Agenda item

The Council is required, as a social landlord, to incur costs that arise from works which are normally the responsibility of the tenant, including repair of damage, pest control, and property cleans and clearances.  The Housing Recharge Policy seeks to define the circumstances where such recharges are appropriate and make clear the Council’s intention to recover such costs.

Purpose of report

The Council was required, as a social landlord, to incur costs that arose from works which were normally the responsibility of the tenant, including repair of damage, pest control, and property cleans and clearances. The Housing Recharge Policy sought to define the circumstances where such recharges were appropriate and make clear the Council’s intention to recover such costs.

Decision

That Cabinet:

1.    Notes the content of the report.

2.    Approves the Housing Recharge Policy, with the addition of the line “the case will be made at Head of Service level and above” at 6.7 of the policy.

3.    Delegates to the Director of Housing and Property authority to make minor amendments to the Housing Recharge Policy as required by changes to regulation or legislation.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Doing nothing would leave the Council without a recharge policy in place. This was not recommended due to the risk of high costs to the Council if work was undertaken and not re-charged.

Reasons for decision

The Recharge Policy clearly sets out when a recharge would and would not be made and reduced the risk of a high cost of works not recouped in line with the tenant’s responsibilities.

The policy covered works that were not within the Council’s responsibility as a landlord, and were consistent with the tenancy agreement. An example of a breach of this policy would be damage by the tenant, to the property.

The policy would allow the Council to recover costs from damage to the property. In cases such as this, a pre-inspection would take place in order to give vacating tenants as much notice of potential costs as possible.

There would be certain circumstances in which a recharge would not be appropriate, for example:

·       Where the tenant was a victim of domestic abuse, and the property damage was made by the perpetrator.

·       Consideration of vulnerabilities, including mental health issues, would also be considered prior to the recovery of recharges.

The current recharge policy was not deemed fit for purpose.

The following points were noted during discussion:

·       Employment Committee would be tasked with receiving the training plan for staff on use of the policy, in partnership with officers.

·       The consultation for the policy was communicated to tenants through social media and Council communications channels. It had been ‘live’ for two weeks, the same time period as the Housing Compensation Policy. However, officers were also mindful of those tenants who did not use technology, and the policy was, and would be, shared through sheltered housing scheme meetings that the Cabinet Member for Housing and Property attended.

·       The Leader of the Council agreed to look at all consultations publicised by the Council to ensure that everything possible was in place for residents to contribute to these matters.

·       All Council properties met the Housing Service Void Policy and Re-let Standard, as approved by Cabinet in January 2022, when they were re-let to tenants. There may be some follow-on works identified by the tenant; however, the Council would only look to apply recharges where there had been a clear breach of the tenancy agreement.

·       The potential for recharges was referenced in tenancy agreements the Council held, and this would continue to be the case in future. All Council policies in place were available on the Council’s website.

·       Circumstances where a recharge could occur included health and safety concerns putting a tenant’s safety was at risk. Examples of this included tenants removing or disturbing smoke alarms, and damage to electricity supplies which could lead to a fire in the property.

·       Section 6.7 of the draft policy was not clear on who could make a discretionary decision when ‘special circumstances’ arose. The Assistant Director for Housing clarified that this decision would be taken by the Head of Service, or in their absence the Assistant Director for Housing. An addition to the draft policy was moved, seconded and approved as part of the recommendations.

·       Once the Council received notice of termination of a tenancy agreement, within four weeks of the intention of the tenant to vacate the property a Housing Officer would inspect and raise any concerns. There could be hidden issues that were picked up post-tenancy, but these would still be addressed.

The Leader of the Council placed on record his thanks for the work on this policy and noted that the Council would continue to work closely with the Social Housing Regulator.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property noted that the Housing Working Group and Tenants’ Liaison Committee were coming together to discuss this policy.