if that would assist consideration of the issues.

1. Private Sector Renewal

There are many aspects of this, but we assume the focus is on strategies and grant aid to assist improvement of older property, including both occupied and un-occupied unfit dwellings. The Committee may wish to note that Shelter has extensive experience of this through our agency work in the West of the Province on "Home Repairs for the Elderly".

We have always supported the principle of grant-aid and had been involved from the start in the Home repairs services, as well as in the lobby for "replacement grant" in specific circumstances. We would be concerned at any move to discretionary grant structures as this would place resources for the work at risk. We would also have concerns at too restrictive a format of means-testing. If the targets on energy consumption reduction etc are to be met; if derelict property is to be brought back into use and if people of modest income are to gain access to owner occupation in the present context of rocketing prices, incentives and assistance must be more widely available. Projects such as "homesteading" could be considered for re-introduction alongside existing solutions.

We are specifically concerned that the present grant structure fails fundamentally where works requirements for eligibility for grant far exceed the maximum grant available, so the most needy cannot avail of the system. We know of cases where this only comes to light when work has started and great hardship results.

Even though the Private (owner-occupied) sector seems buoyant, there are remaining needs for support.

On the other hand, we remain substantially unconvinced of the need or merit of promotion of "renewal" in terms of expansion of Private Renting. We comment below on this. Private rent can and should only have a marginal role.

2. (a) HMOs

We note the recent changes in regulations with concern on two counts.

Firstly there has been practically no discussion or consultation on the changes before they were made.

Secondly, the changes appear to substantially reduce standards through omission of requirements as well as reduction of some specific standards.

We fully support the licensing proposals and would like to see these given "teeth". To date, enforcement rather than required standard has been the weak link in the process.

(b) Regulation

We are concerned that there has been no significant review of this since the 1975 Porter Report and the 1978 Rent Order. There needs to be proper regulation and tenant protection. It is ironic and wrong that legislation gives greater protection to an individual in securing office premises than his/her home.

The recent discussion of "duty of care" legislation is irrelevant to most rented accommodation because the landlord has no duty to repair or maintain in the contract. This needs to be changed.

Where there is rent regulation, and we believe there should be more, the present conceptual link between private and public rents is fair and should be retained. The value of a dwelling to the tenant is the same regardless of owner.

Obviously the HMO regulations cover some aspects. General consumer legislation such as "Sale of Goods" could be applied, and the Fire Safety and rented furnished dwellings regulations, offer some help, but these provisions are dispersed and not well known. A piece of coherent legislation focusing on both tenant and landlord legal obligations for all tenancies is needed. The core issue is that in most cases, a tenancy is not a free bargain between individuals, it is normally a landlords' market and the prospective tenant is under duress. Certainly the dissatisfied tenant arguing for action is under both duress and threat of becoming homeless and therefore "free market" concepts are inappropriate and a denial of basic protected in most other forms of trading.

top

Written Submission by:
THE NORTHERN IRELAND FEDERATION OF
HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

28 March 2001

I refer to your of 15th February 2001 requesting comments on the following aspects of the proposed Housing Bill for Northern Ireland.

(a) Private Sector Renewal

(b) Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and the regulation of the Private Rented Sector.

As the representative body for all DSD-registered housing associations in Northern Ireland and a number of unregistered associations the Federation welcomes the opportunity to convey our perspective on both of these issues, as follows:

(a) Private Sector Renewal

(i) The Federation accepts that it is important that meaningful comparisons should be made with the UK Regions and also the Republic of Ireland.

(ii) As the majority of housing unfitness lies outside the social housing sector (House Condition Survey, NIHE, 1996) the Federation suggests that it may be appropriate to review the size and balance of the budget for grants to the private sector.

(iii) It is not self-evident to the Federation that a move from mandatory to a discretionary grants regime would necessarily be beneficial so we suggest that the rationale by reviewed in relation to the fundamental aims of the policy.

(iv) Most NIHE grants to the private sector have been means tested for quite a number of years. We suggest it may be time to evaluate the impact of the "test of resources" and the grant ceiling in relation to the aims of the grants policy.

(v) We strongly support Group Repair Schemes but feel that the eligibility criteria should be widened and the scheme should generally be made more attractive.

(b) HMOs and the Regulation of the Private Sector

(i) The Federation welcomes the proposal that the DSD's responsibilities for maintaining the Rent Register of private tenancies should be transferred to the NIHE.

(ii) The Federation also welcomes the idea of a voluntary code as outlined in the HMO Strategy which the NIHE issued recently.

(iii) In relation to the proposed Voluntary code for HMOs, we recommend that:

All registered housing associations with HMO accommodation should be designated under the NIHE's Strategy as competent organisations for the risk assessment of their own properties. Otherwise there would be wasteful and confusing double regulation.

A client group should be identified on a proposed register against each HMO. Otherwise hostels for people with a particular special need could be inundated with enquiries from other people seeking accommodation.

Associations would endorse a basic standard of management for each HMO. To avoid excessive bureaucracy and reflect the considerable diversity of the client groups in HMOs, the aim of the service in the HMO and the physical layout of the HMOs, any mandatory standard should be simple and focus on the most basic issues, notably health and safety.

If you have any questions or comments on our reply please contact me.

GRAHAM MURTON
Housing Policy & Research Officer

top

Written Submission by:
HEALTH ACTION NORTH AND WEST BELFAST

28 March 2001

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the inquiry into housing in Northern Ireland and the proposed Housing Bill.

The current stages of your inquiry are of less direct relevance to the North and West Belfast Health Action Zone than subsequent areas of inquiry. Nevertheless since North and West Belfast Health Action Zone has at its heart, the need to tackle inequalities in health and well-being throughout North and West Belfast the inquiry is to be welcomed. Housing is a key determinant of health and in particular we would be very interested in work which relates to houses of multiple occupation and regulation of the private rented sector.

I would be grateful if you could keep me informed of the progress of your inquiry. We would be delighted to assist in any way which you feel is appropriate.

I append a copy of our Action Plan for your information.

MARY BLACK (MS)
North and West Belfast Health Action Zone Leader

top

Written Submission by:
COLERAINE BOROUGH COUNCIL

28 March 2001

Coleraine Borough Council recently considered the content of your letter dated 15 February 2001 and would wish the following matters to be addressed by the Social Development Committee in its deliberations on the content of the proposed Housing Bill:

Private Sector Renewal

Council is concerned about the plight of owner-occupiers whose properties are in need of repair, particularly the elderly owner-occupier. The present grant scheme is biased towards the rented sector in that landlords can avail of repair grant maximum up to £5500 of eligible expenditure whilst owner-occupiers are restricted to £500. Whilst minor works grants are available to persons over 60 years receiving a means tested benefit, these are limited to a maximum of £3240 (eg 3 x £1080 for a maximum of 3 applications in 3 years).

Elderly persons who are not on means tested benefit because their income/savings are just above the qualifying criteria are therefore unable to obtain grant assistance to rectify disrepair to their dwellings other than for very minor items. As a result man y elderly owner-occupiers do not receive any help and their dwellings gradually fall into a dilapidated state.

Council would wish the grant scheme to be revised to redress the imbalance, to increase the grant ceiling particularly for elderly owner-occupiers and to widen the qualifying criteria to include those caught in the poverty trap. Council would also wish to see a proactive scheme in place whereby elderly owner-occupiers are actively encouraged to take up available grants.

Council is of the opinion that the above actions will not only enhance the quality of life for elderly owner- occupiers but will prevent dwellings gradually declining and becoming within the unfit category.

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Council has already made its views known on the situation on houses in multiple occupation having responded to the Consultation paper on HMO Strategy in 1999.

Council is concerned that the issues it raised then are still outstanding. I enclose a copy of Council's response and would request that the issues highlighted be included in the Committee's review.

S G MONTGOMERY
Director of Environmental Health

16 September 1999

HMO Strategy: Consultation Paper

Coleraine Borough Council recently considered the content of the above document and I have been instructed to forward Council's representations on the issues arising therefrom.

Council has in the past expressed concern regarding standards, particularly those relating to fire safety in houses in multiple occupation (HMO's) many of which are occupied by students in the triangle area of the Borough. Council is also mindful that HMO's also tend to be occupied by persons at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum who by inference lack the ability to exert any grant influence over their circumstances. Council would wish their position to be taken fully into account. In that regard one glaring omission from the strategy is the ability of the Housing Executive to exert influence on standards in HMO's by making payments of housing benefits to those individuals' landlords conditional on the premises being up to satisfactory standards.

Council would wish that principle to be incorporated in the strategy.

On the specific matters raised in the document Council would make the following comments:-

Legal Framework

It is noted that legislation is to be introduced in England to clarify the whole situation with regard to the uncertainty about the definition of an HMO.

Council fully supports the Executive's proposals to have that legislation introduced to Northern Ireland.

Strategic Timetable

Council has in the past called on Government to give sufficient and separate funding to the Executive to enable action to be speedily taken to address the HMO problem.

Council is of the opinion that the proposed ten year strategic timetable is far too long given the extent and seriousness of the problem. Council is seriously concerned that the strategy is also stated as being dependant on the availability of finance.

Given the reported numbers of unsatisfactory properties and the inadequate fire safety arrangements Council considers that this is too long a period and too uncertain a commitment.

Council would wish the Executive to seek and dedicate greater financial resources to enable the problem to be tackled with a greater urgency.

Council is also concerned that the whole principle of the Executive's approach to HMO improvement revolves around the provision of grant aid to the landlords.

Council takes the view that landlords derive a considerable income from the many tenants of their properties and Council would wish to see more responsibility for the carrying out of the required improvements to be place on owners of the properties. The carrying out of improvements should be required irrespective of the availability of grant aid and the enforcement policy should reflect that principle. This will also help to speed up the improvement process and will have the beneficial side effect of freeing up grant aid to what Council considers the more deserving sector - the improvement of single occupancy dwellings particularly those in the rural community.

Priorities for Action

Council notes that area action is proposed and is concerned at the fact that no areas are identified in the Coleraine area.

Council is concerned that the Executive's resources would be directed away from the Borough and that the many HMO's located within it which would require action would not receive attention.

Council would seek an assurance from the Executive that this will not be the case.

Promoting Better Standards

Council notes that there are proposals to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme in England.

As with the proposed legislative changes Council would wish to see that scheme introduced here without delay.

Whilst Council welcomes any initiative to raise standards it is concerned that resources will be directed away from enforcement action to implement a voluntary scheme which would only be of benefit to properties which are already up to standard. It notes that only 450 properties have been improved with grant aid. These would automatically be included in the voluntary licensing system. Council is concerned that there would be no sanction on the owners of the estimated 2800 unsatisfactory properties and similarly no sanction on landlords of properties about which the Executive has no knowledge if they fail to register.

Council is of the opinion that the Executive's resources should be directed at dealing with the unsatisfactory properties and that there is no advantage in pursuing a voluntary licensing scheme in advance of a mandatory one. Rather, Council feel that the Executive should lobby Government to speedily introduce the mandatory licensing of HMO's coupled with the making available the resources necessary to implement such a scheme.

Relationships

Council welcomes the proposal to form a landlords' forum. However Council notes that there is no mention of district council representation.

Council is of the opinion that district councils should be represented and that local knowledge would be a valuable asset to such forums

Council similarly welcomes the production of training and awareness packages for landlords and managing agents.

Service Delivery

Council is in agreement with the proposal to consolidate HMO operations by delivering services from two specialist outlets located in Belfast and Coleraine given the concentrations of HMO's in these areas.

Monitoring

Council welcomes the proposal to continue to monitor the HMO sector. However, Council considers it essential the information collated should be effectively utilised to ensure that sufficient funding and resources are sought, dedicated and directed at solving the HMO problems detailed in the document.

I would be grateful if you would ensure that due cognisance is given to Council's representations.

S G MONTGOMERY
Director of Environment Health

top

Written Submission by:
NUS-USI

27 March 2001

I write on behalf of the NUS-USI, enclosing two submissions to the above inquiry. We felt that, given the complexity of the issues involved in this review, we should separate the two strands and submit individual papers on HMOs and the private rented sector.

I hope this is acceptable and, if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

PETER O'NEILL
Manager

A Submission to the Social Development Committee on
Houses in Multiple Occupation(HMO)

March 2001

1. Introduction

NUS-ISU welcomes this opportunity of responding to the Committee's inquiry on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO). NUS-USI is the umbrella body for student's unions in further and higher education and exists to provide representation and services to approximately 185,000 students in tertiary education throughout Northern Ireland.

Our response to this inquiry is based on policies adopted by students' unions and the national unions - the National Union of Students UK and the Union of Students in Ireland. It will concentrate on those issues which we feel are of most relevance to students in Northern Ireland. We have separately forwarded our views on the regulation of the private rented sector for the Committee's consideration. We will be pleased to provide any additional information in support of these submissions.

2. Key Issues

2.1 Students

NUS-USI welcomed the attention paid by the Executive to the position of students within its strategy in June 2000. The inclusion of student properties within the database is a long overdue development. Some 12,000 students reside in the private rented sector - many in category B, shared houses.

Yet, despite this focus on students, the proposed area-based inspection strategy fails to effectively target this market by concentrating instead on districts with a relatively low concentration of HMOs.

