By Rob Gershon, Associate, HQN

Like an elephant doing a bungee jump, the social housing sector has drifted away from ‘no access’ issues that were highlighted in recent HQN research. Inevitably, as the recommendations about how landlords could change their policies and protocols to improve outcomes haven’t been widely adopted, the rope has overstretched and is bringing the problems back towards their point of origin.

The Chartered Institute for Housing recently urged the government to back powers to allow social landlords a simplified legal route to access homes in order to conduct safety checks.

Being careful to stress these powers would only be used in cases “where landlords have exhausted reasonable efforts to arrange inspections” questions still arise over who decides when measures have been “exhausted”.

Last December’s research, backed by CIH, ARCH, the LGA, NFA and CWA groups made it clear that many cases that landlords flag as ‘no access’ were nothing of the sort. While there are a minority of cases that might qualify as repeated ‘no access’ caused by tenants, the vast majority of instances could be resolved by specific changes in landlord practice.

These included:

• Being more human when communicating with tenants
• Setting up specialist teams or providing ‘no access’ training to multi-skilled teams
• Identifying why tenants may not provide access or be unable to do so
• Improving the quality of data landlords hold, something that remains a problem despite being highlighted in ongoing complaints resolutions at the ombudsman
• Involving tenants in drawing up ‘no access’ policies for the modern age
• Adopting an evidence-informed approach to landlord policies.

If the government is going to provide a fast-track legal power for landlords, mostly necessary because recent governments have ruined the ability of the courts to do their jobs, they should ensure every landlord request to use such a power is accompanied by evidence all the above have been tried first.

“While there are a minority of cases that might qualify as repeated ‘no access’ caused by tenants, the vast majority of instances could be resolved by specific changes in landlord practice”

As many cases flagged as ‘no access’ are simply indicative of a perfectly understandable breakdown in tenant trust, often as a result of unreliable landlord contact, there should be an automatic, public review of every implementation of the power, along with a referral for relevant support to address the underlying cause.

There are some reasons to be hopeful that a set of new powers wouldn’t solely be used by organisations that regularly feature in the ombudsman’s Spotlight reviews and maladministration reports to bypass correct policy.

For one, the proposal has been tabled by Lord Richard Best. This name won’t be familiar to everyone, but Lord Best has been a champion for tenants and decent housing for a long time. From being the cross-bench peer who originally coined the term ‘bedroom tax’ to being the Chair of the Affordable Housing Commission, which quietly damned the approaches of government and housing providers to provide homes people could afford to live in, it would be unfathomable for him to back something explicitly anti-tenant.

There may be a good argument to be made for access in cases where the safety of residents is at risk. The potential implications of a missed gas or electrical hazard aren’t limited to the home they start in. Hazards may have been worsened by things builders and landlords should have done properly in the first place but tenants should rise above these failures and protect their homes, families and communities.

It’ll be necessary to tread carefully around any streamlined legal power. Not all landlords operate altruistically in these cases. Riding roughshod over what might be a simple matter of miscommunication risks eroding trust with communities even further.

At the very least, if there’s to be a quicker route to forced entry, there should be an equally rapid review of each outcome.