North Yorkshire Council
Housing & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Review of Lettable Standard – Draft Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 North Yorkshire Council’s (NYC) HRA Policy Framework for Landlord Services and Housing Standards is a key component in the Council’s Housing Improvement Plan to meet the requirements of the Social Housing (Regulations) Act 2023 and demonstrate compliance with the Consumer Standards set by the Regulator for Social Housing.
1.2 Compliance with the new consumer standards in terms of Safety and Quality, Tenure, Neighbourhood and Community is key, as is Transparency, Influence and Accountability. As a registered provider of social housing, the Council is legally required to comply with the Regulator of Social Housing’s consumer standards, and it has already self-referred to the Regulator indicating that it is non-compliant with a number of requirements across those consumer standards. The self-referral led to a regulatory judgement, assessing the council to be ‘C3’ with significant improvements required.
1.3 Prior to Local Government Reorganisation the stockholding authorities of Harrogate, Richmondshire and Selby each had their own portfolio of tenancy and property management policies, standards, and procedures (over 50 in total) defining their relationship as landlord with tenants and their approach to property management and maintenance. Those policies vary in their stipulations, meaning North Yorkshire tenants and leaseholders in different localities could have different service expectations. There are also gaps in policy where no agreement has been or where policy documents are outdated. It is also clear where policy has been developed in isolation or as a reaction to a particular event, resulting in a legacy HRA policy framework which is inconsistent and lacks alignment to core regulatory compliance standards.
1.4 Work is underway to harmonise policy across the Housing Revenue Account functions and transparency in decision making around that policy is central to the revised Consumer Standards, as data-based decision making is a critical tool in the Council’s ability to demonstrate service improvement and delivery being driven by the specific needs and vulnerabilities of its tenants.
1.5 Elected Member involvement is therefore critical to good governance and demonstrating effective oversight of Landlord Services and Housing Standards policy, and good practice should include Overview and Scrutiny involvement in policy review both at its formative stages, for example via task and finish work and at pre-decision stage providing comment to the decision maker prior to adoption.
2.0 BACKGROUND TO REVIEW
2.1 In September 2024 the Housing & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Committee were asked to consider:
· The key drivers for policy development showing a clear commitment that the policy approach would be based upon the needs of customers and developed in consultation with tenants, and;
· The proposed policy framework, which mapped out the core documents required to underpin the Council’s service to tenants.
2.2 It was confirmed that work had already commenced to harmonise some high priority policies (Allocations Policy , Anti-social Behaviour Policy and Domestic Abuse) and the Committee was asked to consider a list of the remaining policies, standards, and procedures (65 in total) prioritised on a high, medium, low basis based upon the requirements of the Consumer Standards, where there was currently no policy, or conflicting policy in place and the level of risk exposed by not having a harmonised policy in place.
2.3 The Committee recognised that in most cases it was about consolidating the existing documents of the legacy stockholding authorities and agreed to focus their review work on a small number of key standards and policies where member contribution via a task group review could add the most value. This subsequently led to the following being agreed for scrutiny review:
· Lettable Standard (Void Standard) - Scheduled for Executive Member approval on 12 March 2025
· Grounds Maintenance Policy - Scheduled for Executive Member approval on 12 March 2025
· Housing Fees and Charges Policy - Scheduled for Executive Member approval in July 2025.
· Compensation Policy – Executive Member decision date TBC
2.4 This draft final report focusses on the work of the Lettable Standard Review Task Group made up of the following members:
Councillor Kevin Foster
Councillor Bob Packham
Councillor Kirstie Poskitt
Councillor Dan Sladden
2.5 The agreed scope of the Lettable Standard Scrutiny Review was as follows:
‘To review the North Yorkshire Council Lettable Standard, the policy which sets the specification and standard to which council homes are repaired and prepared prior to letting. Letting means both new allocations and mutual exchange/ transfer.’
3.0 INFORMATION GATHERED
3.1 National Context
The social housing sector is in a period of transformation. In July 2023, the Social Housing (Regulation) Act was passed laying out the foundations for changes to how social housing is managed. It included increased regulation of social landlords and new rules for protecting tenants from serious hazards in their homes. It paved the way for significant changes and improvements to the social rented sector and the quality of homes tenants can expect.
3.2 In 2022 a Better Social Housing Review was undertaken on behalf of the National Housing Federation and Chartered Institute of Housing to examine the issues relating to the quality, safety and security of social housing provided by housing associations. At the time, the National Housing Federation said: ‘For a true renewal of social housing, a new standard for the decency of homes must be front and centre of a government-led long-term plan for housing. This new standard must ensure homes are truly fit for modern standards of living.’
3.3 The Better Social Housing Review queried why so few providers had opted to raise void standards even though investment in this might also establish better relationships and more trust with tenants from the start of their tenancies. It recognised that property condition was critical to tenant safety, tenancy sustainment and customer satisfaction.
3.4 Providers of social housing have their responsibilities, regarding the basic standard of housing provided, set out primarily in, but not limited to, the following legislation:
· The Housing Act 2004 - It states that properties must be free from hazards at the most dangerous category 1 level as assessed using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)
· Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) - A risk-based evaluation tool used to identify 29 potential hazards including damp, mould and asbestos. ‘Category 1’ level means that the occupier of or visitor to the property may require some form of medical attention over the course of a year.
· Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012 – This informs how the council and its contractors will deal with asbestos, including the removal and disposal.
· Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 – This requires that properties are free from hazards, including damp and mould, which are so serious that the dwelling is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. The current occupation may be taken into consideration when determining whether the property is suitable.
· The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 – This requires that landlords of properties with shared/communal areas undertake fire safety measures, including annual fire safety risk assessments, annual fire safety advice to existing tenants and new tenants to be provided with fire safety advice at the commencement of their tenancy.
· Social Housing (Regulation Act) 2023 - Powers to set time limits for social landlords to address hazards such as damp and mould (‘Awaab’s law’) anticipated to come into effect in 2025 with proposed amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Powers to the Regulator of Social Housing and the Housing Ombudsman to enforce the Consumer Standards.
· Consumer Standards - The set of standards that social housing providers must meet to ensure homes are safe, comfortable, and well maintained.
· Decent Homes Standard - The minimum standard for social housing in England and Northern Ireland, defined as being “free from serious health and safety hazards, such as fall risks, fire risks, or carbon monoxide poisoning”, and those houses that do not meet the criteria within the standards are known as ‘non-decent homes.’
3.5 The Decent Homes Standard was last reviewed in 2006. It stipulated that social housing must be free of Category 1 hazards and should be in a reasonable state of repair and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. Attention was drawn to the Government’s ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation’ which explained amendments to their Decent Homes Policy and clarified issues that had arisen in the implementation of the Decent Homes Programme.
3.6 In 2020, the government committed to review the Decent Homes Standard in the social housing white paper. Then, in 2022, the Levelling Up White Paper went on to commit to halving the number of non-decent rented homes (across both social and private sectors) by 2030. In 2022, the government consulted to apply the Decent Homes Standard to cover the private rented sector.
3.7 In June 2023, the government relaunched its Decent Homes Standard review to consider various changes, such as:
· Whether the current Decent Homes Standards sets the correct standard in relation to mould and damp to keep occupants safe.
· Introduction of a Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for the social rented sector.
· Updates to the list of items that should be kept in a reasonable state of repair to be considered ‘decent’.
· Updates to the list of services and facilities to reflect modern expectations.
· Updates to how the condition of building components (roofs, walls, windows) are measured.
3.8 Local Context
North Yorkshire Council’s Housing Strategy 2024-29 sets out its commitment ‘to become an exemplar social landlord’. The Council is responsible for the allocation, repair, and maintenance of circa 8500 council properties across the Harrogate, Richmondshire and Selby localities.
3.9 Each of those legacy Authorities had their own Lettable Standard in place and operationally North Yorkshire Council’s Housing Standards Team has begun working to a converged standard to provide equity to customers, based upon the void standard adopted by Harrogate Borough Council – see Appendix A.
3.10 As part of the Council’s self-referral (see paragraph 1.2) the Council had acknowledged that it was currently not able to demonstrate some of the required outcomes, in particular around asbestos management. Furthermore, it was known that:
· The level of repairs and maintenance undertaken in recent years had differed significantly across the three stock holding legacy councils
· Insufficient data had been inherited to assess the condition of the housing stock or the history of repairs, therefore a stock condition survey was required for every property (the lack of these was considered a high risk to the council).
· Not all properties had an energy performance certificate (EPC) and some of those that did were older than 10years and therefore no longer valid.
· Only 50% of the valid EPCs were rated ‘C’ or above.
· The council had a limited number of properties suitable for future proofing / the over 55s, and a limited number of bungalows.
· The average cost of bringing a property up to the current standard differed across the three stock holding areas i.e., in Selby circa £50K; in Richmond circa £17K; and in Harrogate circa £23K. This is in part due to the age of the properties and in part due to the lack of a robust maintenance programme historically.
3.11 The Council had committed to undertaking a 4-year programme of retrofit works 2024-29, for which £1.77m of funding had been achieved via waive 2.2 of the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF). That project has been fully committed as of 31 March 2025. A further £21,934,186 has been awarded via waive 3 of SHDF, together with match funding of £18,028,304 which provides a total project value of £39,962,490, providing £7.5 - £15K funding per property with an EPC below C. The retrofit approach - one of a fabric and ventilation first, with the aim of improving a building's envelope, insulation, and ventilation systems to reduce energy consumption and move towards net zero emission. The project will allow the Council to improve circa 1660 homes, including any void properties with an EPC below C.
