Brent Renters put a passionate and powerful case to Brent Council for action on health hazards in the private rented sector

 

 

In a unique event in Brent, around 100 people gathered in Willesden yesterday to negotiate the demands of Brent Private Renters for action by Brent Council against landlords who failed to remedy damp and mould in their properties. The meeting was a mixture of a detailed questioning akin to a Scrutiny Meeting, and a US style Town Hall meeting with passionate testimonies by renters about their treatment at the hands of their landlords and Brent Council officers.

One contributor said that this was an attempt to hold the council to account and to their credit Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council and Cllr Promise Knight, Lead member for Housing, took on the challenge. It is a strategy that other campaigns may do well to sdopt.

The councillors and representatives from Brent Renters sat around a large table on the stage and the lively audience witnessed the proceedings from the floor. The recording below gives you a taste - it is dark because slides were projected to show the evidence that had been gathered.

 

 Images of damp and mould projected on the wall

It was clear that Brent Renters had managed to organise a very broad cross-section of the community and I was struck by the passion and eloquence of the several Somali women who spoke, sometimes in Somali, with controlled righteous anger about their experiences.

Brent Renters had set out the basic facts and their demands:

Most of the Private Rented housing stock in Brent is old and very badly maintained. 65.7% is preWWII (relating to more than 100,000 residents), much of that 19th century. Landlords have no incentive to do repairs when the power to evict is so great, the demand is so high, and the punishment is so lacking.

 

The council estimates that 10,108 family homes have a serious health hazard in them, In the areas with the most dangerous housing (those that a selective licensing scheme has just been agreed within - Willesden Green, Dollis Hill, and Harlesden and Kensal Green) the council aims to deal with at most 10% of the most serious hazards this year.

. 

In the vast majority of the borough (everywhere outside Wembley Park) 1 in every 5 private rented homes contains a serious danger to the health and safety of tenants, more than double the London average (9%).

 

In the worst wards, there are an estimated 2374 properties with at least one Category 1 hazard. The council’s plans for this year involve dealing with 250 hazards of any severity- many properties have multiple hazards, and many hazards are category 2, so in fact the council is likely to make far less than 10% of these properties free from serious risk this year.

 

It’s outrageous that many of us are paying £2000 a month in rent to get asthma and mould poisoning - our housing shouldn’t make us sick.

 

We are all paying the price for dangerous housing. Because landlords aren’t reinvesting rental income into maintaining their properties, taxpayers are footing the NHS bill for the health problems they are causing. We can’t go through another winter like the last - our children deserve better.

 

Poor housing cost the NHS £340 million last year. The average cost of dealing with damp in a property is £3590 (BRE report). The total annual cost to the NHS is over £38 million, which would be paid back within 7 years were damp to be remediated. The total annual cost to society of damp is £96 million, which would be paid back within 2.8 years.

 

Brent Council must:

 

○      Agree a timeline with the London Renters Union for dealing with the 10,000 unsafe private rented homes in Brent, and recruit the staff to do it.

○      Ensure that Environmental Health cases can never be closed before sending a report on what has been done to the tenant and confirming it with them.

○      Make interpretation available for the PRS enforcement team, especially in,  Arabic, Somali, Portuguese, Romanian, Urdu and Hindi.

○      Inspect ALL properties where a landlord has applied for a licence within 1 year, instead of 50% over 5 years.

○      Issue Improvement Notices that protect us from eviction while dealing with disrepair, and fine the landlords that refuse to fix up.

 

The renters wanted faster action on the Category 1 homes that include a danger to life and pointed out that many homes have multiple hazards at Category 2. Renters spoke out about their own illnesses and those of their children as a result of damp and mould and the sometimes unhelpful assessments that has been made. One example was a claim by officers that the condition of one property was due to 'condensation' when they had been sent video of a leak.

 

 

Responding Cllr Butt referred to government cuts in council funding and £18m savingsthe council had to make. Cllr Knight said that the council were going to increase the number of enforcement officers by double the existing number (12 instead of 4) which would enable more inspections to be made.  Cllr Butt said that rather than instantly fine landlords they had to give them the chance to remedy defects.

Renters said that upping the number of fines would raise funds that the council could reinvest in enforcement, creating an income stream enabling employment of more enforcement officers. At present monies raised were not reinvested in the service. They also suggested an extension of landlord licensing across the borough and a higher licensing charge in line with other boroughs (£640 vs £750).  Muhammed Butt said the 2024-25 budget was in the first stages of drafting and without promising anything he would look at the possibiltiies.