To take a cynical view this dichotomy in approach appears to be based more on minimising Housing Executive operational costs and workloads, rather than tackling need. We fail to understand why the Executive is proposing to concentrate on such a limited, general single person market and avoid student areas, particularly as the demand for student lettings is less seasonal than in the past (reflecting the adherence to 12 month leases by landlords). NUS-USI believes that it may be advantageous to target landlords with multiple properties in traditional student areas in order to enhance the impact of this proposed strategy. If financial problems are a difficulty for some landlords, we believe the Executive should provide tailored packages in the form of loans and waivers to address such considerations. NUS-USI is, therefore, not convinced that an area-based strategy will significantly raise standards in the HMO sector and urges the Committee to consider the risk-based approach to licensing as developed in Great Britain.

It is our view that the Committee should follow developments in England, Scotland and Wales and propose the introduction of a mandatory licensing scheme. The NIHE consultation paper on a voluntary licensing scheme fails to address why such a mandatory scheme should not be introduced. Why should Northern Ireland be out of step with developments elsewhere in the UK on this particular issue? This prevarication in proposing an effective, statutory licensing scheme will simply allow unscrupulous landlords to continue avoiding their responsibilities and will frustrate the promotion of better standards.

2.2 Legal Framework

NUS-USI welcomes the proposal to introduce more substantial powers though a broader definition of what constitutes an HMO and greater clarification of excepted properties and tenancies from action. We, nevertheless, disagree with the view of the Executive that the setting of standards is not considered at this stage to require intervention through legislation. We would have welcomed a full statement on how the Executive justifies its assertion that DOE guidelines and Executive standards have operated satisfactorily in the past, given the often appalling standards currently prevalent in the HMO sector.

NUS-USI welcomes the Government's proposals to place a duty on the person managing and/or the person having control to ensure that an HMO is licensed, and to place a duty on the responsible person(s) to ensure that any licensee so nominated should be provided with sufficient resources to carry out their duties properly. However, we believe that these duties need to be made clear to landlords, licensees and tenants so that disputes as to who is responsible for what do not arise. In our experience properties that are managed on behalf of landlords by management agents are often particularly worrying for students, especially in situations where the agent denies being the responsible person; tenants can feel caught between landlord and agent.

We are also concerned to ensure that when property is leased from a landlord who is also an organisation, it is made clear exactly who should be responsible for obtaining the licence. In addition, it should be made clear that no tenant or occupier, with the exception of a resident landlord, should be permitted to hold the licence. We are concerned that some unscrupulous landlords, who might be disqualified from holding a licence, would attempt to circumvent the regulations by using a tenant as a "frontperson".

We very much welcome the stated intention to devise a more precise definition of a house in multiple occupation. The case of Sheffield Vs Barnes - amongst other legal rulings - has created a completely unacceptable situation, especially where student shared houses are concerned. NUS-USI is aware of research findings which indicate that a large number of local authorities in Britain have been prevented from taking action to ensure improved standards in such accommodation because of a fear of legal action from landlords. This has resulted in a large number of properties occupied by students not receiving adequate safety protection. At the centre of the problem has been the blurred definition of an HMO, and NUS-USI believes that the only sensible way in which the Barnes V Sheffield implications can be resolved is through changing the definition, and to do so in a way that is as straight forward as possible and which leaves no room for ambiguity.

We believe the definition used for HMOs in Scotland would represent a vast improvement. Such a definition would certainly cover the majority of student houses, especially as it is not intended to adopt the part of the Scottish definition which stipulates that four or more residents need to be occupying a property before it can be defined as an HMO. However, we do have a concern that this definition of an HMO is too restrictive as it does not include properties consisting of two families. Although most students will share with larger numbers, it is not unknown for them to rent two person flats. We believe that these can have a similar level of risk as other properties because, even though there are fewer occupants, they may not necessarily live as one "family" (ie cooking and eating together). As such they should be subject to licensing. Whilst we appreciate that the Government's intention was to recognise current modes of living, especially the existence of same sex couples, we believe that a better definition to adopt might be the one suggested by Shelter: a house occupied by persons who are not members of the same family.

If the term "family" as outlined by the 1985 Housing Act was redefined in such a way as to take account of same sex couples, properties occupied by only a couple could be exempted. However, the term "family" is one, which can possibly lead to some confusion. NUS in Britain has had reports of landlords asking students to sign contracts which state that they promise to live as a "family", the intention behind which is to prevent the local authority from deeming the property to be in multiple occupation. Such acts contrived to evade regulations have to be prevented. One way of doing this, which will not necessitate having to find another phrase to describe the living arrangements of the tenants, is to permit occupiers to define for themselves whether or not they constitute a "family" group.

Although we argue that a risk-based approach to licensing is the most sensible way to progress, simply citing fire risk as a way to judge which types of properties should be included appears to us to be a little simplistic. Whilst houses which are smaller than three storeys and which consist of between four and six able-bodied occupants are clearly at less risk from fire than other types of properties, it should be borne in mind that other factors may be important. For example, in many student shared houses one is likely to find a vast array of electrical equipment (computers in each bedroom, a CD player/radio, etc) which may be very different from single occupancy homes. According to the Health and Safety Executive, portable electrical appliances are the cause of a quarter of reportable household accidents. This may be because of defects in the equipment itself, such as a broken or damaged flex, or through a lack of safety precautions within the property, ie insufficient sockets (which result in the over use of extension cables) or the non-existence of devices that will cut off the electricity if there is a leakage of current (such as RCDs). Another fear we have about proposed legislation on HMO standards and the designation of properties as high, medium and low risk is that local authorities will only concentrate upon the first two and never get around to the latter category. For this reason we would support self-certification of properties, and this is something we will comment further upon later in this response.

2.3 Better Standards

NUS-USI would strongly encourage an explicit proposal to place a duty of care on all HMO landlords, and whilst we accept the importance of not reducing the levels of such accommodation, we do worry about the standards of safety within such properties. The last edition of the NUS Accommodation Costs Survey suggested that although the majority of landlords were able to provide some evidence that they were in possession of a current gas safety check record. the same level of proof did not extend to areas such as fire and electrical safety or compliance with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations. We are of the opinion that if such properties were brought within the scope of mandatory licensing then resident landlords in Northern Ireland would be more aware of precisely what they were responsible for, and would have to ensure that they could provide all relevant documentation to prove that their houses complied with minimum standards. In order to ensure that reputable landlords are not deterred from offering lodgings, the Executive could have the power to waive the licensing fee, particularly for landlords with multiple properties.

NUS-USI is disappointed that the Government has not decided to license the whole of the private rented sector. Whilst we accept that the process may have appeared to place an undue burden upon landlords, we feel that an opportunity has been lost to ensure that the whole of the housing stock conforms to some basic, minimum standards. We believe that a more ambitious timescale in relation to HMO activity should be proposed in order to effectively deal with the scale of the problems encountered in this sector. In our opinion additional finance should be requested by the Executive to establish a 3 year timetable to action HMOs. We welcome the need for strategic action as emphasised in the consultation paper and the need to carry out more regular management inspections for high risk properties.

2.4 Tenancy Management Standards

We believe that what is meant by acceptable standards should be clear to both landlords and tenants, especially as they relate to health and safety, so that all the parties know what will be required in order to meet these standards. The management standards adopted should, in our opinion, be broad based and draw upon those established both by reputable landlords and any local accreditation schemes. In particular we would like to see included within such a standard evidence of the way in which landlords conduct themselves with their tenants, especially in relation to potential harassment or acts of illegal eviction. NUS-USI is often informed of situations whereby students are threatened with eviction without the correct legal paperwork. We would hope that any management standards adopted could help deal with such situations.

In terms of fitness for licensing, our opinion is that a licence should either be refused or revoked if the licence holder is considered not to be a fit and proper person. The grounds for deciding upon such fitness should include: criminal offences (especially violence, manslaughter, housing benefit fraud or convictions for breaches of housing or health and safety legislation); revocation of a licence for other premises; and repeated failure to comply with notices served under the licensing scheme. Additionally it should be stated that deliberate inaccuracies during the self-certification process should be regarded as making a person unfit. Action should also be taken to make sure that landlords who have repeatedly failed to comply with notices served, etc, are not able to simply pass on their business to a relative without some clear indication that the new owner is themselves a fit and proper person and intends to make good any outstanding notices.

NUS-USI is not opposed to the idea of some self-certification arrangement. However, we would be concerned about landlords using self-certification as a means of finding a way around complying with any of the standards that are eventually agreed; as such we would want the Executive to have the option to undertake spot checks. We welcome the inclusion of references to the right of neighbouring residents to enjoy peaceful occupation of their homes but query how landlords will be able to ensure such conduct from their tenants. The establishment of a landlord/tenant mediation/arbitration scheme to deal with such incidents should be examined.

2.5 Inspection

As highlighted earlier, with the exception of gas safety check records, few landlords seem to be able to provide relevant documentation to indicate how safe their properties are. Such oversights are not simply restricted to landlords with lodgers. The last edition of the NUS Accommodation Costs Survey also showed that private landlords who advertise their properties to students via university or college noticeboards are also less likely to prove that their furniture and furnishings comply with regulations. Even in relation to evidence of a current gas safety check we are concerned that self-certification on its own might not be reliable. The last recorded student death from carbon monoxide poisoning occurred in a property in which the landlord had falsely claimed to have been in possession of a valid gas safety certificate.

We would therefore want to ensure that all properties eligible for licensing be inspected beforehand or, in situations where a property was deemed to be at low risk, that the Executive insist upon seeing all relevant safety certification first. They should be highly prescriptive about what they will require from landlords and validity should be checked, rather than simply taking a landlord's word that the documentation is in order.

2.6 Enforcement

NUS-USI would be in favour of giving courts the power to impose a blanket disqualification in certain circumstances, especially following a conviction for manslaughter or causing a fatal injury to a tenant. In cases where licence holders are found to be in breech of certain minor standards, a "three strikes and out" position is one possible way of ensuring that landlords are given the time to make improvements; they may also be less likely to withdraw their properties from the market. This might require providing the Executive with discretionary powers to decide upon exactly what would constitute a minor breech, and any criteria would need to be transparent.

NUS-USI believes that in relation to penalties for breaches, a number of options could be explored. On-the-spot fines might prove a deterrent (so long as the costs were not passed on directly to the tenants), as would fines for each subsequent occasion that the property fails. The amounts payable could increase in proportion to the rental income of the landlord (and not simply the property that was faulty), and as licensing would make it obvious which landlords were the "large players" in an area, such calculations would not be difficult. It would also mean that landlords with a small number of properties would not be unduly penalised, unless of course they failed to respond under the three strikes rule.

One of our concerns in relation to the way in which action is taken against landlords who do not meet the required standards is that this could lead to tenants being made homeless. Given that it is likely to be the tenants who are the ones who will have some responsibility for identifying and reporting any breaches of the licensing conditions, they will need to be protected from eviction and harassment. Although the issue of security of tenure clearly falls beyond the remit of this consultation document, we would want some assurances that the Government will take such concerns on-board for inclusion in any future housing legislation.

Finally, NUS-USI would very much welcome the idea to permit alternative management arrangements. This could help ensure that the stock of private rented sector properties does not diminish but is, instead, taken over either by a responsible landlord or through some partnership between the Executive and a residential social landlord (RSL). This could include universities or Housing Associations.

2.7 Service Delivery

NUS-USI would request clarification and caution care when it comes to the length of time that a licence is valid. Whilst some newly built property might not require inspection for a period of 5 years, other types might need to be visited on a yearly basis.

University owned and managed accommodation could be required to provide evidence that it remains compliant with licensing standards, and this might best be achieved through self-certification. However, NUS-USI would want to have some guarantees that the "evidence" being submitted by educational institutions was being checked for accuracy. One way to ensure this would be for the Executive to undertake an inspection of this accommodation prior to re-issuing of a licence. We do not envisage that this should be an especially time-consuming process (the documentation that has been submitted should provide a clear guide to the inspectors), but there should be a regular cycle for inspection as well as powers to make spot-checks. NUS-USI believes that should such safe guards be implemented, then university owned and managed accommodation could be licensed every 3 years - depending upon the age of the buildings.

Private sector rented houses, and those managed as part of a head lease scheme, will need to be risk-assessed and - where more than fifty per cent of the tenants have changed from when the license was first awarded - the owner or licensee should have to reapply. Once again the process could be simplified through the use of self-certification, although the Executive should be given the power to inspect, especially where the tenants have concerns about the safety levels.

2.8 Safety

With regard to fire safety legislation as it relates to HMO licensing, NUS-USI believes that whilst it would be valuable if fire authorities could play a role, the first point of contact for all premises that are to be licensed should be the Executive. It is they who should determine the levels of fire safety. The Fire Authority could give a helping hand by inspecting all premises before recommending provisions for licensing.

In terms of gas safety we believe very strongly that not only should licenses be linked to the ability to produce written evidence of a gas safety check, but landlords or their licensees should also have to continue to abide by the current gas safety regulations and undertake such a check on an annual basis, not just each time the licence is renewed.

In addition to the other legislation we believe should be brought into line with licensing, the Government should make compliance with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations a requirement before granting a licence. As the Entec research so clearly highlighted, old foam filled furniture is very dangerous, and NUS-USI is acutely aware that private landlords and universities do not always comply with these regulations. Because of the Barns' judgement many local authorities seem to have been reluctant to take action in relation to old furnishings. Hopefully licensing, coupled with the change in the definition of HMOs, will make this less of a problem for the Executive.

Electrical safety is one other area, which should be given consideration within licensing. As was mentioned in the section dealing with lodgings, one of the biggest causes of household accidents are portable electrical appliances, and yet there are no clear requirements as to how often testing should occur. Through the licensing process it will be possible to prescribe this, although account should be taken of the risk levels posed by the property.

2.9 Other Issues

NUS-USI shared the implicit concern expressed in the Executive's consultation document that some small-scale landlords might withdraw their properties from the market if the costs of the licensing scheme are only to be paid for from their pockets. We, therefore, welcome the proposal of the Executive not to charge a fee for the administrative costs of the proposed licensing scheme.

In terms of relationships with landlords, we proposed that a HMO Tenants forum should be established and training and support should be delivered by the Executive to, for example, students' union welfare officers and other tenants representatives. Tenant and consumer groups, such as students' unions, should, in our opinion, also have formal access to publicising and making available the contents of the register of HMOs. In addition we see no reason why a tenants representative should not be included on the review panel along with Executive and landlord representatives to examine cases for appeal.

3. Conclusions

NUS-USI believes that this review of housing in Northern Ireland is opportune and hopes that this submission alongside our views on the regulation of the private rented sector can be taken on board by the committee.

A Submission to the Social Development Committee on
Houses in Multiple Occupation(HMO)

Introduction

The National Union of Students UK/Union of Students in Ireland (NUS/USI) welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry which will largely focus on the regulation of the Private Rented Sector.

As the representative body for students in Further and Higher Education in Northern Ireland, we hope that the views and comments contained in this response will be accorded due consideration by the Committee with an opportunity afforded to present oral evidence in support of this submission.

As an organisation that has considerable experience in housing case-work and useful working relationships with educational institutions, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and Housing Associations, most notably the Students Housing Association Co-operative, NUS-USI has canvassed the views of students and Students' Unions in framing this response.

Overview

In this submission, we wish to place in context a wider overview of the student housing market. The challenge facing this inquiry, in our view, is to develop a housing strategy that is relevant and achievable in delivering the right of a decent, affordable, secure place to live for all members of the community in Northern Ireland. Homes should be available upon the basis of need, not upon the basis of status, income or for profit motives.

Given the recent consultation exercise announced by the Housing Executive on Houses in Multiple Occupation, we have enclosed a separate submission on this issue for the Committee's consideration.

Background

The basis of NUS-USI policy on student housing is that students form part of society: correspondingly student housing needs cannot be seen as distinct from or of a higher (or lower) priority than those of all young, single people or, indeed of the population as a whole. Student accommodation is not, therefore, an academic issue, neither is it the ultimate responsibility of educational authorities. Student housing must instead be a constituent part of any regional policy in respect of the housing of young people and single people in Northern Ireland.

Traditionally the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has not given much attention to single people, particularly students, because they are largely a young, transient population: similarly most education authorities and institutions have never seen it as their role to provide housing for all or even a majority of their students.

Single people of working age are no longer a tiny minority of the population, but now account for nearly one in three (28%) of the population in Northern Ireland, up from 19% in 1981 (NISRA, Family Expenditure Survey 1997-1998). Single people are not a minority which is homogeneous or special; 'Singleness' can be a temporary or permanent status; most people have been (or will be) on their own at some point in their lives.

Single people are naturally predominantly young. There is no doubt that very many more would prefer a home of their own but are forced by the 'realities of the market place' to share their accommodation, usually the parental home.

The young and mobile form a growing but unrecognised housing need, be they young workers, trainees, apprentices or students. This need has been largely ignored and the community still does not acknowledge that they have equal rights and other households to good standard permanent accommodation.

The vast majority does not qualify for public housing nor will they be able to afford to buy their own homes. The vast majority of the region's housing - the owner-occupied and public sectors - is beyond the reach of most young people. The Housing Executive gives priority to families with children and the elderly whilst first time buyers have a much better chance of a mortgage if they have two incomes. The stock of private rented accommodation remains in large part their only refuge. A significant proportion of the housing is squalid, overcrowded or expensive; often it is all three.

Not all young people are single: neither are all students single with 8% of the total undergraduate population in Northern Ireland are mature students often with dependants (NIHEC 2001). And that scourge and bane of demographers everywhere, the extent of co-habitation, as well as of the existence of lesbian and gay couples, is never revealed in official statistics, and so cannot be planned for. Few young single people show up in the statistics as one-person households for the simple reason that there isn't stock of single person dwellings for them to occupy even if they could afford them.

The effect of this disparity of housing need and the imbalance in the housing stock is intensified because it is concentrated in particular areas. The young and mobile migrate to urban areas in search of employment, or for training and education. What little research there has been reveals a depressing picture of young people forced to group together to afford private rented accommodation designed for family use or else becoming homeless.

Housing the Young and Mobile

The starting point for any new policy must be an assessment of the needs and aspirations of young people themselves. It must enable them to have more control over their own lives, collectively and individually, and reduce their dependency on adults. We outline below the minimum physical and social housing needs of the young and mobile.

Physical

Cheapness Young people are predominantly at the lowest end of their income potential, or on a student loan or training allowance, or in unemployed.

Mobility Young people are highly mobile and thus fulfil a vital function in the workforce or leave home to go to college or enter training.

Amenities As a consequence of their low income, mobility and lifestyle young people need certain amenities. For example, few have a set of furniture to transport around with them. They thus need at least partially furnished accommodation, clothes-washing facilities, good public transport, late shopping hours etc.

Social

Privacy The need for privacy when required is not, of course, peculiar to the young and mobile. But this need is frequently ignored or else confused and the isolation often experienced in a completely self-contained single-person dwelling.

Sociability The need here is a facility for easy and natural social interaction at varying levels of intimacy, both within their own group and, importantly, with those outside; but not the artificial, introverted and enforced socialisation of a traditional hostel or hall of residence. The levels of intimacy may be quantified roughly as:

(i) family sized 4 to 10 persons

(ii) immediate neighbourhood sized 40-50 persons

(iii) neighbourhood area sized upper limit around 500 persons

Control Young people should have the ability to control their own lifestyles as any person over the age of majority expects. This is not to be confused with independence. Indeed the three social needs taken together call for an interdependence.

There are, in theory at least several methods of meeting these needs; through institutions; privately rented housing, housing for owner occupation; public authority housing, and voluntary housing. Most, in reality, represent "traditional non-solutions" to housing of young people.

It is clear that the inadequacy of the response to the housing needs of the young and mobile is largely because our policy-makers and institutions, public and private, are still geared to an outmoded social and household structure. In a sense, the needs of young people are a mirror reflecting Northern Ireland's inability to organise, plan for, and cope with major economic and social change. The essential problem is not now a recognition of these factors but of how to create a political will to alter out-dated assumptions and practices. In short, a 'paradigm shift' is called for in society's treatment of the young.

Government Policies

Governments since the mid-1970s have adopted social policies which have placed an increasing emphasis on reducing public expenditure. Under both labour and conservative administrations housing has borne the brunt of these cuts. In no other sector are the links between social objectives - building and improving more homes to meet needs - and employment objectives - the creation of jobs in productive industry - clearer.

Research shows that an expansion of construction and related activity would help avert a crisis in the housing stock, provide homes for those without them, reduce unemployment and retain capacity in the building industry without adverse economic consequences. Like extra public expenditure would be required because the construction industry is labour intensive and employs 30% more people than any other branch of the economy with equivalent output: has no substantial inflationary bottlenecks; and consumes few imports (thus there is little risk to the balance of payments).

It must be recognised that the opportunities to improve the housing conditions of students, young people and others have been severely limited by successive government's policies.

Local authorities are now virtually only able to build for people with special needs - the elderly and the disabled, have to sell off their best stock through the 'right to buy' and the new subsidy system has increased rents by well over 100% since early 1979.

Single people are suffering more than most other households from these policies because local authorities are forced to give priority to families (often involving the reduction of provision for the single) in the allocation of their shrinking housing stock, and because many single people have to live in the private rented sector.

Where Students Live

Students live in a wide variety of types of accommodation: in college halls of residence, private rented housing; their own or more often their parents' home: and a small number in public housing and housing association properties.

Generally speaking the universities and the colleges of education are able to provide their students with a small proportion of institutional accommodation (eg approximately 2000 places in Queens University and University of Ulster).

A large number of students live in their parental (or very rarely their own) home, particularly students in Belfast. In England and Wales, just over 10% of university students live at home, in Scotland 33%, in Northern Ireland 40%.

The vast majority of the remainder live in private rented accommodation. It has been estimated that some 11,000 students seek accommodation in this sector in NI (General Consumer Council 1996). A declining proportion of these live in lodgings or digs (with all or some meals provided) but most live in shared, furnished flats or houses and cook their own meals. Very few students are housed by the Housing Executive or housing associations.

The student housing problem consists of three inter-related aspects. There is a general shortage of the type of housing required by students - that is decent housing to rent - a problem which is particularly acute in urban areas. Consequently the cost of housing is high; and especially so in relation to the level of the student loan. The shortage of suitable accommodation means that students are often the victims of private landlords who are prepared to ignore the law or to exploit loopholes in the legislation, because they are aware that students are a transitory group in urgent need of accommodation at particular time of the year.

The number of full-time higher education students has trebled in little more than 20 years but this massive expansion has not been paralleled by the provision of purpose-built accommodation. This shortfall has not been met by the public sector. Each autumn the shortage of rented accommodation is revealed starkly by the annual student housing crisis. Thousands of students arrive for the start of the new academic year with nowhere to live. Many either give up and return home or spend weeks in cramped conditions (ie sharing single rooms) or in unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Housing Costs

The cost of their accommodation is the largest single item of expenditure borne by students. The cost of housing in relation to the value of the student loan has increased dramatically in recent years. The cumulative effects of this trend has been to create financial hardship for many students, particularly for those living in halls of residence, to reduce the demand for hall places and consequently to increase the pressure on local housing markets. The extra pressure for rented housing has forced many students to live in sub-standard multi-occupied premises and has prevented some from finding any accommodation at all.

Further Education students, who depend on small discretionary awards (if they receive any award at all), are largely forced to live in the parental home even though conditions are often unsuitable for study because of the high cost of independent housing. The possibility of developing an independent life-style is thus severely restricted for many young people.

The loss of Housing Benefit for the majority of students has further increased student poverty as college funds have failed to provide adequate compensation. Students living in private rented housing frequently have landlords who are more interested in maximising their income than the welfare of their tenants and who are simply indifferent to or prepared to evade or avoid the law. Many students pay exorbitant rents, have little security and their accommodation is often unsafe and unhealthy.

Institutional Accommodation

Universities used to be supplied with 100% grants for building student halls of residence, but this was replaced by a grossly inadequate 'loan-financed system' whose structure was revised five times in six years. However, by 1980, the programme of construction was abruptly curtailed. A University Grants Committee report stated 'the latest reductions in public expenditure caused all residence projects to be dropped for the foreseeable future'.

An institutional solution cannot meet the social needs of students, and traditional halls accommodation is frequently unpopular with students, is socially divisive, inefficient and often unduly expensive. Although the provision of institutional accommodation does give students an advantage over other young people, the stagnation of this sector is a clear reflection of the unwillingness of the authorities to take student housing seriously and has undoubtedly increased the pressure on local housing markets. NUS-USI believes that purpose-built institutional accommodation should not be provided in areas of housing stress where alternative solutions are not possible.

We also have the ludicrous spectacle in virtually every housing stress area of the different sectors of tertiary education each independently seeking and competing to accommodate their own students using different and sometimes contradictory methods, each unrelated to mainstream housing.

Head Tenancy Schemes

A quasi-alternative to halls of residence are 'Head Tenancy' schemes. Under these schemes colleges lease property from landlords (either private or public) and then sub-let the accommodation to groups of students. The college acts as landlord to the students and, at the same time, is the tenant of the owner; thus it is the 'head tenant'.

There are now a significant number of colleges operating head tenancy schemes - over 25 universities and a dozen or so public sector colleges. Apart from guaranteeing the landlord vacant possession, the head tenant (ie the college) usually guarantees rent, takes on all administration and rent collection costs, vets prospective student tenants and looks after the condition of the property. No wonder many landlords jump at the opportunity of letting their accommodation to a college. In return, the college obtains an increased pool of private rented housing for the exclusive use of its students.

This clearly presents NUS-USI and Students' Unions with a considerable dilemma. Students need a roof over their heads but, like all other private tenants, they also need safeguards over their security and rent level. Neither should students seek a privileged position in the housing market. There is some evidence to show that the growth of head tenancies has reduced the supply of rented housing for non-students in Great Britain.

NUS-USI is very concerned about the implications of head tenancy scheme, and suggests the following guidelines for good practice. Such schemes should only aim to bring new property into letting and not at the transfer of existing rented property.