3.12 All previous contract arrangements for works in void properties have now concluded. From April 2025, improvement works within void properties will primarily be delivered by in house trade teams. This transition, combined with the implementation of managed stores for materials and the integration of cost centre codes within the Housing Standards team will enable more robust financial reporting. These changes are expected to enhance operational efficiency, improve cost control, and support better-informed decision-making.
3.13 Task Group Meeting One
At its first meeting on 28 January 2025 the Task Group considered the converged lettable standard currently in use by the Council (see Appendix A) together with a range of evidence in support of the review. They were also signposted to a range of supporting documentation explaining the national context etc (see paragraph 3.4).
3.14 This drew attention to some key decision points which the Council needed to decide upon if it wanted to underpin the future level of service North Yorkshire Council provided to its tenants. Those suggested decision points were:
· Decoration
· Heating Commissioning
· Floor Coverings
· Furniture/White Goods
· Asbestos Removal
· Adaptations
· Void Re-let Times
· Communications
3.15 Introductory Data
To support the Task Group in their consideration of those decision points the Task Group was presented with a snapshot of NYC data (see Appendix B) on the following:
· Current Service Delivery
· Void Performance
· Feedback on Customer needs and experience.
· Lettings
· Tenant Satisfaction Survey December 2023
· Complaints
· Good Practice & Learning
· Horizon Scanning
· Thermal Comfort
· Floor Coverings
· Decoration
· Furniture Support & White Goods
· Asbestos Removal
3.16 The following was also confirmed:
· Gas properties - £7.5K potential grant funded retro fit costs per home
· Off Gas properties (900 homes) - 15K potential grant funded retrofit costs per home
· Expecting to retrofit 1664 homes over next 3 years, including any properties becoming void with an EPC rating below C, estimated to be 3% of the portfolio, circa 250 voids, 467 void properties completed in 2024-25 i.e. 5.6% of portfolio.
· Not all homes have an EPC rating. Many of those that do are pre 2013 and therefore no longer valid
· 50% of those houses with an EPC rating were rated below EPC C
· The average costs of bringing a property up to current standard across the legacy council’s areas (as detailed in paragraph 3.10 above) include contractor costs, in house salaries and decent homes upgrades.
· Most of the properties in the Harrogate area were built in the 60s and 70s. Properties in Selby are older – pre/post war.
· Legacy council’s asset management systems not kept up to date so gaps in data exist. The plan is to move to a single asset management system
· The aim is to expand the stock holding
· NYC inherited a large number of void properties
· The approach to procuring contractors is now not to give a contract to one large company
3.17 Tenant Feedback
The Task Group considered tenant feedback in the form of:
· The findings from a small survey carried out in January 2025 involving 35 new tenants, which gathered feedback on their view of the condition of their new home upon the start of their tenancy. The respondents were from a mixture of age groups, moved into a variety of housing types and were spread across the three stock holding areas
· The findings from the Council’s first tenant satisfaction survey under the new ‘Tenant Satisfaction Measures’ regulation undertaken in December 2023 which showed that overall:
o 70% of tenants were satisfied with the service provided by NYC.
o 68% of tenants were satisfied that their home was well maintained.
o 73% of tenants felt that their home was safe.
3.18 Site Visits
The Task Group carried out site visits to two vacant council properties – one recently vacated, and one ready for letting. They recognised the scale of the works required to the recently vacated property which had been left full of the previous tenant’s belongings, and the associated cost implications of having to clear a property before being able to assess its condition and the level of void works required. They later viewed photographs of the property once cleared and cleaned.
3.19 The Task Group went on to visit a property ready for letting. After the visit the Task Group were shown photographs of the property prior to any void works, and were pleased to note the standard of the completed work and the quality of the kitchen and bathroom fittings.
4.0 ANALYSIS
4.1 The Task Group considered the NYC data in Appendix B and discussed each of the decision points listed in paragraph 3.13 above. The provision of floor coverings, furniture and white goods was discussed at length. Task Group members recognised there was no data on the number of tenants in flooring/furniture/white goods poverty, so it was difficult to gauge how big an issue this was. It was noted that the purchasing of those goods led some new tenant into arrears right from the start of their tenancy which became an ongoing problem, difficult for them to overcome. They also acknowledged that furniture and white goods had never previously been provided as part of any of the legacy council’s lettable standards, and therefore there was currently no expectation of their provision from North Yorkshire residents seeking a council property.
4.2 With this in mind, the Task Group agreed thatthe provision of furniture and white goods support should not be included within the scope of their review. Instead they asked for some research to be undertaken to understand what support the local voluntary and community sector were providing to assist those who might be experiencing flooring/furniture/white goods poverty. They also recognised there were other factors closely associated with housing and tenants that were also not within the scope of the review i.e. the Council’s repairs policy, downsizing incentives, and estate regeneration.
4.3 They agreed the remaining decision points should remain within the scope of the review and requested the following additional information to help inform their views:
· Examples of other social housing providers across the region to compare their provision parameters, the benefits if any of their provision and the associated costs.
· A breakdown of each policy decision point, with an outline of the current position, the draft policy position, best practice, any indication of what might be on the policy horizon with the consultation on Decent Homes 2 and options available, along with a summary of the impact of those options in line with the Consumer Standards, and finally the financial implications associated with those options (recognising the figures provided would only be indicative, would not include a calculation of Council Tax, Insurance and energy liability and therefore would only give a high-level estimate of the financial impact).
4.4 The Task Group sought clarification regarding the EPC requirements within social housing, and it was confirmed that whilst there were currently no minimum EPC ratings requirements within social housing, the Decent Homes Standard Review (“Decent Homes 2”) was expected to include these measures.
4.5 In regard to the new tenant survey carried out in January 2025, the Task Group noted that overall, the feedback was very positive, with the majority stating they had a good experience and found the staff very helpful and informative throughout the process. From those tenants who expressed a level of dissatisfaction with the service, four main themes were identified:
· Variations in the quality of the housing stock let, with examples of radiators and boilers not being up to standard. A consistent theme across the feedback highlighted shortfalls in heating provision with many tenants asserting their heat sources either did not work or were inadequate. Some tenants stated they did not understand how to use their heating and that it had not been properly explained to them by housing staff.
· Dissatisfaction over the number of repairs needed upon moving into their property - this appeared to be a particular issue in the bathroom with three tenants specifying issues in relation to their toilet, shower, or sink. A further three highlighted issues with their windows, with some tenants asserting there were cracks that needed fixing. There were mixed experiences with the timeliness of repairs, with some tenants stating repairs were commenced quickly whereas others “Reported damp and mould and told it’s on a 25 day job”.
· The need to improve clarity when explaining things to tenants with additional needs.
· Improving the consistency of decoration. Most tenants stated their home was “freshly painted white” or otherwise well-decorated, however, others expressed dissatisfaction around the lack of decoration in their homes. Tenants expressed the difficulties they had experienced since moving in due to the lack of furnishings or floor coverings, with one tenant stating, “Delayed getting my carpets in and now I am in arrears”. More concerningly, one respondent stated, “They had just painted over the problem”, referring to mould and damp found in their home.
4.6 Having considered the summary findings from the first survey, the Task Group agreed it would be helpful to understand the locality of the respondents and requested a more detailed breakdown.
4.7 Attention was also drawn to a quarterly newsletter circulated to tenants and the Task Group suggested that councillors within the stock holding localities should be added to its circulation list.
5.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED
5.1 Task Group Meeting Two
At its second meeting on 19 February 2025 the Task Group considered the findings from a desktop review of Void Standards. Fifteen social housing providers were approached for their void lettable standard, four responded to share their policy (Leeds City Council, Joseph Rowntree Housing Foundation, Broadacres and Thirteen Group) which enabled a comparison to NYC’s current standard to help guide the Task Group’s consideration of the potential improvements to the council’s void lettable standard.
· Leeds City Council manage over 54,000 homes. They last updated their lettable standard in November 2024, though are currently in the process of updating their standard (improving the windows standard).
· Joseph Rowntree Housing Foundation (JRHF) are a housing association with approximately 2,620 homes in their stock which spans across the North East. They are in the initial stages of writing their own standard, with the most recent review being conducted in November 2024. They shared their first draft.
· Broadacres are a not-for-profit housing association, managing over 6,000 homes in North Yorkshire. They are also in the process of reviewing all their specifications but shared a draft of their standard.
· Comparatively, Thirteen Group (also a housing association) manages over 35,000 homes across the North East, North Yorkshire and the Humber. They were one of the first social housing providers to include floor coverings throughout their properties, their lettable standards policy was last updated February 2024.
5.2 A table and supporting data comparing the Council’s current standard in regard to decoration, floor coverings, asbestos removal, housing improvements and housing adaptations and against those of the above named organisations is shown at Appendix C.
