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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. SESSION 2 - The Guidance

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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. For Example

30. 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

31. 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 terraced house

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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)

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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)

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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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)

50. 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

51. 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

52. HMOs and Multi-Occupied BUildings
If Part 1 powers used for overcrowding inappropriate to use Part X of 1985 Act and/or Ss 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

53. 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

54. 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

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

56. 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

57. 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

58. Further Information Housing Act 2004 Enforcement Guidance
Enforcement Regs
ODPM web-site

59. Question Time
Any Questions?

60. pps plc
Thank You
Working for success in the public sector