Lack of funding is causing local authorities to miss government’s deadline
100,000 council homes will still be non-decent in 2015
One hundred thousand council homes will still be non-decent in five years’ time, the government has revealed.
Figures published by the Communities and Local Government department last week reveal that almost 6 per cent of council homes – 100,973 – are likely to be non-decent in 2015. This is five years after the government’s original deadline.
The figures also state that 16 per cent of council homes – 290,070 – are currently non-decent. Three London boroughs top the list of councils with the highest number of non-decent homes. More than a third of the social homes owned by Southwark, Lambeth and Camden do not reach the standard.
The council with the highest proportion of non-decent stock is Havering, where 57 per cent of homes failed to meet the standard by April 2010. Havering’s stock is managed by an arm’s-length management organisation Homes for Havering, which is still awaiting funding for decent homes work. The ALMO gained its two stars in November last year and has so far received £9 million out of £112 million.
The figures also show 10 per cent of social homes nationwide were non-decent in April, a drop from 14.5 per cent last year. At the start of the programme, 38.9 per cent were non-decent.
Of Southwark’s 39,331 homes, 14,715 were non-decent in April. Outside London, the local authority with the highest number of non-decent properties was Nottingham, where 9,386 out of 28,872 homes fell below the standard.
For local authority homes, the percentage of non-decent homes declined from 22 to 16.2 per cent during the year. Housing associations saw the percentage of non-decent homes decline from 8.3 to 5.3 per cent.
Gwyneth Taylor, policy director at the National Federation of ALMOs, said many of the councils with the highest proportion of non-decent homes had experienced delays in funding for their ALMOs. She said: ‘The real issue is why those authorities who said they could achieve decent homes with their own money are still at the same place as where they started.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 03/09/2010 8:59 am
I heard that lots of local authorities and housing associations used the cheapest materials to cover as much stock as possible during decent homes to meet the standard. Lots of those parts are already failing and the is a huge cost of having to replace these. So even the properties that met the standard will not meet it for long.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 03/09/2010 9:11 am
Is anyone being sacked for this? Are any director or Ceos going to be booted out for this?... If it was private firms not delivering tenants would surely get a compensation, so why social tenants have to go on living in unacceptable conditions?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 03/09/2010 9:17 am
'Anonymous | 03/09/2010 8:59 am
I heard that lots of local authorities and housing associations used the cheapest materials'
Got any facts/links/sources for this statement Nonny?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Clegg | 03/09/2010 9:34 am
Good call, Melvin. There is no evidence for such a statement, and, from my experience, I doubt it's true.
As far as I'm aware, LAs will always use the most efficient materials bearing in mind the 'whole life cost'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/09/2010 9:41 am
evidence? Yes my flat
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 03/09/2010 11:23 am
I can certainly give my flat as evidence of use of cheap materials.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 03/09/2010 11:44 am
Kass + Nonny have both your flats actually had 'decent homes' improvments?
ie new kitchens/bathrooms etc?
Or are you bemoaning the original standard of construction?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/09/2010 12:01 pm
The inability of local authorities to reach Decent Homes standards is nothing to do with their competence, but everything to do with the funding. If the Decent Homes funding promises are kept, then most will be able to achieve Decent Homes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bannside | 03/09/2010 1:07 pm
A home can't be decent if a category one hazard as defined by the Housing Health & Safety Rating System exists at the dwelling. Most local authorities do not assess their dwelling under the ratings system assuming the works they are doing will make the home decent. I live in Islington, a fortune was spent on a decent homes programme. Lots of the flats have category one hazards because the rear windows were not overhauled, to replace missing window restrictors and catches - simple job, that they are refusing to do. These dwelling have never been decent yet the contractor has collected and gone.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 03/09/2010 2:26 pm
It's not really that simple:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138355.pdf
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment