Presentation On: The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Working for success in the public sector

The Development of HHSRS Research and Reviews Monitoring of fitness introduced in 1989 Reported on in 1993 and highlighted some shortfalls in Fitness Standard – e.g. arrangement, noise, fire, radon, falls could not be accounted for. Legislative anomalies identified LA’s simply not coping with extent of unfitness Building regulation reports on health and safety in housing (1995) Reported that main health and safety risks not identified in Fitness Standard Used Risk Assessment techniques to report findings.

The Birth of HHSRS 1998 – Government commissions development 2000 – HHSRS Version 1 released 2003 – Evaluation and review 2003 – Application of HHSRS to HMOs reviewed 2003 – Statistical evidence published 2003 – Draft version 2 issued for consultation 2004 – Finalised version 2 published and Housing Act receives Royal Assent

Weaknesses of Fitness Standard Dwellings are either fit or unfit – there is no middle ground The distribution of unhealthy housing does not follow this sort of pattern Some dwellings will be VERY unfit, others just unfit Some dwellings will be completely satisfactory either only just acceptable Fitness does not compare one category to another – it does not say whether an unfit kitchen is better or worse than an unfit bathroom It does not measure the true impact of the identified defect but only the fact that it is there. It is a standard and therefore prescriptive. It does not measure for many typical health and safety issues in housing

Advantages of a Rating System Can include all health and safety hazards Allows for hazards to be graded according to severity Can be applied to all dwellings The statistical evidence can be updated as research continues Provides a more structured approach to an assessment – how likely is a health and safety threat AND how dangerous is it likely to be – a Risk Assessment approach

The Principle Any dwelling including the structure and outbuildings, it’s garden and fencing, amenity space and any shared facility or access, should provide a safe and healthy environment for the occupier and any visitors

The Aims of a Rating System To rate the EFFECT and not the DEFECT To rate how serious the effect may be on health and safety To be supportable by evidence To be practical to apply To be legally sound and acceptable

Potential Housing Hazards Arranged into four groups: A - Physiological Requirements B - Psychological Requirements C - Protection Against Infection D - Protection Against Accidents

The 29 Hazards Identified A. Physiological Requirements Damp and mould growth etc Excessive cold Excessive heat Asbestos (and MMF) Biocides CO & Fuel combustion products Lead Radiation Uncombusted fuel gas VOCs B. Psychological Requirements Crowding and space Entry by intruders Lighting Noise

The 29 Hazards Identified D. Protection Against Accidents Falls associated with baths etc Falls on the level Falls associated with stairs and steps Falls between levels (e.g. from windows), Electrical hazards Fire Hot surfaces and materials Collision and entrapment Explosions Poor ergonomics Structural collapse and falling elements C. Protection Against Infection Domestic hygiene, pests & refuse Food safety Personal hygiene sanitation & drainage Water supply

Rating Different Hazards Using statistical data from actual events allows us to: Compare widely different hazards Assess for both frequency of occurrence and health outcome and combine these two factors Present a structured argument based on an assessment and published evidence

Generating a Hazard Score This relies on three sets of figures: The LIKELIHOOD of an event occurring The HARM OUTCOMES likely to result from that event A WEIGHTING of different outcomes depending on their severity

Likelihood The likelihood of an occurrence over the next twelve months which could cause harm to health and safety. An ‘occurrence’ can be a one off event or a period of exposure Likelihood is expressed as a ratio – e.g. 1 in 560, 1 in 180, 1 in 6 A Caveat Likelihood is always assessed for the vulnerable group i.e. those most likely to be victim of such an occurrence

Harm The possible health outcome from an occurrence, whether temporary or permanent. This can be any adverse physical or mental effect on the health of a person, and any effect on their social well-being. A Caveat The health outcome is one that requires medical intervention – the statistics are based on reported incidents, and of course very minor harm in the home is not reported.

Spread of Harms Class I – Extreme Class II – Severe Harm outcomes requiring medical attention vary widely from death to moderate cuts or severe bruising, therefore there is a classification: The four main classes of harm are ~ Class I – Extreme Class II – Severe Class III – Serious Class IV – Moderate These classifications have been set by medical experts according to the degree of incapacity they cause

Class of Harm Weightings Weighting given to each class of harm to reflect degree of incapacity Class of Harm Weighting I Extreme 10,000 II Severe 1,000 III Serious 300 IV Moderate 10

Class of Harm & Weighting The Formula Class of Harm & Weighting Likelihood Spread of Harms (%) Product I 10000 ÷ L X O1 = S1 II 1000 O2 S2 III 300 O3 S3 IV 10 O4 S4 Hazard Score = S1 + S2 + S3 + S4

Assessment of a fall out of a window to a ground floor room: An Example Assessment of a fall out of a window to a ground floor room: Likelihood - 1 in 18 ( considered quite likely to happen) Spread of harm outcomes - Class I - 0% death judged very unlikely Class II - 10% chance of serious fractures Class III - 30% chance of severe concussion Class IV - 60% chance of severe bruising

The Calculation Class of Harm Weightings Likelihood Spread 10,000 ÷ 18 x = 1,000 10 556 300 30 500 60 34 Hazard Score 1,090

Assessment of a fall out of a window to a fifth floor room: A Comparative Example Assessment of a fall out of a window to a fifth floor room: Likelihood - 1 in 180 ( Considered much less likely than the first example) Spread of harm outcomes - Class I - 50% chance of death Class II - 30% chance of serious fractures Class III - 20% chance of severe concussion Class IV - 0% severe bruising judge very unlikely The outcomes are assessed as more serious due to the window location

The Calculation Class of Harm Weightings Likelihood Spread 10,000 ÷ 180 x 50 = 2,778 1,000 30 167 300 20 34 10 Hazard Score 2,979

Banding of Scores Calculated 5,000 or more B 2,000 – 4,999 C 1,000 – 1,999 D E F G H I J 500 – 999 200 – 499 100 – 199 50 – 99 20 – 49 10 – 19 9 or less

SESSION 2 - The Guidance

The Guidance Introduction Terminology Overview of rating Assessment of conditions using HHSRS Flats and multi-occupied buildings Annexes

The Annexes Landlord’s responsibility Suggested survey procedure Examples of the four HHSRS classes of harm Hazard profiles Selected references and sources of further information

How to Judge the Likelihood Matters to account for: The vulnerable group Relevant matters affecting the likelihood – refer to Guidance and identified deficiencies from the assessment. Where is the deficiency sited and what is the exposure to it. How different is the condition from an Ideal What is the average likelihood given in the Guidance

How to Judge the Outcomes What are the relevant factors – are there secondary hazards? How different are these secondary hazards from an Ideal Where is the deficiency located – might this influence the outcome? What are the average spread of harms from the Guidance

The ODPM Worked Examples Laid out in 2 pages: Page 1 describes the dwelling and details the deficiencies relating to the particular hazard Page 2 shows the working of scoring the hazard, and suggested remedial works and the subsequent re-assessment

For Example

Falls: on level, Associated with Stairs and Steps, and Between levels Foot of stairs/entry to kitchen Ground to first floor stairs First to second floor stairs Roof garden fence Roof garden

Description of Hazard Ground floor to 1st floor stairs are not steep but are not fixed to the r/h wall and move when used. The handrail is fixed only top and bottom. 1st floor to 2nd floor stairs are steep/winding and have no hand-railing at all. The door at the top opens onto the top flight. The kitchen and bathroom amenities are all on the ground floor, the living room is on the 1st floor and the bedroom is on the 2nd floor. Decking to roof garden is approx 0.4 m off the roof level. The roof surface is asphalt with a grit coating. The fence overlooks the waste tip and car-park area of the adjacent wood yard and the fence itself is rotting. Dwelling is a pre -1919 terraced house