5.3 Furniture Support
A paper by End Furniture Poverty UK The-Extent-of-Furniture-Poverty-in-the-UK-final-3.pdf published in 2023 found that “Housing tenure is one of the strongest indicators of furniture poverty according to our survey results. Whereas only 3% of homeowners are missing an essential item, 26% of those in social housing are and 15% of private renters are. These results reflect the ever-growing disparity between those who own their homes and those who do not.” The report found that across the North East, Yorkshire, and Humber:
• 440,000 people are missing flooring
• 110,000 are missing a washing machine
• 320,000 are without clothing storage
5.4 Thirteen Group have started an upcycling project. They collect items (such as furniture) from their own recycling depo and furniture during void clearance. They have formed an upcycling team to recondition furniture to be gifted to low-income families, those fleeing dangerous situations or homeless individuals. This team are creating starter packs of essential items, these include beds, sofas, and tables to help with the initial upfront costs and to facilitate the house becoming a home for their residents - Furniture support scheme - Thirteen
5.5 Local charities who could support with the provision of furniture:
· Community Furniture Stores: Selby and Scarborough About Us - Community Furniture Stores
· Community Works Re-use Store : Thirsk Re:Use store - Community Works
· Essential Needs: Harrogate Home - Essential Needs
5.6 Whilst recognising the issues were somewhat outside the remit of the review, in the interests of understanding the complete picture, the Task Group considered information on:
· The number of new tenancies within North Yorkshire’s stock year on year
· The impact of right-to-buy sales on Council-owned housing stock in North Yorkshire
· The steps taken to fill ‘hard-to-let’ properties.
5.7 Finally, The Task Group considered the detailed information provided on the decision points considered to be in the scope of the review (as identified at their first meeting) – see Appendix D.
5.8 Void Costs
Void costs represent the financial impact of a property being unoccupied, including lost rental income and ongoing liabilities such as council tax. Below is a breakdown of average weekly rents and associated void costs across North Yorkshire (reflecting the average rent after a 2.7% annual increase for the 2025/26 financial year):
|
|
2025/26 Average Weekly Rent |
|
Harrogate |
£101.63 |
|
Richmondshire |
£98.20 |
|
Selby |
£99.00 |
5.9 The average band A council tax for North Yorkshire is £1,293.03 per year, equivalent to approximately £24.87 per week.
5.10 Taking into account both lost rent and council tax liability, the estimated average void cost is approximately £124.48 per week. This figure is a rounded estimate based on the average rent levels across North Yorkshire and the average weekly council tax charge. It does not include additional costs such as utilities (e.g. gas, electricity, water), service charges, security or maintenance during the void period and reletting and administrative costs. These additional expenses can vary depending on the property type, locality and duration of the void period.
5.11 To assess what the increase or reduction in budget could be per year for each of the options, each option was financially assessed based upon:
· As estimated average void cost of £124.48 per week
· The current number of voids per year of 400 (2024/25 figure);
· The average length of a void i.e. 142 days (based on December 2024 figures)
· Labour being provided by the in-house team where possible.
6.0 FURTHER ANALYSIS
6.1 Tenant Communications
Taking account of the feedback from January 2025 survey of new tenants, the Task Group agreed that communications with new tenants could be improved. They were pleased to note the introduction of a dedicated Communications Officer within the Tenant Involvement Team and the development of a Tenant Communications Plan. They suggested a welcome pack for new tenants be introduced, containing signposting to a range of useful information, including:
· How to use heating/hot water systems (in response to the tenant feedback received)
· Local organisations offering furniture and white goods (see paragraph 5.5 above)
· Local councillors contact details
6.2 They also agreed it would be helpful to local Councillors to receive a monthly list of newly allocated properties within their divisions.
6.3 The Task Group went on to discuss in detail the options for each of the decision points considered in the scope of the review (as detailed in Appendix D). In each case, they considered what other social landlords in and around the county were providing. They also noted the factors used to carry out an educated assessment of what the associated costs might be (see paragraph 5.7 above), but recognised that a full financial assessment would be required once the preferred options had been identified. They also noted the other improvement/benefits each option could bring e.g. safety/quality improvements.
6.4 Decoration
The Task Group agreed that the provision of decoration support was beneficial to new tenants and would encourage them to maintain their home throughout their tenancy. They noted that not all new tenants could afford to decorate their homes throughout prior to moving in when the property was empty, and some may be less inclined to do so once they had moved their belongings in, therefore option 3 was ruled out. The provision of only a mist coat was also ruled out for the same reasons.
6.5 The potential financial implications of option 2 were explored and it was recognised that many properties required other substantive works e.g. damp proofing (given the poor maintenance record of the legacy councils), which would then require re-decoration works anyway. The Task Group noted there was already a cost being incurred as a result of implementing the current position (provision of paint packs) therefore the potential cost of option 2 would be mitigated to some extent. They also noted that option 2 would not significantly extend the void time, would likely make it easier to find tenants for a ‘hard to let’ property and would allow the Housing Standards team to be assured on the lack of damp and mould within a property at handover. With all of this in mind the Task Group agreed to recommend option 2 as their preferred way forward.
6.6 Heating System Commissioning
The Task Group noted the council’s current position and recognised the logic in capping off a gas supply whilst a property was stood empty, which required a new tenant to arrange for a reconnection. They also noted the lack of clarity around the requirement of Decent Home 2 and acknowledged the council’s aim of being carbon neutral by 2030.
6.7 The Task Group noted the tenant feedback provided in support of the review which confirmed that many new tenants felt ill-informed about how to use their heating system when moving in, which in turn often lead to mis-use and a subsequent repair request. In an effort to address this and reduce the costs associated with a later repair call-out,, they agreed new tenants should be supported as much as possible at the point of moving in – in line with option 2.