Head tenancy rents should be set as low as possible and perhaps linked to typical 'fair' rents in the locality. The possibility that the letting between college and landlord could be a fully protected tenancy has not been entirely ruled out by legal judgement (St Catherine's College v Dorling, Court of Appeal, 25 May 1979), nor has it yet been determined whether the agreement between college and student is a restricted contract, although a case in Manchester went in favour of the students.

Administrative costs should be no more than 10% of the rent and any operating surplus should be returned to students.

The accommodation provided should confirm to acceptable standards of amenities, repairs and space.

A tenants' association of head tenancy scheme residents should be set up with funding and assistance from the college and Students' Unions.

Since lettings to educational institutions are excluded from the landlord's repairing obligations in short leases it would be prudent if all agreements between college and owner included covenant to repair by the landlord.

The Decay of Private Landlordism

The private rented housing sector has been declining for many years, from approximately 38,000 properties in 1981 to less than 20,000 in 1994 or 3% of the total housing stock in Northern Ireland. Attempts to revive the sector have not proved successful.

Despite this, the private rented sector is where a majority of students continue to find themselves somewhere to live. It is well known that conditions in the private rented sector are much worse than in the other two main tenures - owner-occupation and public housing. Nearly 30% of private rented dwellings have been characterised as unfit; three times the level of unfitness in owner occupied dwellings.

Private rented housing is very diversified, encompassing furnished and unfurnished flats and houses, shared housing, bed and breakfasts, hostels and tied accommodation. Both landlords and occupants present a varied profile; the former range from an owner-occupier with a lodger to companies with hundreds of properties; the latter range from the young, single and mobile, young couples and families to a large number of elderly long-term occupiers.

Decline and Fall

Because of the shrinking number of lettings available and their economic exposure many occupants are being subjected to high levels of exploitation and are experiencing great hardship as landlords are avoiding legislative controls and demanding excessive rents.

The long-term trend away from private rental, a combination of both supply and demand factors, has been chiefly a result of the attractions (material and ideological) of owner-occupation and the slum clearance programmes of the 1950s and 1960s. Rent control is frequently blamed (or praised) for reducing the supply of private rented housing but there is not much hard evidence to support this contention. In an effort to breathe life into rented housing basically by altering the balance between landlord and tenant, does not seem to have had an appreciable result one way of the other.

A fundamental principle of any housing policy is to provide decent homes within the means of their occupiers. It is impossible to meet this objective with private landlordism, a tenure which has outlived its usefulness. It belongs to a laizzez-faire tradition which is incapable of providing decent housing for those who need it. The interests of private landlords and their tenants are irreconcilable.

It is also clear that the arsenal of statutory protection for private tenants - not only through the Rent Orders but also through public health and housing legislation - has failed to shield them from lack of security, the worst housing conditions, illegal premiums, uncontrolled rents, harassment and arbitrary evictions.

A revival of supply, even of this was desirable, would require the removal or reduction of the existing controls and/or financial incentives to landlords. But to subsidise private landlords with public money would clearly be wasteful - funds would be better spent on investment in housing.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the decline of the private rented sector, because the existing alternatives fail to meet demand, it will continue to house a substantial proportion of students for many years to come. Therefore, most students looking for somewhere to live outside college accommodation have to rely on renting a home from a private landlord.

Public Sector Housing: Towards Residualism?

Public housing is presently a very restricted tenure for students and young, single people. Most is allocated to families, people with children or to those over retirement age. Some councils have been trying to improve this situation, for example, by letting unpopular high-rise flats to single people, but the pressure of long waiting lists and cuts in expenditure on housing have limited many of these efforts.

There is an urgent demand from single people and couples without children for reasonably priced and secure housing. The number of one-person households is growing rapidly at a time when the supply of housing in the private sector, the traditional refuse for single people, is dwindling.

The exclusion of single people of working age from NIHE accommodation remains imprinted from waiting list points to a building cost yardstick. A true picture of single people's housing needs has therefore not emerged. NUS-USI believes that the Housing Executive should develop a comprehensive strategy and practical policies for meeting the housing needs of single people, whether they are employed or unemployed, students or trainees etc. The cornerstone of such a programme should be the recognition that single people have an equal right to housing alongside families and the elderly. It should include policies to redress the traditional bias against single people in the housing market and in the allocation process.

There is a major obstacle to significant improvements in attitudes and practices towards the single - the Government. Clearly the Government's housing policy, dominated by its economic strategy and an obsession with home ownership, will not at present permit the Executive to do very much, even if they were persuaded or inclined to do so. Fewer new homes are being built and the condition of the existing stock is deteriorating. The best public housing is being sold off. Some people now argue that Northern Ireland's public housing is well on the road to becoming a residualised, 'Poor Law' sector, of ghettoised estates for the very poor and disadvantaged.

In the late 1960s officialdom did urge local authorities to help a particular category of students for whom no institutional provision was made - married post-graduates. The Cullingworth Report in 1969 recommended that local authorities should "assist in the provision of suitable accommodation, particularly for married postgraduates, who should be eligible for the allocation of council houses". The advice was widely ignored.

Later an extensive review of housing policy concluded in 1977, argued that local authorities should ensure that adequate accommodation for single people is included in their general investment provision and accepted that "where the presence of students adds to housing pressure, local authorities and housing associations may receive subsidy or grant for providing accommodation for single people which is to be let primarily to students". Little has been done.

It has to be recognised that the Housing Executive is facing severe difficulties in meeting even their existing statutory obligations as a result of the cuts in housing investment programmes and Government restrictions on revenue spending. But lack of resources cannot be an acceptable justification for failing to assess the current needs of single people locally, to ensure that such housing as is provided for single people is appropriate, to remove any unfair limitations or biases in allocation policies and to use their various housing powers in a comprehensive way.

The most common type of housing made available to single people prepared to share are often difficult-to-let dwellings or on unpopular estates. The other main type is 'short-life' property. Short-life housing is simply the temporary use of houses on licence, sometimes involving intermediate repair work, before a house is renovated, converted or demolished.

Specific issues affect students seeking NIHE accommodation.

Furniture

A major difficulty is that most Housing Executive dwellings are let unfurnished.

Students, who are both highly mobile and on low incomes, generally do not need the burden of either having to purchase furniture or moving it about the country.

The best solution would be for the Executive to let some of their property furnished but an alternative at present would be for groups of students to buy furniture (new or second-hand) and sell all (or most of it) to the incoming tenants when they eventually leave the accommodation.

Access

There are three chief methods by which students could gain access to public housing.

The Executive can let directly to students.

The Executive can lease property to a college, which then sub-lets the accommodation to its students. Sometimes the intermediary is a local housing association.

Short life property can be made available either through a short-life housing association (many of which are co-operatives) or another agency.

Direct Letting

Direct letting is the process used for the allocation of most council housing. The merit of this method for students is that they are not given a special, privileged status above other applicants. The major difficulty under current practice is that students and other young single people have a very low priority as individuals on general waiting lists.

Many councils operate special allocation schemes for people registered on the waiting list but which ignore the points scheme. Such schemes, if they exist, usually form a small proportion of the total allocation from the waiting list, but they have a much greater importance for single people than other households. In some cases, these schemes may ignore the normal eligibility requirements, through the practice of setting aside a certain number of flats each year for a particular group of people which the council wishes to house. The schemes are often known as 'quotas'. A few councils have quotas for students at colleges in their area; for example, in Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield.

Very often the flats allocated through special schemes or quotas are the less popular of a council's stock. Manchester City Council's scheme houses about 1200 students in 'difficult-to-let' deck-access flats in Moss Side and Hulme. But some of Sheffield's housing is purpose-built for single people and students. Such schemes are generally aimed at groups of students who are willing to share.

Local Authority Head Tenancy Schemes

Some councils make their surplus accommodation available to students, via the college which acts as the landlord. The chief advantage for the council with this type of arrangement is that it can also devolve management of the property to the college which will become responsible for allocation, rent collection, maintenance and repairs and so on.

Disadvantages of head tenancy schemes include the threat of academic sanctions and students will always have to vacate the accommodation either at the end of the year or their course, which may not necessarily be the case with direct letting by the council. It also frequently gives students at a particular college access to accommodation denied to other students in the area and over other single people who may be in more immediate need. Rents are often higher with this kind of scheme because the accommodation will probably be outside the local authority 'rent pool' and the college will have its own administrative costs.

In practice, local authorities sub-let in a way that is indistinguishable from a hall of residence and often in accommodation which is far inferior. Schemes like this operate in Leeds, Liverpool, Salford and Tower Hamlets in London.

A variation of this type of scheme is that a housing association is chosen to be the head tenant rather than a college; there are examples of such schemes in Leeds and London.

Short-Life Housing

There is increasing pressure on local authorities to use vacant property as a source of temporary accommodation, especially for people who would not otherwise qualify for council housing. Often these properties are empty because they are going to be repaired, modernised or demolished in the near (or far) future.

Short life housing is normally made available through short life housing groups (which are often co-operatives) or sometimes a housing association. Councils pass on responsibility for their short life properties to these groups who then let them.

Housing Associations and Co-operatives

The bewildering array of housing associations, trusts, societies and co-operatives has been collectively referred to by successive governments as the 'third arm' of housing provision in the UK. This is nonsense: the voluntary housing movement remains minuscule representing a small proportion of the total housing stock.

The voluntary movement in housing has been largely dependent on government sources for finance but has been able, so far, to weather the cutbacks in public expenditure on housing much better than have local authorities. In the main they house the same groups of people as do local authorities and speculative builders for owner-occupation.

As long ago as 1976, the then Minister for Housing and Construction stated that ".further initiatives need to be taken on single person (including students) housing as part of general housing policies and programmes for which my Department, local authorities and the Housing Corporation are responsible." He continued ".in the areas where student demand seriously impinges on the general housing market, particularly in areas of stress and pressure, housing schemes which in practice would be mainly occupied by students will be eligible for subsidy or grant, provided that they contribute directly or indirectly to meeting the general housing needs of the area". But little has been done to make this encouraging statement a reality, for both local authority provision and housing associations.

Most housing associations allocate tenancies on the basis of housing need, like local authorities and thus for similar reasons students tend to be very low on the list of priorities. Many associations also provide accommodation for people with what are called 'special needs'. The most frequent special needs are housing for the elderly, the disabled and the single. Examples of other special needs include "recovered alcoholics"; "senior indigent Christian Scientists", single parents and "stable lads and stud hands!".

A number of housing associations do make special provision for students, indeed some were specifically set up for this purpose. A few associations specifically help overseas students, and often their families: London, Birmingham, Leeds, Reading, Oxford, Brighton and Edinburgh have such associations.

Student individual applications to associations which provide housing for general letting are generally unlikely to be successful. A significant proportion of these kinds of lettings are provided for people on the local authority waiting list. Associations which cater specifically for the single or students will be more accessible but nomination arrangements are usually via the college accommodation office or the association itself, according to some criteria of need. This may be for married students, postgraduates, students with children or from overseas. Some associations and many co-operatives make short-life property available to students and young, single-people.

Housing co-operatives, which nationally have about 10,000 members, only house their own members. Many now have long waiting lists or are not accepting new members. Co-ops are part of a long tradition of consumer and producer organisations formed and run along co-operative principles dating back to the Rochdale Pioneers. A housing co-operative is not necessarily the best solution to the shortage of student accommodation because it is not only committed to meeting a housing need but to running itself along principles which can demand considerable time, commitment, participation and enthusiasm from its members.

Although the voluntary housing movement is small, it does have rather greater potential for students than the other tenures. Housing associations are generally small and flexible; management is often more sensitive and personal than that of local authorities. Several students' Unions have, in the past, been closely involved in setting up new associations or promoting schemes to help meet the housing needs of their members. There are examples of these in Oxford, Leicester, London, Cambridge and Southampton. But because officialdom now feels that the development of new associations has reached saturation point, it might be easier to work in partnership with an existing association. New associations are now only likely to receive public funding if they can demonstrate that an existing need is not being met and student-only schemes are very unlikely to receive loan sanction.

One successfully established housing association with significant student involvement is the Students Housing Association Co-op Ltd (SHAC) in Northern Ireland. It was set up in 1977 at the instigation of our organisation with the aim of providing accommodation for young mobile people, particularly students. The shareholders are the Students' Unions of the region.

NUS-USI is concerned that the further reduction of Housing Association grants will significantly impact on young people and students on low incomes and inhibit the future development of SHAC and other Associations. Unfortunately higher rents will displace students from Housing Association accommodation limiting this important housing option.

Home Ownership: Good News for Students?

Some students are interested in buying a home of their own as an alternative to renting one. But the vast majority of students will not find it practical to buy a house or flat, owning to their low income whilst on a grant; lack of capital; uncertain future income and to the fact that the private market is geared to permanence rather than transience.

Home ownership can restrict mobility, it can take anything up to six months to complete a purchase, and professional fees (for surveys, valuations, conveyancing) add considerably to the cost. Unless students have access to a source of income outside the student loan and to a capital sum, which is usually required to finance the purchase and provide the deposit, they will find it impossible to buy a home.

The Committee should be aware that home ownership is neither within the means of nor practical for most students. Government housing policy is concentrated almost entirely on encouraging the expansion of owner occupation, ignoring the interests of those who either have to or prefer to rent.