Falls associated with stairs and steps (vulnerable group over 60) Model Answers Falls associated with stairs and steps (vulnerable group over 60) Likelihood = 1 in 10 ( average = 1 in 180) Outcomes: Class 1 = 4.6 (average = 2.2) Class 2 = 21.5 (average = 10) Class 3 = 31.6 ( average = 21.5) Class 4 = 42.3 Score = 7740 Band A ( average = 169 Band F) Justification: There are multiple flights of stairs and steps, none of which is adequately protected. The lower stairs are also loose, and the upper stairs are steep, uneven and winding and the bedroom door at the top opens outwards onto them. The arrangement of the rooms is such that all flights will be in regular use. The presence of the radiator and stub wall at the ground floor, the protruding shelf and constructional detail on the upper stairs and the highly abrasive nature of the surface to the roof garden, all indicate an increase in the harm outcomes as a result of a fall on these stairs and steps.

Falls on the level ( vulnerable group over 60s) Model Answers Falls on the level ( vulnerable group over 60s) Likelihood: 1 in 56( average = 1 in 100) Outcomes: Class 1 = 0.2, Class 2 = 10, Class 3 = 31.6, Class 4 = 58.2 all unchanged Score = 394 Band E ( average = 198 Band F) Justification: The threshold to the kitchen and the protruding bottom step of the stairs that crosses this are an awkward arrangement likely to increase the likelihood of a fall. This location is however the only trip step in the dwelling. Although the surrounding surfaces are not carpeted, they are not sufficiently hard or abrasive enough to justify increasing the harm outcomes.

Falls Between levels ( vulnerable group under 5s) Model Answers Falls Between levels ( vulnerable group under 5s) Likelihood: 1 in 10 ( average = 1 in 1800) Outcomes: Class 1 = 2.2 ( average = 0.1) Class 2 = 4.6 ( average = 0.0) Class 3 = 21.5 ( average = 10) Class 4 = 71.7 Score = 3377 Band B ( average = 2 Band J) Justification: The decking on the roof garden has no protection, but of considerably more concern is the rotting, and climbable fencing overlooking the neighbouring wood yard. This is easily accessed by members of the vulnerable group and a curiosity regarding the activity in the wood yard may also tempt young children to climb the fence. The abrasive nature of the roof garden surface, and the fact that off-cuts of timber are stored immediately below the fence, and that vehicles use this area, all contribute to an increase in the harm outcomes

Enforcement Housing Act 2004 is very much an enabling Act - detail contained in secondary legislation Part 1 does not actually refer to HHSRS – “new system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards” The Regulations and the Guidance made under Part 1 set this out in detail Remember that HHSRS is not a standard Method of assessment which generates evidence on which action/intervention can be justified

Review of Housing Conditions LHAs required to keep housing stock under review and to identify any action – largely informed by inspections Inspector must Have regard to the guidance under s9 Prepare an accurate and detailed record of findings Purpose is to determine whether any HHSRS hazards exist

Inspections Good practice to survey whole of premises Regulations require Inspector to: Have regard to the Guidance under S9 Prepare an accurate and detailed record of findings Whatever the basis for the inspection, premises should be surveyed to determine whether Cat 1 or Cat 2 hazards exist The actual subject matter of the complaint does not matter – should inspect for all hazards

Enforcement Guidance Statutory basis and LHAs must have regard to it (s9) Replaces Annex B of DoE Circular 17/96 and DoE Circular 12/92 (HMOs)

Enforcement Concordat Set clear standards Have clear and open provision of information Help landlords by advising on and assisting with compliance Have a clear complaints procedure Ensure enforcement action is proportionate to the risks involved Ensure consistent enforcement practice

A Strategic Approach Particular issue will be the use of discretionary power Duty to deal with Category 1 hazards but power to deal with Category 2 hazards Blanket policy not to take action in respect of Category 2 hazards open to challenge Decision rules should be put in place, but each case should be judged on its own merits

HHSRS rating and Action Stage 1 – determine hazard score(s) Stage 2 – in light of score does LHA have duty or power to consider action Stage 3 – what is the most appropriate means of dealing with hazard(s)

Options for Action Improvement Notice (s11) Prohibition Order (s20) Hazard Awareness Notice (s28) Emergency remedial action (s40) Emergency Prohibition Order (s43) Demolition Order (s265 1985 Act as amended) Clearance Area (s289 1985 Act as amended)

Some points to note Cannot take >1 action simultaneously for same hazard Can take same or different course for same hazard subsequently if initial action failed Emergency remedial action – single course of action Category 2 Hazards – Emergency remedial action, Demolition and Clearance not available

Matters to consider Action should be proportionate Multiple hazards may indicate run-down property Current occupants and regular visitors Vulnerability Occupancy likely to change Social exclusion Views of occupants

Statement of Reasons Required by s8 Copy must accompany all notices and orders and copies of them For clearance areas to be published as soon as possible after resolution of declaration No prescribed form

Statement of Reasons Similar to Principal Grounds Echoes the obligations for justifications on likelihood and on spread of harms Stems from Human Rights Act Highly likely that will be referred to at any Residential Property Tribunal hearing NB Copy also served on Tenants

Improvement Notice Requires action to Remove Category 1 or 2 Hazard Same notice can deal with >1 hazard (whether Cat 1 or 2) Prevent recurrence within reasonable period Not available where Management Order under Part 4 Chap. 1 or 2

Improvement notice Must specify in respect of each hazard: Whether served under s.11 (Cat 1 hazard) or s.12 (Cat 2 hazard) Nature of hazard and the premises on which it exists Deficiency(ies) giving rise to the hazard Nature of remedial action and premises on which remedial action should be taken Date when remedial action to be started (not sooner than 28 days) & when to be completed (periods for which each part is to be completed) Can specify different times for different deficiencies NB Remedy for Cat 1 hazard must reduce to Cat 2

Prohibition Order May prohibit the use of part or all of premises May be appropriate where Remedial action unreasonable, impractical or unreasonably expensive May prohibit the use of part or all of premises for some or all purposes, or occupation by particular numbers or descriptions of people (vulnerable groups eg those over 65 years)

Hazard Awareness Notice Notice advising the person on whom it is served that Category 1 or Category 2 hazard(s) exist on the premises Content similar to Improvement Notice but No dates for the work to be started or completed No offence is committed if not complied with Must also include reasons for deciding to serve such a notice as the most appropriate course of action

Hazard Awareness Notice May be appropriate where Minor hazard Remedial action unreasonable, impractical or unreasonably expensive Landlord has agreed to remedial action Note – Does not prevent further formal action should unacceptable Hazard remain

HMOs and Multi-Occupied BUildings If Part 1 powers used for overcrowding inappropriate to use Part X of 1985 Act and/or Ss 139-144 of 2004 Act (under review) For licensable HMOs have to decide as soon as practicable (not later than 5 years after application) whether Part 1 duties or power to be applied Works to mitigate hazards should follow Part 1 procedures

Hmos and Multi-Occupied Buildings Where action is to be taken under Part 1 and a fire hazard exists LHA must consult Fire & Rescue Authority But, where emergency measures proposed, duty applies only so far as is reasonably practicable HHSRS not part of licensing criteria

Suspension Improvement Notice and Prohibition Order May be suspended until time or event specified Reviewed any time (not less than annually) Decision on review to be served on all persons originally served

Emergency Actions Available where Category 1 Hazard(s) + imminent risk of serious harm Options Remedial action Prohibition

Appeals and the RPT Right of appeal against notice, order or decision of LHA All appeals made to the Residential Property Tribunal No legal representation necessary

Powers of the RPT Can give directions for securing the “just and expeditious and economical disposal of the proceedings” (s.230) May confirm, quash or vary the Notice, Order or Decision Where alternative course of action is basis of appeal, RPT must have regard to s.9 guidance

Further Information Housing Act 2004 Enforcement Guidance Enforcement Regs ODPM web-site www.selondonhousing.org

Question Time Any Questions?

pps plc Thank You Working for success in the public sector