We must keep the power to force repairs

No council wants its private sector homes to get so unsafe that they have to be knocked down. Since 1969, they have been able to require repairs to stop this happening, a power incorporated into Section 190 (1) (a) of the 1985 Housing Act. But ministers hope to use the Housing Bill that is now passing through parliament to remove this power.

Many works on problems that would contribute to eventual structural failure would then no longer be enforceable – failed pointing that has not yet led to water penetration, for example. This power is very relevant to regeneration and would have a dire effect on renewal in areas such as Newham, the east London borough in which I work.

Back in the mid-1990s, it was a place where those who could afford to choose did not choose to stay. Increasingly, the conversion of central London bedsits into flats was displacing those looking for this cheapest form of rented housing to Newham, particularly the Forest Gate area. “Patch and mend” was enough to satisfy these transient tenants, but the whole area declined.

In the early 1990s, Newham had London’s largest renovation grants budget but it could never afford to buy its way out. The scale of the problem was just too big. In any case, giving grants to landlords often had the effect of discouraging repair until a grant was paid.

So Newham was one of the first London boroughs to use the freedoms provided by the 1996 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act to abolish grants to landlords unless there were exceptional circumstances or benefits to regeneration.

Instead, it instituted London’s largest ever programme of market renewal involving its only housing regeneration company, Passmore Urban Renewal. An area approach to the Forest Gate area harnessed environmental health enforcement and town centre planning officers to work with Passmore and partner registered social landlords to make a once-and-for-all improvement to the area.

A once-and-for-all strategy
Owners of empty homes were encouraged to bring their property back into use themselves, or through sale either on the open market or to partner RSLs.

Where such encouragement did not work, the property could eventually be acquired through compulsory purchase and transferred to an RSL. Between July 2000 and June 2004, 1460 empty properties have been inspected and 633 brought back to use. Meanwhile, 100 compulsory purchases have been approved and 15 properties actually acquired through compulsory purchase and passed on to Passmore and its RSL partners.

Many works would no longer be enforceable – failed pointing that has not yet let to water penetration, for example

Landlords of houses in multiple occupation were covered by a registration scheme that ensured each was surveyed and landlords given a costed schedule of the works required to meet legal requirements, including those of Section 190 (1) (a).

Once landlords knew the council meant business, improvements were made and 110 HMOs are now fully registered, with a further 200 nearing completion.

As Sir Robin Wales, mayor of Newham and chair of the Association of London Government, notes, this intensive approach was essential. Compulsory purchase seems an expensive option until you take into account that the cycle of revisits for minor improvements is broken once and for all.

Indeed, analysis of outcomes suggests that the programme is good value for money because the investment generated from private owners and RSL partners much exceeds any conceivable grant investment.

An average investment of £24,000 per property has led to total investment in 1550 properties in Forest Gate, to a value of £36.6m over the life of the programme.

But the approach has made limited use of repair notices served under Section 190 (1) (a), so why should the repeal of these powers affect the work? Well, whether working with landlords or seeking compulsory purchase, we specify that the level of repair must attain the standard required by 190 (1) (a). We can’t deliver the council’s vision for the area if we just meet minimum safety standards in homes that are still crumbling away.

A “probing” amendment from the Association of London Government, tabled by Lord Harris last week, proposed retaining the powers to deal with serious disrepair. “Patch and mend” is not enough. We will continue to press ministers that we need the powers to do the job properly.