Students' Rights as Private Tenants

Housing law, the generic phrase used to describe the mass of both public law and common law relating to the regulation of housing - be it public or private sector, rented or owner occupied, is renowned for its complexity. The maze of statute law created by Parliament on housing this century has done little to make the legal framework more effective; it remains incomprehensible to most tenants and many lawyers and lay advisers; a mystifying accumulation of different legislative regimes uneasily grafted onto old common law distinctions. It is an uncertain guide to rights and responsibilities on one hand and a welcome resource for landlords seeking to evade its operation on the other.

It is clearly of immense importance that students are aware of and able to exercise their rights whatever their housing circumstances - whether occupying college accommodation, or as private tenants or local authority tenants.

Housing Status

The starting point in any housing matter is the determination of the status of the occupier. The question of legal status is crucial for a person wishing to determine what rights they have in a host of related fields - security from eviction, rent regulation, help with housing costs, repairs and improvements and redress in case of harassment or illegal eviction.

Unfortunately under the present system there is a plethora of residential categories, which only take account of common sense distinctions. Between trespasser and owner, an occupier may fall into any of these main categories: protected tenant, tenant with restricted security and unprotected tenant. In addition there are many sub-divisions (eg flat sharers) which affect rights and procedures in different situations. This complexity stems partly from the variety of situations it is seeking to regulate.

Ssecurity of Tenure

Someone's rights of occupation, usually known as security of tenure, largely derives from their housing status. Tenants, who are fully protected by the Rent Order, enjoy security of tenure and their landlord must be able to prove being able to evict them legally.

It was not the purpose of Parliament to discourage the owner-occupier from letting out rooms in her/his own home, and it was therefore arranged that tenants with resident landlords should not be fully protected but have restricted protection with less security from eviction.

Some residential occupiers will have only very limited protection. Typical examples are student lets by educational institutions and lodgers. But most residential occupiers have a basic right to remain in their home until their landlord has obtained a possession order from a court. The law also gives protection by implying obligations on both parties to an agreement or contract and provides remedies (at civil law) for breach of contract.

Harrassment and Unlawful Eviction

It is criminal offence to deprive any residential occupier of lawful occupation of her/his residence; or to interfere with the 'peace and comfort' of the occupier or members of her/his household or to withdraw or withhold services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a home, with the intention of making the occupier leave or refrain from exercising her/his rights on the dwelling. For example, if the landlord cuts off the electricity deliberately, this is clearly harassment.

It is also an offence to evict a tenant without a court order. In cases of illegal eviction, a tenant can take direct action to reinstate her/himself, or s/he can seek remedy through the courts, including both reinstatement and damages.

Unfortunately prosecution against harassment and illegal eviction is rare and seldom results in serious punishment. Harassment can be extremely subtle and difficult to prove and the tenant often looks for assistance after an eviction has taken place.

Some local authorities take an active role in cases of harassment and illegal eviction, and may employ a Tenancy Relations Officer to advise tenants and to conciliate or take action against the landlord. Certainly this is an area which the Housing Executive and District Councils could usefully explore.

Housing Conditions

The law relating to repairs and housing conditions is a jungle. There are practical difficulties in enforcing tenants' rights because the seriousness of defects is often a matter of judgement. Some of the procedures can be protracted and a student may well not see the results of a successful action.

There are three chief reasons why more tenants do not force their landlords to repair or improve their homes. Firstly many people are ignorant of the law and what it can do for them; secondly it can be time-consuming and troublesome to get the law enforced and thirdly many tenants who are not protected under the Rent Order may be evicted by their landlord rather than carry out the repairs.

Conclusion

We propose that further incentives should be provided to promote the work of Housing Associations and the Housing Executive and that a larger new build programme should be established. The Executive should intervene more in the private sector, particularly through vesting orders for empty property and the provision of short life, direct letting and head tenancy schemes which have been successfully developed by local authorities in Great Britain. We believe it is unlikely that Housing Associations will be able to meet the needs of low income singles if the rate of grant is further reduced and that the private rented sector will continue to decline irrespective of any Government initiative.

The need, therefore remains for the Housing Executive, in conjunction with the Department of Social Development, together with other interested agencies to establish and implement a specific social housing policy for young, single people in Northern Ireland. NUS-USI hopes that the Committee will grasp this opportunity of properly addressing the needs of this important but neglected section of our community.

top

Written Submission by:
DISABILITY ACTION

27 March 2001

Thank you for your correspondence of 15th February 2001 regarding proposals for a new Housing Bill for Northern Ireland and the proposals in relation to private Sector Renewal, Houses in Multiple Occupancy, and the Regulation of the Private Sector in particular.

The availability of accessible housing is of particular concern to disabled people. While soon to be introduced changes to the Building Regulations (Part R) will impact in terms of more "visitable" housing in the future, the reality of the situation for many disabled people is that the majority of the housing stock cannot meet their needs.

The availability of accessible housing stock within the public housing sector is extremely limited, availability within the private rented sector is near to non-existent. Therefore the choices available to a disabled person in the housing market are very limited.

The extended Building Regulations will go some way toward creating a future housing environment where disabled people can visit friends and family, but even this updated standard will require considerable adaptation in order to be "habitable" to a disabled person.

Grant aid also currently exists to assist with the adaptation of existing dwellings to better suit the needs of a disabled person. However the system is backlogged and a disabled person can expect to wait at least 18 months for their application to be processed. Not only does this waiting period inconvenience the disabled person but also the cost of the works is likely to have increased over that period. Further to this the amount of grant aid, which is means-tested rarely meets the cost of the job and builders who are willing to undertake the works are difficult to find.

No financial assistance is available to enable a disabled person to build a house, which suits their needs, though grant aid would be available to adapt a new built property. Financial assistance is not available to a disabled person renting a property in the private sector to adapt the dwelling, nor is there any requirement on the landlord to undertake an adjustment to meet that individual's need. The Disability Discrimination Act is unlikely to address this situation.

Research undertaken by the Council for the Homeless (Gateways and Gatekeepers: 2000), identified a lack in demand for temporary accessible accommodation for disabled people. Statistics in relation to the prevalence of disability do not support a theory that there are no disabled homeless people. Disability Action suspect that the under-representation of disabled people amongst those seeking hostel accommodation is more likely to be the result of the lack of accessible temporary accommodation, and a realisation on the part of those disabled people of that situation. Furthermore we suspect that a large number of disabled people are forced to remain in unhappy situations because of a lack of available accessible accommodation in the private rented sector, and the considerable demand placed on that in the public sector.

Disability Action encourages the Social Development Committee to take advantage of this opportunity to investigate the wider potential which is available in the creation of a new Housing Bill to address the above issues. We will look forward to future correspondence with your office.

MONICA WILSON
Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
COOKSTOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL

23 March 2001

Housing In Northern Ireland

Your letter of the 15 February 2001 concerning the above refers. The Council at a recent meeting considered its contents when a number of issues were raised, particularly around the suggested change from mandatory renovation/ replacement grants in respect of private properties. There were:-

The experience in Britain has been that it leaves grants budget more open and vulnerable to budgetary whims with consequent lengthening of waiting queues;

Where it is not a system of "first come first served" the criteria for prioritising grant aid is crucial. This has led to undue waiting periods for decisions where the discretionary system of grants has been used.

Assurances are sought that similar problems would not be the outcome here.

M J McGUCKIN
Clerk Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
NORTHERN IRELAND TENANTS ACTION PROJECT

22 March 2001

On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the inquiry and I hope that the views of the NITAP staff team will inform the consideration of the contents of the proposed Housing Bill by the Minister and his colleagues on the Social Development Committee.

NI Tenants Action Project is a voluntary organisation working with over 300 community groups across Northern Ireland, adopting a community development approach to assist local people become more involved in decisions which affect their homes and neighbourhoods. The invitation to comment on the above has triggered lively discussion amongst the staff team and I have collated the comments and observations of my colleagues and am pleased to present these to the Department by way of a formal response.

I would be grateful if you could perhaps outline the full timetable for the process, as and when it is available, and if there will be an opportunity for an open public discussion on the issues raised; experience in local communities tells us that the majority of community groups have a great interest in tackling anti-social behaviour and increasing interest is being shown in the likely impact of stock transfer, should that become a reality.

I look forward to hearing from you and hope that the enclosed response is a constructive contribution to the on-going consideration.

MURRAY WATT
(Senior Liaison Officer)

Private Sector Renewal
Comments from NITAP Staff Team

A consideration of grants and group repair schemes is particularly timely given the stated intentions of HM Government through a legislative programme to give housing authorities a stronger strategic role across all sectors in their area, to foster new approaches to help poorer home-owners maintain their homes, to raise the standards of private rented housing and greater flexibility to adopt policies that reflect local conditions. Indeed, it is heartening that the Department of Social Development is mirroring the concerns of the government in initiating this Inquiry.

The NI Housing Executive has undertaken good quality research into the local housing market in recent years and a number of key areas of concern regarding the private sector have emerged; whilst some 68% of the housing stock is owner-occupied some 22,000 properties in that sector are currently classed as unfit, with a further 12,500 vacant dwellings otherwise considered part of that sector, classified as unfit. This however marks a significant improvement in the condition of the housing stock as, on the one hand the fitness standard continues to be set at a higher level and on the other the huge contribution made by NI Housing Executive through the grants system in tackling unfitness and disrepair. At the same time the most recent analysis suggests that more than 4,000 dwellings are becoming unfit every year, for a number of reasons, there is a continuing need for financial support and intervention to be made available if we are not to lose the ground gained to date in tackling poor housing.

Research into the condition of the housing stock along with the increasing level of demand for grant assistance will put increasing pressure on the grants budget. To maintain current level of activity and to ensure that assistance can be adequately targeted to those dwellings most in need of repair and those households in the poorest housing there would be merit in switching to a discretionary rather than mandatory grants system, with appropriate openness, transparency and accountability mechanisms in place. Such a discretionary system appears to be favoured by HM Government and may offer an opportunity to address major disrepair in some of the oldest stock where some of the householders are among the most vulnerable in our community; many such households have not always been able to benefit from the grants system in the normal course of events. Indeed there may also be merit in mechanisms that underwrite low interest loans or alternative fiscal benefits for major repairs.

NITAP staff feel at this time that there are sound social and economic grounds for such a system and in view of the imminent consultation document from the Minister on urban regeneration it would be timely to remind ourselves of the contribution improvements to private sector housing makes to neighbourhood renewal.

Houses in Multiple Occupation and the Private Rented Sector
Comments from NITAP Staff Team

With regard to Houses in Multiple Occupation it should be noted that NITAP have been asked to comment on the proposed voluntary licensing scheme by NI Housing Executive and will do so in detail. For the purpose of the current consideration the comments will be directed to general themes and issues surrounding this sector of the housing market.

This sector of the market has been the source of some considerable concern for many housing professionals, not just on the condition of some of the stock but also the relatively low level of protection offered by the law to those tenants in the sector. It is generally held that HMOs account for some of the worst house conditions in the UK (from the 1996 English House Condition Survey); for example, DETR research into fire risks found that tenants in bedsit houses were 6 times more likely to die from house fires than adults living in single adult housing. In N Ireland we should note that more than one half of all HMO units are in pre-1919 housing and that there is a 10% unfitness rate in the sector. At the same time tenancies are transient and that 83% of household heads are aged 18-37 and one half are students.

Yet at the same time it should also be noted that the HMO sector provides a significant section of the housing market and despite its faults is an important element of the whole. It is therefore a matter of considerable urgency that the problems of the sector are effectively dealt with; the Housing Executive should be commended for signally the intention of the local strategic authority to do just that through the voluntary licensing scheme. Yet within the context of this review NITAP staff feel strongly that there needs to be a thorough and co-ordinated approach to improving the conditions in the sector, in a fashion which involves landlords and agents as well as the Housing Executive, local councils and the Fire Authority. It is also felt that the law needs to be tightened with regard to redress and remedy available to tenants in HMO accommodation, frequently some of the more vulnerable members of our community.

To ensure that co-ordinated and a coherent approach it is felt that a mandatory system of licensing should be introduced but on a similar basis to that currently proposed by NIHE. Such a mandatory system was felt to be a more effective system rather than using alternative methods of enforcement such as the Housing Benefit system; indeed unease was expressed at such a deployment of the Housing Benefit system as there is a danger on the one hand the claimant might be penalised and on the other it may be difficult and contentious to enforce. In neither scenario is there a guarantee that it will lead to an improvement in conditions and may in fact deter landlords from letting accommodation to benefit claimants.

For their part, landlords through the representative organisations in GB and NI have been broadly supportive of a licensing scheme and clearly there are reciprocal benefits to be gained not least improvements to the HMO stock, and that should be welcomed.

It is also true that the highest and most rigorous standards should be applied to all accommodation used for the purposes of multiple occupation, and should apply equally to the typical Victorian terrace conversion as it should to Halls of Residence and hostel accommodation. A mandatory and formal system of licensing should also include an annual inspection to ensure that standards are maintained.

A further area of concern is to the legal status of tenants in the sector and NITAP staff feel that similar rights, eg to repair, privacy, comfort and protection from harassment should be available to those in HMOs as those in the social rented sector, excluding right to purchase etc. It is felt that these rights are not always enjoyed by tenants in this sector and that the awareness of redress or the opportunity to redress is not available. NITAP would like to see minimum standards for conditions of tenancy applied as part of the licensing process for all HMOs.

Whilst there are particular concerns around HMO in the wider sense the private rented sector is often overlooked in legislation and it is a sector not without its difficulties. There is great diversity within the private rented sector and this is one of its great strengths and explains why it represents an important sector of the housing market. Again, Housing Executive research has revealed some major concerns for the sector in terms of condition and the vulnerable status of many of its tenants. For example it ought to be noted that almost 5,000 properties in the sector were classified as unfit and that nearly 40% of those unfit dwellings are occupied by elderly heads of household. Almost 33% of unfitness in the sector is in rural areas and there are much higher repair costs required than in urban areas. In terms of tenants, one half of household heads are students and only 25% of all households in the sector had annual incomes in excess of £10,000.

The needs of the sector are obviously quite varied and complex and as it makes a valuable contribution to the housing market, and in view of the vulnerability of many tenants in the sector, it is important that a package of measures is drafted and resourced to tackle the poorest conditions and support the most needy households. The Housing Executive as the strategic housing authority and in recognition of the expertise and experience to hand, should be tasked with continuing to support the sector.

top

Written Submission by:
CO-OWNERSHIP HOUSING

21 March 2001

Thank you for your letter of 15 February, inviting submissions to the Committee's inquiry into Private Sector Renewal and Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector. On behalf of this association, I would make the following comments:

Private Sector Renewal

We note the proposals to move from the current mandatory grants scheme to a discretionary one and would endorse the principle that the primary objectives of the grants scheme should be

to reduce unfitness (including disrepair) in the private sector and

to direct resources to those areas, and those people, in greatest need.

The Co-Ownership scheme is a form of low cost home ownership based on equity sharing. It permits people on limited incomes, who cannot afford to purchase in the conventional way, to part own a property. Whilst we hope that Co-Owners will ultimately buy out the remaining share in their property and become full home owners, experience suggests that there will always be people who simply cannot afford to do so.

In keeping with the home ownership ethos, Co-Owners are responsible for all maintenance and repairs to their property. Mindful of the financial constraints that Co-Owners face, we take care when valuing properties at initial purchase stage to ensure that they are in sound condition and do not require significant works. However, all properties deteriorate over time and we believe it inevitable that some Co-Owners will find themselves in properties that become unsafe or unfit.

We are concerned to ensure that the grants scheme will provide some redress for those Co-Owners who lack alternative means to finance necessary repairs, at least where these relate to matters of health and safety. The current system does not take a holistic approach to Co-Owners, who were encouraged into home ownership through social housing grant and are now trying to remain there. Perhaps there is a case for considering the needs of Co-Owners as a distinct tenure grouping.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector (PRS)

As this aspect is beyond the remit and experience of this association, we refrain from specific comment.

A D NICOL MBE
Chairman

top

Written Submission by:
SIMON COMMUNITY NORTHERN IRELAND

21 March 2001

Thank you for your recent letter requesting our views on the first two topics for consideration by the Social Development Committee in relation to the above Bill.

Our comments are as follows:-

1. Private Sector Renewal

Whilst the private sector is much smaller in size than in England and Wales it is nevertheless a vitally important component of the NI Housing market. At 3-4% of the market it provides accessible accommodation for those financially and statutorily unable to access both owner occupation and the social rented sector. It is a useful option for single homeless people who cannot afford to buy their own house/flat and yet are not viewed as priority under the Housing (NI) Order 1988. It is therefore essential that this sector is both expanded, through the widening out of grants and repairs schemes, and also that current stock is regenerated.

2. Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and regulation of the Private Rented Sector (PRS)

Again this sector is important to a range of client groups, many of whom are relatively transient in the lower income bands. It is essential that the 1978 Rent Order is reviewed and updated in line with other current policy. If we can provide any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

CAROL O'BRYAN
Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
DONACLONEY HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD

16 March 2001

The Association is the owner of the historic linen mill village of Donacloney and control is vested in the elected committee of local residents.

Since 1977 we have gradually renewed all the housing stock with HAG and for the last ten years we have pursued a voluntary sales policy. Today our housing stock is 60% social rented and 40% owner occupied. We refuse to sell to landlords or speculators.

We would support the concept of discretionary grants or group repair schemes.

We have no experience of the HMO sector.

THELMA P ARMSTRONG
Admin/Dev Officer

top

Written Submission by:
PRESBYTERIAN HOUSING ASSOCIATION (NI) LIMITED

14 March 2001

Thank you for your letter of 15 February 2001 concerning the Social Development Committee's inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland.

The Presbyterian Housing Association would not wish to make comment on the areas of -

Private Sector Renewal;

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector.

When the Committee is considering other areas of Housing, eg The Rights of Housing Association Tenants to buy their properties, which would have a direct bearing on the PHA's work, then we would welcome the opportunity to comment.

Thank you for your consultation.

J TINMAN
Director

top

Written Submission by:
NORTHERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD

9 March 2001

I would like to thank you for your letter dated 15 February 2001 regarding the proposed phases of work to be undertaken as part of the comprehensive inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland.

With regard to the terms of reference for the first two areas under consideration, Private Sector Renewal and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector (PRS), the Board would have no substantive comment to make on these particular issues but would appreciate receipt of a copy of the outcome reports.

I note from your letter that you will be writing to the Board again seeking views on the other areas outlined for consideration. Your proposed examinations of issues around Anti-Social Behaviour and Homelessness will be of particular interest to the Board and I look forward to hearing from you again in due course.

STUART MacDONNELL
Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
BALLYMENA BOROUGH COUNCIL

8 March 2001

Housing in Northern Ireland

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 15 February 2001 which was tabled at Council's Public Sector Liaison Committee Meeting in March.

Members welcomed both the consultation and research presently ongoing with regard to Houses in Multiple Occupation and the Housing Bill which was coming forward to the Assembly in the near future.

Council would also make the following comments -

It would wish to see a compulsory method of licensing as opposed to a voluntary method; and

Would wish the importance of Health and Safety in houses with multiple occupation to be paramount.

M G RANKIN
Town Clerk and Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
FLAX HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD

7 March 2001

Thank you for your letter of 15th February requesting submissions in reference to Private Sector Renewal, HMOs and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector.

The Association is represented on the Council of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations and would support NIFHA's submission on these matters.

JOHN DONAGHY
General Manager

top

Written Submission by:
BALLYNAFEIGH HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD

6 March 2001

Thank you for your letter of the 15th February, 2001 in which you ask for this Association's opinions on the topics of Private Sector Renewal and houses in multiple occupation.

On the first issue, it is our opinion that the present grant scheme does need to be reviewed. The major problem which the present system is the length of time taken to move from initial application stage to approval being issued.

Group repair schemes are not the answer in our opinion as these have been tried before and all the feed back to us has been negative.

The most negative comments in relation to group repair schemes has come from the contractors involved in carrying out the work. Many of them found difficulty in receiving payment and would not be prepared to engage in this type of work again.

With regard to Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector, it is the opinion of this Association that major change is required.

Strict control and enforcement policy with regard to fire detection prevention and escape equipment and facilities is essential in the light of a tragedy which occurred in a HMO in the recent past in this area.

The registration of landlords and the introduction of measures to ensure greater accountability for standards and for the behaviour of tenants must form the basis of any change.

There are some responsible private landlords but there are also those who are only interested in reaping financial benefit without wishing to accept any responsibility for good management of their properties. It is essential that this major problem is addressed.

It may also be useful for all concerned, including the social rent providers if a register of privately rented properties was established, perhaps on a district basis as with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

I trust this submission of views will be of some assistance to you but should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

P O'NEILL
Development Officer

top

Written Submission by:
CRAIGAVON BOROUGH COUNCIL
(public services liaison committee)

6 March 2001

In its Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All" the Government recognises that policies for housing are important for the wider agenda in promoting social justice and better health and for tackling social exclusion. Craigavon Borough Council endorses this approach by Government and, given local governments active involvement in housing and health issues generally, we strongly support the Committee's timely inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland and welcome this opportunity to input to the proposed Housing Bill.

Private Sector Renewal

Repairs Grants

The proposed move from mandatory to discretionary grants scheme is welcomed. The current grants regime which provides for mandatory repairs grants for work carried out under Public Health Notices has not always resulted in the appropriate targeting of public funds and has created some operational difficulties for Environmental Health Departments. In 1996 the Government did move to limit to £500 the maximum amount of repairs grant available to owner occupiers, however, landlords in the private rented sector and the owners of vacant property can still qualify for repairs grant up to a maximum of £5,500, irrespective either of their means or of the potential income from their property. It is considered appropriate that more targeted means testing, linked to a discretionary grants regime, should apply in most cases to work carried out under Public Health Notices. Landlords however of protected tenancies (those let under the Rent (NI) Order 1978) can only charge what the Rent Officer sets as the legally recoverable rent of the property. This will usually be equivalent to a Housing Executive (or subsidised) rent. Some protected tenancies however have their rent limited even further to their 1978 value. In light of the limited income from protected tenancies, the present arrangements whereby mandatory and non means tested repairs grants are available to landlords of protected tenancies should continue to apply where work is carried out on foot of both Public Health Notices and Certificates of Disrepair.

Regulator of Fitness Standard

District Councils are ideally placed to provide the necessary independence to ensure that the assessment of fitness is both accurate and objective. EHOs working in local authority Environmental Health Departments have the collective and corporate regulatory experience in fitness assessment, not only through their training, but also through their statutory powers under the Rent (NI) Order 1978, their involvement as surveyors and supervisors in successive house condition surveys and also through referrals from the Housing Executive.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector (PRS)

It has long been recognised that some of the worst living conditions are to be found in HMOs. It is also clear that existing powers have often been ineffective in remedying the unsatisfactory conditions that regularly arise in this section of the privately rented sector. It is apparent that a properly targeted pro-active policy of enforcement supported by an appropriate legislative framework is essential if the health and safety of all people living in HMOs is to be protected.

The current definition of HMO;

A House That is Occupied by Persons Who do Not Form a Single Household

has given rise to a number of grey areas. For example, many shared houses, particularly those occupied by students, are excluded from the provisions. The DETR has recently suggested that there should be a new clearer definition of HMO, namely,

a house occupied by persons who are not all members either of the same family or of one or other of 2 families.

Craigavon Borough Council would endorse this view and would recommend that the same definition apply in Northern Ireland.

The Government has given a commitment to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the DETR has consulted widely on this.

Craigavon Borough Council would wish to see the Committee recommend that the proposed legislative changes be brought forward locally as a matter of urgency notwithstanding that the Government has yet to give effect to the proposals in England and Wales. Craigavon Borough council feel this is particularly important in light of the Housing Executive's proposed voluntary licensing scheme which is unlikely to adequately address the worst HMOs which often house the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

Regulator of Standards in Houses in Multiple Occupation

Concern is expressed regarding the Housing Executive's conflicting roles as the province's largest landlord whilst simultaneously being responsible for regulating standards in the private rented sector. The Housing Executive's draft strategy on HMOs shows that since 1993 a total of 893 Notices have been served, yet only 267 grant schemes have been completed. This leaves a shortfall of 626 Notices with only 7 prosecutions for non-compliance. Based on this information the Housing Executive appears to be operating a primarily grant led strategy. The Housing Executive should however be targeting need on a "worst first" basis and backing it up by a pro-active policy of enforcement against poor landlords who fail to protect the health and safety of their tenants. This apparent landlord focused approach to enforcement in the Private Rented Sector appears to be consistent with the Housing Executive's reluctance to serve Repair Notices on landlords of unfit property.

Regulator of HMO Standards

As with the fitness standard Craigavon Borough Council believe that the Housing Executive should be relieved of its regulatory role in relation to the privately rented sector. District Councils, through their Environmental Health Departments, provide the appropriate independence to fulfil this regulatory role. EHOs working within District Councils have the necessary training and experience to assess health risks and to identify enforcement priorities so that the most dangerous properties are addressed first. A discretionary HMO grant from the Housing Executive should be used to facilitate these landlords in complying with their statutory obligation rather than as an inducement which they may or may not accept. In addition to the above, a transfer of these regulatory functions would provide District Councils with greater democratic accountability in the field of housing without in any way undermining the Housing Executive's strategic role as the province's Housing Authority.

Houses in Disrepair but not Unfit

Local authorities in England and Wales have the power to require a landlord to effect repairs to those of their properties which are in disrepair but not unfit (s 190 Housing Act 1985). Such a provision gives to local authorities the ability to prevent houses from falling into unfitness. These provisions however were never extended to Northern Ireland where District Councils can usually only address disrepair through the Public Health Acts. It should also be noted that public health notices can only be served, in respect of disrepair, where it is giving rise to risk of disease or illness and not to risk of physical injury. Similar powers to those of s 190 of the Housing Act 1985 should be granted to Northern Ireland District Councils.

Summary of Recommendations

Discretionary, means tested, grants should be available for work carried out under Public Health Notices.

Mandatory, non-means tested, Repairs Grants should continue to be available in respect of tenancies protected under the Rent (NI) Order 1978, for work carried out under Public Health Notices and Certificates of Disrepair.

There should be a new definition of HMO.

The Northern Ireland Assembly should introduce mandatory licensing of HMOs as a matter of priority.

District councils should be designated as the regulators of standards in HMOs.