It was clear from the contributions that intimidation from landlords and threat of eviction if they complained was a real problem. If evicted, homeless families then had to deal with housing officers who had a huge workload. The council was urged, 'Put more people out there so officers  are not so over-stretched that they treat people badly.'

At present the licensing system covers only three wards: Harlesden and Kensal Green, Willesden Green and Dollis Hill. Renters wanted to see the number increased but Prmise Knight said that this would have to be agreed by the Secretary of State. She urged that residents provide evidence to the council to help them make their case.

800 people have signed the Brent Renters petition and this shows the strength of feeling. One renter summed up, 'People have complained and feel like Brent Council doesn't listen to them. Perhaps, here today, maybe they are listening.'

LINK TO THE PETITION

After the meeting London Renters commented on what they had gained from the meeting:

What did we win in our negotiation? 

🔰 A plan with targets on dealing with Category 1 hazards and unsafe homes for borough-wide licensing by the end of the year 

🔰 A commitment to a pilot project in Harlesden and Kensal Green, Willesden Green and Dollis Hill, including increasing current targets for dealing with unsafe homes.

🔰 Council leader Butt to talk to finances side of council about increasing enforcement capacity, and whether income from fines can be included to increase budgets. 

🔰 Improvement notices to be issued every time there is a Category 1 hazard!

🔰 Interpretation to be offered for main languages so that people can access the Private Housing Service and complain, and forms reworked in plain English.

🔰 An aim to ensure that cases are not closed before speaking to the tenant, by discussing with senior officers and creating a concrete plan.

'Not ANOTHER winter with damp and mould' - Brent Renters negotiate with Brent Council on Saturday 30th September 10.30pm to 1pm

 The Brent branch of the London Renters Union are meeting with Muhammed Butt, leader Brent Council, and Cllr Promise Knight, the Cabinet lead on housing on Saturday.

The aim is to negotiate action on the pressing problem of mould, damp and other health issues in private housing,

The group have produced a powerful video that shows how renters are suffering at present. LINK

The campaign is pushing for Brent Council to take much stronger enforcement action against landlords who are breaking the law. They don't think renters should be paying upwards of £2,000 a month to get asthma and other chronic health conditions.

Brent Renters urge the public to sign their petition HERE that states:

BRENT COUNCIL: Not another winter with damp and mould

 More than 10,000 private rented homes in Brent have a serious health hazard. Damp and mould are making us sick, leading to asthma, respiratory issues, skin conditions, and  mould poisoning. 

Our children’s health is in crisis because landlords are being allowed to get away with not keeping our homes safe. Damp and mould mean people can’t use some rooms, and are overcrowded in the others. This meant that Church End had the highest Covid death rate in the country. 

Brent council has a legal duty to make sure our homes are safe but their current plan isn’t good enough. In the areas of Brent where housing is most dangerous, they’re only promising to deal with 10% of the most serious problems this year. What about the other 90% of renters left with unsafe homes?

It doesn’t have to be like this. Members of the London Renters Union in Brent have come together to create an action plan for how the council can hold landlords accountable and keep us safe. Add your name to our campaign. Together we can win safer homes for everyone. 

If you are part of an organisation, please ask them to support the campaign by sharing this petition, and by signing the open letter here.

For background info, see our factsheet here

 

 

 

Post-Grenfell crucial information for Brent Council tenants in buildings higher than 18 metres

In my capacity as a Brent resident I asked Brent Council a written question for Monday's meeting on the actions they have taken to comply with the Building Safety Act. This followed concerns expressed by tenants who suggested that Brent was lagging behind other London boroughs. It would be interesting to hear from tenants whether the answers allay their fears.

The questions and responses are below.

 

Question from Martin Francis to Councillor Promise Knight (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security)

 

The following list of questions pertain to the Building Safety Act that received Royal Assent in April 2022 and the requirements for landlords, including local councils, therein. ‘Buildings in Scope’ refers to those buildings under the Building Safety Act, that are high-rise residential buildings that are 18 metres tall or higher, or at least seven storeys, with two or more residential units that are defined as ‘higher-risk’.

 

Across England there are approximately 12,500 of these buildings and the new regulator required all of them to be registered from April 2023, with a named person responsible for maintaining their safety. The registration process is a crucial stage in setting up the new building safety regime.  Registering buildings in scope will be a legal requirement and owners and managers who fail to comply by October 2023 will be investigated and may face prosecution.