6.8 They agreed that option 3 may be required in the future dependant on Decent Home 2 and other changes in legislation, but for now agreed that option 2 was the best way forward as it would provide the additional support needed at minimal extra cost to the council. This aligned with their previous agreed need for improved communications with new tenants (see paragraph 6.1 above).
6.9 Floor Coverings
The Task Group noted the council’s current position and the current replacement rates (90% of bathroom flooring and 60% of kitchen flooring) They also noted the direction taken within the Welsh Housing Quality Standard 2023, the prediction that the English Decent Homes Standard would likely include floor coverings, and the direction of travel of other social housing providers.
6.10 On their site visits the Task Group witnessed the quality of the floor coverings currently being installed in kitchen and bathrooms. They also recognised that tenants currently had no expectation of the provision of floor coverings throughout.
6.11 Given the expected direction of travel on the provision of floor coverings and the council’s Housing Strategy commitment to become an exemplar social landlord, the Task Group agreed that the current policy needed improving thereby ruling out option 1. They recognised the administrative burden associated with option 4 and potential financial loss if a tenant fell into arrears so ruled out option 4. Given the additional cost and increased void time, they also ruled out option 3, but recognised this may need to be revisited in the future in response to future changes to the Decent Homes Standard and the resulting increased expectations of tenants. They therefore agreed option 2 was the appropriate way forward at this time.
6.12 Asbestos Removal
The Task Group noted the council’s current position, and the possible requirements of Decent Homes 2.
6.13 The Task Group recognised the council currently had no assured data on the scale of the issue given the lack of stock condition surveys. They noted it was likely to be significant given the age of some of the housing stock and the lack of an inherited management programme for known asbestos. They also agreed the issue of tenants’ safety and security could not be ignored and therefore removing all internal asbestos from void properties as opposed to encapsulating it and managing it in situ would be preferred, even given the financial implications. They therefore agreed option 2 was the appropriate way forward.
6.14 Adaptations
The Task Group discussed at length the types of adaptations undertaken, the allocations process, whether the allocations process needed revising to allow void properties with adaptations to be matched to applicants with adaptation needs etc.
6.15 They agreed that most existing adaptations would not hinder a new tenant or deter a potential tenant from taking on a property, with the possible exception of a stairlift.
6.16 In regard to stairlifts it was noted they were made to fit the property they were being installed in and therefore could not be removed and re-fitted elsewhere. The only part of the stairlift that could possibly to re-used elsewhere was the seat. They also came with only a 5-year warranty so after that time they were considered outside of the agreed standard for a stairlift. With all of this in mind, the Task Group agreed that if a house became void within 5-years of a stairlift being fitted, it made sense to assess the demand for a house with a stairlift as part of the allocation process. Where a stairlift in a void property has been in-situ for longer than 5 year, it should be removed.
6.17 They also considered the proposal around predictive adaptations in properties designated for older people and the increased cost of initial outlay. Recognizing the additional cost would be mitigated by a reduction in maintenance/repair costs as a result of tenants needs later down the line, they agreed it was the appropriate way forward.
6.18 The Task Group therefore agreed option 2 was their preferred option subject to the addition of addressing the stairlift issue as proposed in paragraph 6.16 above.
6.19 Void Re-let Times
The Task Group considered the current position i.e. the current five tier repair classification and the proposal to reduce the number of categories to three and align the reporting with that of repairs, and agreed it made sense to simplify the categories, aligning the works with the Repairs Standard. They therefore agreed with option 2.
7.0 CONSULTATION
7.1 A hybrid Tenant Focus Group took place on in April 2025, with four involved tenants in attendance. The purpose of the session was to review the draft Lettable Standard and provide feedback on the recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Member Task Group in relation to the policy decision point (PDP), as listed at paragraph 3.13 above.
7.2 In preparation for the meeting, tenants were provided with an information pack, which included the draft Lettable Standard, a summary of the proposed standard, an overview of the work carried out by the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group, previous tenant feedback and a detailed outline of the policy decision points under consideration.
7.3 The session was designed to ensure that tenants had the opportunity to engage meaningfully with the proposal, share their lived experiences and influence the final policy direction. The feedback received was positive, with tenants expressing general agreement with all seven PDP recommendations. Additional insights and suggestions were also captured, and are summarised in Appendix E.
8.0 REVIEW CONCLUSIONS
8.1 The Task Group agreed:
· The lack of historical data on void property works and their associated costs made it difficult to assess the effectiveness of those works or to identify a benchmark for future comparison.
· It was difficult to quantify the non-financial benefits of their recommended changes to the council’s Lettable Standard given the lack of historical data. However, they recognised that allocating a property of a higher standard would result in:
Ø A reduced number of refused allocations and associated administrative costs
Ø Reduced pressures on responsive repairs, and less revisits, especially within the first few months of tenancies
Ø Improved tenant experience resulting in fewer service requests and complaints
Ø Improving the quality of our homes and neighbourhoods, encouraging new tenants to maintain their property to a higher standard
8.2 Overall, the Task Group agreed their proposed revisions to the Lettable Standard would deliver a Standard fit for North Yorkshire, delivering an improved level of assurance to Members, Tenants and the Regulator.
8.3 Finally, they recognised the need to harmonise the policy and processes and implement this in practice for a period of time, before coming back together to review the policy with the benefit of 12 months’ worth of financial and satisfaction data to analyse.
9.0 REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 The Task Group agreed the Council’s converged Lettable Standard would need to be amended if the Council wanted to achieve becoming an exemplar Authority (in line with its previous Housing Strategy commitment).
9.2 Having considered all of the information provided as part of the review and the options for each decision point, and taking account of the financial assessment detailed in paragraph 5.11 above and the financial and other implications shown in section 11 below, the Task Group proposes the following amendments/ additions to the current converged Lettable Standard:
i. PDP1 – Decoration – Provide full decoration throughout the property.
ii. PDP2 – Heating Commissioning – Introduce improved communication / training at the point of handover.
iii. PDP3 – Floor Coverings – Provide new flooring to kitchen and bathroom areas only.
iv. PDP4 – Asbestos – Remove all asbestos on void.
v. PDP5 – Adaptations – Stairlifts over 5 years old to be removed when a property becomes void. If within 5 years, demand to be assessed. Predictive adaptations should be progressed in properties designated for older people.
vi. PDP6 – Re-let Times - Introduce three tier system as detailed in Appendix E.
vii. PDP7 – Communications –Introduce a Tenant Welcome Pack to include a range of useful information and issue a monthly list to local Councillors of new allocated properties within their divisions – see paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 above.
9.3 The Task Group also recommends that a review of the revised policy be undertaken in a year to assess the effectiveness of void property works and understand the actual costs associated with voids. In support of this, the Task Group welcomes the planned future monitoring as detailed in Appendix F, to include:
· A detailed financial assessment of the void costs
· The number and type of repairs raised within the first 6 months of a tenancy, and;
· The repair-related complaints received during the first 6 months of a property’s occupancy
· New tenant satisfaction levels.
10.0 CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
10.1 Delivers on the Housing Strategy commitment - To ensure that our council housing stock remains decent and continues to improve, with an ambition to become an exemplar social landlord. It also supports a priority within the Council Plan around keeping people safe / free from harm.
11.0 RISKS & IMPLICATIONS
11.1 The implementation of a revised Lettable Standard would provide a clear, transparent policy on the standard to which tenants can expect a property to be handed to them, consistent across all localities. This in turn could have positive impacts on tenancy sustainment and landlord tenant relations.
11.2 By taking some decisions e.g. to remove asbestos, that risk will be eliminated and by choosing not to leave it in situ, the risk to the health and wellbeing of future tenants will be mitigated.
11.3 By extending the lettable standard to include mutual exchange and transfers a further point at which the Housing Standards Team can enter and improve properties up to decent homes standard will be introduced.
11.4 Financial Implications
Following an independent financial ‘Health Check’, the Housing Revenue Account budget has been modelled taking into consideration the ‘non-negotiable’ requirement for the Council to become compliant against the requirements of the consumer standards. The financial plan also includes provisions to ensure the council can go beyond compliant and deliver ambitions to function as an exemplary landlord. There is also flexibility within the plan to ‘front load’ expenditure if required to bring homes up to standard quickly and minimise rent losses through extended void turnaround days.
11.5 The Council’s 4-year programme of retrofit works 2024-29, for which £1.77m of funding had been achieved via waive 2.2 of the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) had been fully committed as of 31 March 2025. A further £21,934,186 has been awarded via waive 3 of SHDF, together with match funding of £18,028,304 which provides a total project value of £39,962,490, providing £7.5 - £15K funding per property with an EPC below C. The retrofit approach - one of a fabric and ventilation first, with the aim of improving a building's envelope, insulation, and ventilation systems to reduce energy consumption and move towards net zero emission. The project will allow the Council to improve circa 1660 homes, including any void properties with an EPC below C.
11.6 Category 3 properties which don’t meet EPC C (those in the poorest condition, requiring significant repairs and upgrades) can have elements of void works financed through the SHDF grant funding. This covers works such as asbestos, roofing, window and boiler replacement and upgrades to insulation. However, it will not cover elements of the Lettable Standard such as kitchen and bathroom replacements and decoration. While this funding does not directly address all the financial implications that are being reviewed under the Lettable Standard, it significantly reduces the overall costs associated with the void programme by offsetting expenses in the broader void budget.