Provisions similar to those contained in s 190 of the Housing Act 1985 for dealing with disrepair in otherwise fit houses should be made available to district councils in Northern Ireland.

top

Written Submission by:
HABINTEG HOUSING ASSOCIATION (ULSTER) LTD

5 March 2001

Thank you for your letter of 15 February last highlighting that the Social Development Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into housing in Northern Ireland in light of the proposed Housing Bill.

We welcome your emphasis on consultation and appreciate your offer to make written submissions. Habinteg, as part of Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations, is reviewing a number of the areas that your Committee is paying particular attention to and has agreed not to independently forward responses on your initial two areas of consideration, private sector renewal and Houses in Multiple Occupation [HMOs] and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector.

Please contact us at any stage if you feel that we could be of any help to your Committee's work.

D C C DULY
Director

top

Written Submission by:
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

3 March 2001

Terms of Reference

Private Sector Renewal

Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Introduction

Founded in 1883, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) is a professional and education body, dedicated to the promotion of environmental health and to encouraging the highest possible standards in the training and the work of environmental health professionals. It is an independent non-governmental organisation made up 17 centres, 52 branches and approximately 9,000 members, most of whom work for local authority Environmental Health Departments throughout the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Centre has strong links to our sister organisation in the Irish Republic with whom we facilitate an annual joint conference on areas of mutual interest.

Environmental Health Officers (EHOs), and their predecessors, have been at the forefront in the drive to improve housing conditions and to protect people from unhealthy conditions in their homes since the middle of the nineteenth century, given that the Public Health Act has been in existence for over 150 years. Their input into the field of housing and health covers both the technical application of Housing and Public Health legislation as well as the development of appropriate housing standards. For example, EHOs are currently taking the lead in the development of the Health and Safety Rating System (HSRS), which it is proposed will replace the existing fitness standard, whilst the current DETR guidance on HMO standards (Circular 12/92) was originally derived from guidance published by CIEH.

In the Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All" the Government recognises that policies for housing are important for the wider agenda in promoting social justice and better health and for tackling social exclusion. The NI Centre endorses this approach by the Government and, given our active involvement in housing and health issues generally, we strongly support the Committee's timely inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland and welcome this opportunity to input to the proposed Housing Bill. A copy of the CIEH response top the Green Paper is included for your information.

In our submission to the 1994 Housing Policy Review we included similar proposals to those set out below. These were primarily designed to help meet the then Department of the Environment's review principal of:

the continued separation of regulatory and delivery functions.

The NI Centre therefore was particularly disappointed when the Department of the Environment (NI) failed to recognise the merit of these proposals in their subsequent 1996 policy document "Building on Success - the way ahead".

Private Sector Renewal

Repairs Grants

The NI Centre broadly welcomes the proposed move from mandatory to discretionary grants schemes. The current grants regime which provides for mandatory repairs grants for work carried out under Public Health Notices has not always resulted in the appropriate targeting of public funds and has created some operational difficulties for Environmental Health Departments. In 1996 the Government did move to limit to £500 the maximum amount of repairs grant available to owner occupiers, however, landlords in the private rented sector and the owners of vacant property can still qualify for repairs grant up to a maximum of £5,500, irrespective either of their means or of the potential income from their property. The NI Centre consider it appropriate that more targeted means testing, linked to a discretionary grants regime, should apply in most cases to work carried out under Public Health Notices. Landlords however of protected tenancies (those let under the Rent (NI) Order 1978) can only charge what the Rent Officer sets as the legally recoverable rent of the property. This will usually be equivalent to a Housing Executive (or subsidised) rent. Some protected tenancies however have their rent limited even further to their 1978 value. The NI Centre believe that, in light of the limited income from protected tenancies, the present arrangements whereby mandatory and non means tested repairs grants are available to landlords of protected tenancies should continue to apply where work is carried out on foot of both Public Health Notices and Certificates of Disrepair.

Unfitness

Although the overall proportion of unfit dwellings in Northern Ireland has fallen significantly since 1974 it is still unacceptably high at 7.3% (1996 House Condition Survey). The primary vehicle for addressing unfitness over that period was the implementation of a comprehensive redevelopment programme which removed most of the old Victorian slum properties. The current unfitness figure however for Belfast is 7.5% whilst areas such as Fermanagh, Cookstown and Down are running at 17.5%, 13.0% and 10.6% respectively. The NI Centre are concerned that the Housing Executive's present approach to area improvement, linked to their reluctance to implement certain of their statutory powers for dealing with individual unfit dwellings, runs contrary to their strategic objective of reducing unfitness.

Urban Renewal Areas (URA) and Redevelopment Areas (RDA)

The NI Centre would wish the Committee to give serious consideration to the Housing Executive's current approach to area renewal. Many of the recently designated URAs and RDAs were Housing Action Areas (HAAs) in the 1970's and 1980's when significant resources were invested in terms of enveloping schemes and improvement grants. Most of the dwellings in HAAs were upgraded through the use of public funds as a means of improving the housing stock generally whilst simultaneously reducing unfitness. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the effect of this area improvement with the current reported unfitness levels in many of these areas. The NI Centre would therefore see merit in transferring the assessment of the fitness standard to an independent arbitrator so that the public can have confidence that there is an objective basis for area renewal. This would be particularly relevant in relation to RDAs which require a statutory minimum of 1/3 of the dwellings to be unfit.

Regulator of Fitness Standard

This NI Centre believe that District Councils are ideally placed to provide the necessary independence to ensure that the assessment of fitness is both accurate and objective. EHOs working in local authority Environmental Health Departments have the collective and corporate regulatory experience in fitness assessment, not only through their training, but also through their statutory powers under the Rent (NI) Order 1978, their involvement as surveyors and supervisors in successive house condition surveys and also through referrals from the Housing Executive.

It is also of relevance that while in theory the fitness standard is applicable to all housing, in practice it does not apply to Housing Executive dwellings for the reason that the Housing Executive cannot take enforcement action against itself. The Housing Executive owns over 138,000 dwelling units, making up 23% of the total housing stock of which 2% are unfit (NI House Condition Survey 1996). The NI Centre therefore believes that enforcement of the fitness standard in Housing Executive property should also be the responsibility of District Councils. This would not only provide Housing Executive tenants with an independent regulator but would also give them the same protection as those people living in the privately rented sector.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector (PRS)

The Regulation of standards in HMOs and the privately rented sector generally is an issue that the NI Centre has previously raised with Government Departments. NI Centre members have long recognised that some of the worst living conditions are to be found in HMOs. It is also clear that existing powers have often been ineffective in remedying the unsatisfactory conditions that regularly arise in this section of the privately rented sector. It is apparent that a properly targeted pro-active policy of enforcement supported by an appropriate legislative framework is essential if the health and safety of all people living in HMOs is to be protected.

The current definition of HMO;

A House That is Occupied by Persons Who do Not Form a Single Household

a house occupied by persons who are not all members either of the same family or of one or other of 2 families.

The NI Centre would endorse this view and would recommend that the same definition apply in Northern Ireland.

The Government has given a commitment to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the DETR has consulted widely on this. The CIEH has provided a full response to the consultation and has also drafted a "model licensing scheme" setting out general principals in relation to design, construction, maintenance and management as well as detailed space and amenity standards and fire safety requirements. A copy of the scheme is included for your information.

The NI Centre would wish to see the Committee recommend that the proposed legislative changes be brought forward locally as a matter of urgency notwithstanding that the Government has yet to give effect to the proposals in England and Wales. The NI Centre fell this is particularly important in light of the Housing Executive's proposed voluntary licensing scheme which is unlikely to adequately address the worst HMOs which often house the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

Regulator of Standards in Houses in Multiple Occupation

The NI Centre has previously expressed concern regarding the Housing Executive's conflicting roles as the province's largest landlord whilst simultaneously being responsible for regulating standards in the private rented sector. The Housing Executive's draft strategy on HMOs shows that since 1993 a total of 893 notices have been served, yet only 267 grant schemes have been completed. This leaves a shortfall of 626 notices with only 7 prosecutions for non-compliance. Based on this information the Housing Executive appears to be operating a primarily grant led strategy. They should however be targeting need on a "worst first" basis and backing it up by a pro-active policy of enforcement against those landlords who fail to protect the health and safety of their tenants. This apparent landlord focused approach to enforcement in the Private Rented Sector appears to be consistent with the Housing Executive's' reluctance to serve Repair Notices on landlords of unfit property.

Regulator of HMO Standards

As with the fitness standard the NI Centre believe that the Housing Executive should be relieved of its regulatory role in relation to the privately rented sector. The NI Centre consider that District Councils, through their Environmental Health Departments, provide the appropriate independence to fulfil this regulatory role. EHOs working within District Councils have the necessary training and experience to assess health risks and to identify enforcement priorities so that the most dangerous properties are addressed first. A discretionary HMO grant from the Housing Executive should be used to facilitate these landlords in complying with their statutory obligation rather than as in inducement which they may or may not accept. In addition to the above, a transfer of these regulatory functions would provide District Councils with greater democratic accountability in the field of housing without in any way undermining the Housing Executive's strategic role as the province's Housing Authority.

Houses in Disrepair but not Unfit

Local authorities in England and Wales have the power to require a landlord to effect repairs to those of their properties which are in disrepair but no unfit (s 190 Housing Act 1985). Such a provision gives to local authorities the ability to prevent houses from falling into unfitness. These provisions however were never extended to Northern Ireland where District Councils can usually only address disrepair through the Public Health Acts. It should also be noted that public health notices can only be served, in respect of disrepair, where it is giving rise to risk of disease or illness and not to risk of physical injury. The NI Centre would therefore wish to see similar powers to those of s 190 of the Housing Act 1985 being granted to Northern Ireland District Councils.

Best Value in Housing

The Government's agenda for modernising local government includes a commitment to introduce and secure Best Value for local authority services. The DETR's Best Value in Housing Framework stresses "the need to embrace innovation and new approaches; and above all, determination to do better". The NI Centre consider the novel suggestion that District Councils should be the regulators of housing standards and the arbiters of the fitness standard embraces the principles of Best Value in that;

it releases the Housing Executive from its present poacher/gamekeeper role;

it ensures that the law relating to health and safety in housing is enforced by environmental health professionals;

it allows the Housing Executive to focus on its strategic role and the maintenance of its own stock;

it introduces greater democratic accountability into the field of housing; and

it encourages closer working relationships between the Housing Executive and District Councils.

Rent (NI) Order 1978

The Rent (NI) Order 1978 is the primary statute governing protected tenancies. There are a number of issues relating to this legislation that the NI Centre would wish to see addressed, however, it is our understanding that the Minister for Social Development has recently convened a working group to review this legislation. We trust therefore that there will be an opportunity to input our views to any subsequent consultation.

Notwithstanding the above however the Rent Order does address some broader issues. For example, it requires all landlords, including the Housing Executive, to provide their tenants with rent books, and appropriate Regulations have been enacted. The Rent Order however does not designate any enforcing authority for these provisions and, as such, many landlords ignore these requirements. The NI Centre would therefore recommend that an amendment of the Rent Order be included in the Housing Bill designating district councils as the enforcing authority for the Rent Book Regulations. This would not only provide tenants with greater security of tenure but would also facilitate many of the investigations carried out by district council Environmental Health Departments into allegations of harassment of unlawful eviction.

Conclusion

Whilst a decent home is a fundamental right of everyone the reality is that the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members in society are usually concentrated in the poorest housing. Their vulnerability often makes them doubly disadvantaged in that not only is their health, safety and welfare compromised by their living conditions but they have little or no protection against uncaring or unscrupulous landlords. The Government acknowledges that too many people live in poor quality housing or find that their landlord, private or public, does not provide a proper service. The NI Centre therefore would wish to see a comprehensive legislative framework for housing which encompasses appropriate controls to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Within this framework there should also be designated regulatory authorities with the expertise, the desire and the independence to ensure that those who refuse to provide satisfactory housing for their tenants are held to account.

The NI Centre believe that district council Environmental Health Departments should now have an expanded role in housing. At first view the recommendation that the regulation of housing standards should be a district council function may appear radical however it is central to the NI Centre's current housing policy in Northern Ireland. The NI Centre believes that it embraces the Government's vision of Best Value in public services in that it brings accountability in housing closer to the people, it ensures that judgements relating to health and safety in housing are made by Environmental Health professionals, it allows for greater transparency for those housing policies that impact directly on the most vulnerable members of society, it forces the statutory authorities to apply practical joined-up and strategic policies and it provides local solutions to local issues.

Enclosures

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health response to the Government Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all".

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health "Houses in Multiple Occupation: - model licensing scheme"

Summary of Recommendations

Discretionary, means tested, grants should be available for work carried out under Public Health Notices.

Mandatory, non-means tested, Repairs Grants should continue to be available in respect of tenancies protected under the Rent (NI) Order 1978, for work carried out under Public Health Notices and Certificates of Disrepair.

District councils should be the sole arbiters of the statutory fitness standard.

There should be a new definition of HMO.

The Northern Ireland Assembly should introduce mandatory licensing of HMOs as a matter of priority.

District councils should be designated as the regulators of standards in HMOs.

Provisions similar to those contained in s 190 of the Housing Act 1985 for dealing with disrepair in otherwise fit houses should be made available to district councils in Northern Ireland.

District councils should be designated as the enforcing authority for the Rent Book Regulations under the Rent (NI) Order 1978.

top

Written Submission by:
HEARTH HOUSING ASSOCIATION

22 February 2001

Thank you for your letter of 15 February asking for comments on some of the points to be covered by the forthcoming Housing Bill. The first two points on which you are seeking comments do not affect our housing association directly, and we should have more substantive comments on the remaining sections.

Private Sector Renewal

We would welcome the move to discretionary grants, as at present people with limited means are sometimes faced with the choice of continuing with sub-standard conditions on carrying out major expensive and disruptive works to their houses. Where conditions are particularly bad they will be faced with closing orders and having to leave their houses instead of being able to improve them incrementally according to their needs and preferences.

Discretionary grants will enable occupants of bad housing to tackle serious problems without having to change elements about which they may be relatively happy, and to target their contribution towards the works they really need.

It is not clear from your letter what is proposed for group repair scheme, but again if this allows people to improve their housing conditions without making alterations they do not want to make it should be an improvement on the present system.

One of the major faults with improvements schemes has been their tendency to require replacement of components that are perfectly capable of repair. The resources wasted in replacement of sash windows and natural slate roofs over the years have been particularly unfortunate, both in terms of aesthetic change and of environmental sustainability. In many cases such elements are capable of repair rather than needing wholesale replacement.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

It appears that this measure is more by way of being a study of existing problems than a proposal to make changes.

While appreciating that many HMOs are poorly managed and need supervision regarding fire safety etc, we have been concerned at the effect of blanket requirements on buildings in this sector as with individual private houses. Many HMOs are substantial buildings of architectural character (whether they are formally listed or not), and officers responsible for monitoring them should be made aware of aspects of historic or aesthetic interest which could be retained in a sympathetic and flexible application of standards but are easily lost in a more standardised approach.

We look forward to commenting on other aspects of this Bill in due course.

MARCUS PATTON

top

Written Submission by:
NORTH BELFAST MISSION HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

22 February 2001

I refer to your letter of 13 February 2001 inviting the Society to comment on certain aspects of housing in Northern Ireland. With reference to the areas highlighted, I would make the following comments:-

1. Private Sector Renewal

I would welcome the proposal to investigate the current NI proposals to move from mandatory to discretionary grants schemes and group repair schemes. It would also be beneficial to conduct appropriate comparisons with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

2. HMOs and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Again I would welcome the examination of current NI Law and Policy with comparison to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

The Society has recently responded to the Housing Executive's Consultation document on the voluntary Licensing of HMOs. Our own Residential Home in East Belfast is subject to independent Monitoring and Regulation by Registration and Inspection Unit. We believe this type of registration and 'regulation' has many positive benefits for all parties, particularly tenants/residents whose safety and well-being must be paramount.

We do also recognise that the voluntary licensing will not get all owners/managers of HMOs to register however it is a starting point from which to build.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on elements of the proposed Housing Bill and look forward to having a similar opportunity to do so on other elements, in due course.

L McADAMS
Chief Executive

top

Written Submission by:
THE NORTHERN IRELAND FEDERATION OF
HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

HOUSE SALES SCHEMES FOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS
IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Draft For Discussion - February 2001

14 February 2001

1. Introduction

This paper aims to outline the Federation's initial views on a statutory scheme to help tenants of housing associations to become home owners. A more detailed policy statement on sales to sitting tenants will be issued after considering the results of independent research commissioned by the NIFHA and due to be completed by October 2001.

2. Background

The Department for Social Development is proposing to introduce legislation in Northern Ireland that will allow tenants of registered housing associations the same right to purchase their home as currently exists for Housing Executive tenants.

The DSD letter dated 27th September 2000 about the proposed Housing Bill (Northern Ireland) 2000 states:

"A voluntary sales scheme for housing association tenants, similar in design to the Housing Executive's House Sales Scheme, has been in operation for some time. As an incentive, the Department allows associations which sell houses to retain the proceeds and also provides them with a voluntary purchase grant to make up the difference between the sale price (which includes a discount) and the market value. Some associations have decided not to operate the voluntary scheme because of financial implications. However, housing associations now build the majority of new social housing and it is therefore proposed that housing association tenants should have the same statutory right to buy as Housing Executive tenants. The policy objective is that all tenants of social housing should have the same right to buy their homes."

3. Federation's View

The housing association movement in Northern Ireland fully supports the aspiration of individual tenants to become owner occupiers.

However, it is essential that the DSD, the Housing Executive and housing associations take a more strategic view of the existing NIHE house sales policy and its implications for the well being of all the people of Northern Ireland.

A new sales policy for social housing tenants should:

1. Meet housing need and retain sufficient stock to offer adequate choice to people who can not or do not want to become owner occupiers.

2. Not compromise the financial viability of housing associations or put the repayment of private loans at risk.

3. Contribute to achieving greater tenure mix.

The NIHE's sales policy is now in its twenty-first year and the Federation feels that, like the former MIRAS tax relief scheme for owner occupiers, which was phased out over a number of years, the NIHE's sales policy should be fundamentally reviewed.

In particular, housing associations believe the scheme fails to take account of:

(a) the shortage of social housing in key areas eg West and North Belfast. This is so severe that the NIHE and housing associations have had to repurchase former NIHE properties to meet demand in certain areas;

(b) the need to ensure that housing associations remain financially viable due to discounted sales to tenants. The possible adverse financial impact of discounted sales to sitting tenants was acknowledged by the Department as a major concern in section 2.4 of Circular HAC 04/98 "The Voluntary Sales Scheme";

(d) questions about the fairness of a scheme which awards bigger discounts to tenants living in high-value areas than to those in low-value areas; and

(e) the value for money which the scheme is giving the taxpayer.

4. Alternative Schemes

To address these concerns the Federation is developing alternative schemes for discussion with the DSD. Option 1 is a modified version of the NIHE's scheme and Option 2 takes a more radical approach. NIFHA will be glad to consider other alternatives.

5. Option 1: Modified NIHE Scheme

5.1 Discount

(a) Both houses and flats should qualify for the same level of discount. The rationale for applying a two tier system of discounts is very questionable.

(b) Discounts should begin at 30% but only after 2 years' tenancy (as with the Right to Buy in Britain) and continue by 1% (no 31%) up to 50% discount with a cash ceiling of £40,000 maximum. This would discourage some of the abuses associated with joint purchases in the current NIHE scheme.

5.2 Cost Floor

In addition to the cost floor rule, no property should be sold for less than the amount of loan outstanding on it.

5.3 High Demand Areas

There is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that in key parts of the housing market homeless applicants can no longer be rehoused within a reasonable period of time. Tenants of associations in high demand areas should only be offered transferable discounts equal, in cash terms, to the discount that would otherwise apply to their present home. A high demand area would be defined as one where most full duty homeless applicant (FDA or equivalent) on the waiting list cannot be rehoused within a 1-year period.

5.4 Exemptions

Associations would have discretion to apply exemptions, for example:

(a) all sheltered accommodation*;

(b) all specialist accommodation*;

(d) all foyers;

(e) existing mixed funded properties;

(f) all small housing associations (<100 dwellings);

(g) all tenants with more than 4 weeks' arrears;

(h) all squatters*;

(i) all temporary lettings*;

(j) all rural dwellings; and

(k) accommodation inextricably linked with communal areas/facilities.

Those marked * are currently excluded from the Housing Executive's scheme.

6. Option 2: Right to a Purchase Grant

6.1 Many of the complications and anomalies of the NIHE sales scheme flow from the fact that it combines two sets of factors:

factors relating to the dwelling (eg market value, historic costs, design); and

factors relating to the tenant (eg number of years of social housing tenancy).

6.2 In contrast, Option 2 is entirely based on factors relating to the tenant. Apart from any who were not conducting their tenancy in a satisfactory manner, tenants of more than a certain number of years' standing would be eligible for a purchase grant which would increase with each year of social housing tenancy, up to a maximum figure. The figures used in this formula should be reviewed annually. No tenant would be allowed more than one Purchase Grant.

6.3 The tenant could use the Purchase Grant to buy his or her:

present home (subject to the consent of the housing association);

another vacant dwelling in the housing association's stock (subject to the associations' consent); and

a dwelling on the open market.

In every case, the dwelling would be purchased at its vacant possession market value.

6.4 The ex-tenant would be required to repay a proportion of the Purchase Grant if he or she sold the property within five years.

6.5 Advantages of Option 2 include its:

(a) equal treatment of all tenants (including those occupying specialised dwellings);

(b) administrative simplicity;

(d) suitability for both mixed funded and publicly funded dwellings; and

(e) ease of extension to NIHE tenants.

6.6 The cost of Purchase Grants should be met by government and the proceed from sales (net of an allowance for the association's administrative costs, legal fees, etc) should be sent to the government.

7. Comments

The Federation welcomes comments on this paper, in the first instance from housing associations. After revision, if appropriate, NIFHA intends to discuss it with the DSD, the Housing Executive, the Chartered Institute of Housing and other interested parties.

top

GRAHAM MURTON

Written Submission by:
NEWTOWNABBEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

In general the Council would like to see landlords, owners, managing agents, managers, tenants, statutory and voluntary agencies agreeing to compulsory licensing and inspection as a means to increase both the standards of accommodation and management of same, safeguards established for vulnerable groups and a partnership approach to all aspects of accommodation for the mutual benefit of all.

In particular the Council wish the Social Development Committee to consider the following points with regard to the proposed Housing Bill.

1. Compulsory licensing should be introduced for all rented/leased accommodation as a means to increase standards.

2. In the public sector separate organisations should be established to control the allocation of accommodation and appeals.

3. The organisation hearing appeals should have a wider range of representation to include members of the Health and Social Services Councils and District Councils.

4. All accommodation should be inspected once it becomes vacant and also be subject to random inspections.

5. Safeguards need to be established, where they do not already exist, to protect vulnerable members of the community.

6. Owners and managers must be responsible for all aspects of the renting/leasing sector particularly with regard to liability insurance. They should also establish closer and formal relationships with groups like the Fire Service and Environmental Health departments of local Councils.

7. Tenants charters to an agreed standard should be established to inform tenants of their responsibilities particularly with regard to Health and Safety.

8. There is a need to establish formal managerial standards and a system of accreditation.

9. There is a need to have compulsory more stringent annual inspections for accommodation of a higher risk category.

10. The Council is against any self certification process of acceptable standards of accommodation. Any assessment of suitability must be carried out by independent assessors.

11. The Licensing Authority and any Review Panel should be widely representative of the community and include representatives of local Councils.

12. The Inspecting Body should be independent of the Licensing Authority.

13. Any register of properly licensed accommodation should be widely available.

top

Written Submission by:
OPEN DOOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION (Northern IRELAND) ltd

Since the main thrust of our Associations work is concerned with assisting people with severe housing difficulties we would wish to concentrate our submissions on the last two topics the Committee is considering, Anti-Social Behaviour and Homelessness. However since many of the factors which lead to extreme housing difficulties are linked to general conditions we would also wish to comment briefly on the other items under consideration and offer the following points for consideration with respect to the Private Sector Renewal and HMO's and the Private Rented Sector.

Before doing this however we would also like to take the opportunity to make a general comment with respect to the topics under consideration and the processes of examining these topics. Firstly it is our understanding that the proposed Housing Bill to which this matter relates is a piece of consolidating legislation intended to 'tidy up' the parity situation with respect to Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. If this is the case it might have been better to use the opportunity to undertake a wider examination of the appropriateness of the legislation overall to the local context (including additional proposals) rather than embark on a technical appraisal of the bits of the proposed Bill in a piece-by-piece fashion.

With respect to the two topics currently being considered we would have the following comments: Any move from mandatory to discretionary grants would be best applied in the context of a clear targeting framework particularly with respect to new TSN. It would also be given a better degree of impact and possible uptake if it were to be applied in the context of a specialist independent appeal framework so that those working up grant applications for a discretionary system could feel confidence in having their work fully and properly dealt with. This latter approach could also be usefully applied in other contexts such as selection appeals for social housing applicants. It might also be considered in relation to any proposals to introduce a local version of the Housing Inspectorate now established in England & Wales. Finally any proposals to link renewal grant eligibility to some form of standards regulation might be usefully expanded into a form of housing 'MOT' which could fit in with the current Westminster governments drive on simplifying and standardising documentation for house sales.

Regarding Houses in Multiple Occupation and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector this is an area, which has had some very adverse effects on low-income tenants particularly single people. We would suggest that perhaps the best approach the committee could consider would be to look at the introduction of some form of statutorily enforceable rights to security of tenure. This would enable tenants to come forward with complaints without fear of eviction especially in the HMO sector where the registration process is largely driven by tenants raising queries and complaints about their homes. With respect to rent levels and rent regulations we fell it would be worth exploring mechanisms foe linking rent levels in the public and private sector it would also be important in this context to have regard to other factors such as the National Minimum Wage, in order to avoid poverty trap conditions occurring. One formula for affordability for example would be rent norm of 25% of the NMW. Finally where as in North Belfast the NIHE, see the private sector as the primary source of future supply for singles (the largest group on their current waiting list) there should be a required linkage to affordability considerations such as outlined above.

Top