 

On this basis, could the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security address the following questions in relation to the Council responsibilities:

 

1.     Does the council know the details of the residents who cannot evacuate without help, or those whose first language is not English as part of any emergency arrangements in each of the 40 buildings in scope?

The council has previously undertaken work to proactively identify tenants living in our high-rise blocks who cannot evacuate without assistance in event of an emergency. The information the council received as part of this work is currently being reviewed. When tenants whose first language is not English are identified, the council records this and will make reasonable adjustments.

 

 

2.     Can you describe the details of the construction methods in each of the buildings in scope?

The construction method for each of the High Rise blocks is in the Fire Risks Assessment (FRA) for the property and is included in the Building Registration information provided to London Fire Brigade (LFB) and the Building Regulators. Furthermore, this information is contained in our asset database.

 

3.     Can you provide the access and means of escape, including travel distances, in all the buildings in scope?

The access points and means of escape are clearly set out in all of the buildings. Travel distances in the buildings complied with the Building Regulations current at the time the building was constructed. We also have wayfinding information conspicuously displayed in all our blocks that provide access and means of escape information as well as direction/fire escape routes out of the property.

 

4.     Can you identify all the Building Safety risks in each of the buildings in scope?

The Fire Risk Assessments for each building identifies all safety risks which are being actioned in the required timescales.

 

5.     Can you provide the maintenance and inspection schedules for every building in scope using The Golden Thread of information? LINK

All maintenance and inspection schedules/records are on our New Compliance asset compliance management database. All new build blocks in scope are following the Gateway process.

 

6.     Can you set out the emergency plan for each building in scope, including their evacuation strategy?

 All information in regard to emergency plan and strategy are provided as part of the building registration with LFB and the fire strategy for each block is displayed in the lobby area in each block.

 

 

7.     Please set out your complaints system and that how you will operate an effective mandatory occurrence reporting system?

The Council’s principal accountable person for our occupied higher-risk buildings is working on establishing and operating a suitable system for the investigation of relevant complaints. Mandatory occurrence reporting is designed to help report structural flaws and fire risks that might arise at any point throughout the life cycle of a building and can cause catastrophes.

 

We are working to develop a suitable system(s) that will cover the following requirements:

·             Introducing a more reliable reporting system that complements RIDDOR and voluntary occurrence reporting regimes.

·             Strengthening the golden thread (or the digitally stored collection of information about a building and its safety).

·             Boosting residents’ engagement to improve the accuracy and frequency of fire and structural risks.

 

 

 

8.     Are you now able to publish a risk assessment for each of the buildings in scope?

All our Fire Risks Assessments are available for each resident upon request

 

9.     Do all fire doors in every building in scope meet the full standard of fire prevention?

 We carry out quarterly inspections of all the communal doors as well as service cupboard doors in each block, and a yearly inspection of the flat entrance doors to ensure all doors meet the full standard of fire prevention. 

 

10.   Do you know if any of the buildings in scope have any structural issues and can you provide full details of the utilities they use and if any of them impact on common parts of the building, or evacuation plans? Does fire stopping meets the appropriate standard so that compartmentation is not compromised?

We have carried out FRA4 inspections on all of our buildings in scope and we have identified any structural defect or issue in our buildings and we are confident that the fire stoppings in all our High-Rise properties meet appropriate standards of compartmentation.

 

11.   Have you identified the 'responsible person' for each block? 

All our FRAs has the detail of the responsible person for each block.

 

 

 

At last! The penny drops for Brent Council (at least a little) on Shared Ownership as a form of affordable housing

Wembley Matters has criticised Brent Council's definition of Shared Ownership as a form of affordable housing as put forward by officers at Planning Committee and in the Council's publicity. Contributors have quoted the Brent Poverty Commission's statement that the only form of housing affordable for Brent residents is social housing.

Credit must co to Cllr Anton Georgiou for raising the issue of the viability of shared owneship in the Council Chamber LINK.  Rather than listening to the case made, Brent Council Leader made one of his characteristic spluttering attacks on Nimbies.

A report going to Cabinet on Monday LINK contains an account of the difficulties in the shared ownership model and has repercussions for their approach, notably in Watling Gardens, of  changing tenure so that shared ownership cross-subsidises actual affordable housing.

The context is Brent Council's 2020  purchase of 92 homes in Block A and B of the Grand Union development in 2020 along with 23 shared ownership homes in Block D. The Council purchased the 23 homes to get access to the 92.

They now intend to transfer the shared ownership homes to a provider who is not named.