11.7 Longer term (beyond the SHDF programme), as a result of the significant investment over the next 2-3 years, the expectation is fewer responsive repairs will be required along with reduced repeat visits from property maintenance teams, reducing the overall maintenance costs of our properties.
11.8 There are currently several significant limitations in the availability and reliability of financial data relevant to assessing the implications of the proposed policy. These data gaps constrain the ability to fully evaluate both the short-term and long-term financial impacts. This highlights the importance of establishing robust mechanisms for ongoing data collection, monitoring and review once the policy is implemented.
11.9 Legacy contract arrangements and quotation processes did not adequately capture a breakdown of costs for individual components of property void works such as kitchen installations, bathroom refurbishments, internal decoration and asbestos removal etc.
11.10 This has resulted in inadequate cost transparency, making it difficult to isolate and analyse the financial impact of specific work elements. It also means there is limited ability to conduct performance comparisons, hindering efforts to evaluate efficiency or identify cost-saving opportunities. There is also reduced forecasting accuracy, as historical data cannot reliably inform future budgeting models.
11.11 Necessary rationalisation of budget code structures as part of service restructures has also impaired the Authority’s ability to interrogate financial data at contractor level once invoices have been processed, meaning there is a loss of contractor-specific expenditure visibility. This limits the ability to link specific works to associated costs.
11.12 Although early indications suggest the policy is unlikely to result in significant long-term costs, improving financial visibility will provide the confidence needed to ensure sustainable implementation and ongoing refinement.
11.13 Further information on the cost implications associated with a number of the PDP recommendations is provided within Appendix F.
11.14 Legal Implications
Legal implications have been considered throughout the review and are documented in the body of the report – see paragraph 3.4 above. In summary:
· The Housing Act 1985 applies with regard to the management of Council housing. The relationship with tenants is set out in our Tenancy Agreements. This details the rights and responsibilities of both parties and covers a range of considerations including property condition. Other legislation is also relevant to the safety of our properties (e.g. gas, electrical, asbestos and water safety) as well as construction/design and management regulations which are all applicable in the context of inspecting and undertaking works to void properties.
· As a Registered Provider of housing, we must also comply with the mandatory Decent Homes Standard and the consumer Safety and Quality Standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).
· This legislation and associated mandatory standards cover what social landlords must be achieving in all their properties in respect of decency, modernisation, repair and safety.
· The consumer Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard also set by the RSH forms a further part of the regulatory framework for social housing and is relevant to the standards the Council sets and publishes for re-letting its properties and what incoming tenants can expect.
· From a wider legal perspective, in line with the principles of co-regulation set out by the RSH, Registered Providers are also required to support tenants so that they can shape and scrutinise service delivery and hold the provider to account. As such, the RSH regard councillors as being responsible for overview that providers businesses are managed effectively and that providers comply with all regulatory requirements including that of effective asset management to ensure all homes are safe and meet the relevant legal standards. The adoption of the HRA policies including the Lettable Standard and related tenancy and building safety polices are a key part of this and set out why voids management needs to be understood within the legal framework and wider policy context as a whole.
11.15 Equalities
An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out internally (see Appendix G) to assess the proposed harmonised Lettable Standard. The findings of the EIA conclude that the policy will have a positive impact, particularly for older tenants, people with disabilities, and those on low incomes by promoting inclusivity and improving living conditions. No adverse impacts were identified for any protected characteristic groups, and the policy is expected to enhance consistency and transparency in service delivery.
Ongoing monitoring will be conducted through analysis of complaints data to help identify any emerging issues or unintended consequences affecting specific groups; to enable timely adjustments to the policy or its implementation if necessary. This data will be used to inform continuous improvement and uphold fairness and accessibility.
12.0 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 The Task Group asks the Committee to recommend to the Executive:
i. The proposed changes to the Lettable Standard, as listed in paragraph 9.2 above.
ii. That appropriate performance management data be gathered within the first year of the revised Standard being implemented, as detailed in paragraph 9.3 above.
iii. the revised Standard be reviewed 12 months after implementation to assess the actual costs associated with its implementation (using the data gathered throughout year one).
Report Author:
Melanie Carr
Senior Scrutiny Officer
Background Papers: The background papers considered are listed at paragraph 3.4 above.
Appendices:
Appendix A: NYC’s current converged Lettable Standard based upon the standard adopted by Harrogate Borough Council
Appendix B: Introductory snapshot of housing related NYC data (as of December 20204)
Appendix C: Comparative data from other social housing providers
Appendix D: Options for each decision point under consideration as part of the review
Appendix E: Tenant Focus Group feedback on the Overview and Scrutiny Member Task Group’s seven PDP recommendations.
Appendix F: Additional information on the cost implications associated with a number of the PDP recommendations & Proposed Future Monitoring Arrangements.
Appendix G: Draft Equalities Impact Assessment