The report states regarding the Council managing such shared ownsership:

..the knowledge, experience and the capacity of the Council to effectively sell and manage processes such as staircasing is minimal.

 

But:

 

The Council did however consider selling homes and retaining them within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). However, the market and demand for Shared Ownership, particularly in the latter quarter of 2022 was and has remained turbulent. This is both in terms of too many shared ownership homes available in the market and appetite and demand for these homes reducing.

 

Registered Providers who work closely with Brent have shared concerns about a saturation of shared ownership in the market. Many Registered Provider include shared ownership as a form of cross subsidy for social housing for rent, this has been under further pressure following last year’s economic and supply challenges to make schemes viable. The Council also put forward a paper to Cabinet in November 2022 proposing cross-subsidy as a means for reducing the financial viability gap within the New Council Homes programme, though

politically shared ownership was not considered a favourable tenure and was only considered as a potential means of protecting the much needed social housing.

 

They suggest that there is a role for shared ownership:

 

The impact of the mini-budget back in September 2022, rising inflation and growing cost of living crisis has led to uncertainty in the market. From a practical  perspective, shared ownership offers residents who still want to buy and benefit of stability that homeownership provides and a route to do so whilst mortgage rates are high as residents can purchase a smaller percentage to keep costs down.

 

But then admit the drawbacks:

 

 

The affordability of shared ownership has however also come into question within the housing sector. Research into the ongoing cost of living crisis and housing shows shared owners are more likely to be vulnerable to financial hardship that other home owners. This is a result of both mortgage offers and the rent payments on properties being linked to inflation. Shared owners pay a mortgage on the proportion owned, which now can be as little as 10% of a property depending on when the property was build, and then pay rent which is starts at 3% of the value of the property still owned by the Landlord. Generally

25-35% is the standard amount of equity first purchased. Contractually shared ownership rents rise by the Retail Price Index (RPI) plus 0.5% each year which would have seen rises of 15.7% as of December 2022 (it should however be noted Not for Profit Registered Providers capped the rent increase at 7%).

 

Generally mortgage offers for Shared Ownership homes have higher interest rates that regular mortgages too, meaning inflation has an even greater impactwhen mortgage payments and rent is combined. 

 

They go on to give figures on the actual costs of a shared ownershio home with a value of £400,000.  Note the cost of the mortgage would be much more now as interest rates have risen sharply:

 

 

A worked example of a £400K home from Nottinghill Genesis shows a breakdown of costs where a 25% share has been purchased:

•  25% share = £100,000
• Estimated mortgage = £532 (NB this is not based on current mortgage rates) 
• Rent = £688
• Service charge = £200
• Total = £1,420

• Guidance household income required = £51,160

 

It should be noted, the average salary for a working household in Brent for 2021 was £36K

 

Quite a gap, so what to do with those 23 shared ownership homes purchased back in 2020?:

 

 

In December 2022, the Council commissioned marketing company Site Sales to sell the homes as a package on the market to Registered Providers. Registered Providers invited to bid include: Clarion, Guinness, Heylo, HSPG,Keep Homes, Legal and General, MTVH, Network, Newlon, Notting Hill Genesis, OHGO, Octavia, Origin, Peabody, PA Housing, Sage, St Arthur Homes.

 

Most of the providers who responded stated the package of homes was too small to meet their organisations acquisition criteria. Expressions of interest were received from a range of Registered Providers. Offers in full received by the Council are set out in Appendix 1 (classified as exempt).

 

Each offer was assessed against the two key criteria for the Council when considering affordable housing opportunities, the financial requirements of the Council and meeting housing demand. This includes comparing the offer against the cost incurred to the Council for the initial purchase. Using this criteria it was deemed out of the three offers received only one was considered viable, details are contained in Appendix 1.

 

 

From a housing demand perspective, Offer 3 is most reflective of the current demand, specifically affordability within Brent and offers a unique opportunity to pilot the model in Brent. It also presents the opportunity to influence the shared ownership market at a local level and use this model and an exemplar of best practice. The recommendation of this report is to approve Offer 3, this is due to concerns about the existing shared ownership model and its ability to meet Brent Residents Housing Need.

 

We cannot see the actual costs involved as Appendix 1 is exempted from public view. 

At Full Council meeting on Monday 10th July Cllr Promise Knight answering a question from Cllr Georgiou said, 'We know the the political appetite for shared ownership is waning. We've listend - you brought this up six months ago - and this is a demonstration of us listening.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

Response:

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.

Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?

Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.

Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.

The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.

The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.

The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:

It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).

The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE