Decent homes goal missed by 10 per cent
More than 10 per cent of social housing failed to meet the decent homes standard when the original deadline for compliance passed.
The Labour government had initially intended that all homes should meet the criteria by the end of 2010, although it later backed away from that goal as it became clear it was unrealistic.
Provisional figures published today by the Communities and Local Government department show 10.2 per cent of social housing was non-decent on 1 April 2010. This is down from 14.5 per cent a year earlier.
For local authority stock, the percentage of non-decent homes declined from 22 to 16.2 per cent during the year, while for registered social landlord stock the percentage of non-decent homes declined from 8.3 to 5.3 per cent.
The figures predict that 100,973 local authority homes will remain non-decent in 2015, down from the current figure of 290,070.
Local authorities owned 1.79 million homes on 1 April 2010, compared to 1.8 million a year earlier.
A full set of results from local authorities will be published at the end of 2010.
Homes and Communities Agency chief executive Sir Bob Kerslake recently estimated it would take £3.2 billion to bring all remaining non-decent social housing stock up to the standard.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (13)
Anonymous | 26/08/2010 12:27 pm
What about the private rented sector? The coalition are good at capping benefits to those in need of this housing. But what about the landlords rceive the high rents? Will they require private rented accommodation to meet the decent homes standard. Does it now - no it doesent. Local authorities can't maintain standards, maybe because of cuts but perhaps because they dont. How many LAs take action against category one hazards in the private sector even thoughthey have a duty to? What will the coalition do to ensure the decent homes standard is met in this area of housing that they indicate will provide the supply for the established need.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 26/08/2010 1:09 pm
For those that have not visited my website and read about the decent homes scam the web address is www.indoubt.co.uk
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
No win no fee | 26/08/2010 2:47 pm
Under Pickles there will no monitoring of the decency of housing in any sector so no failure to meet a target that doesn't exist. What could be simpler?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26/08/2010 2:49 pm
I am dismayed at any tenant not having a "decent" home in whatever sector their landlord fits into.
How has the ordinary meaning of the word 'decent' become so bastardised to mean unworthy and too costly?
Yes, its a scandal that PSL housing is not checked for standards of decency and that needs to change imediately. But its also a scandal that council and RSL housing has any level of non-decent accommodation.
In very simple terms why is a non-decent house for rent not apparently subject to the legislation that good are subject to? If you buy a good and its not fit for purpose then the consumer is protected and you can get remedy. Yet this is seemingly not so for buying a tenancy - Why is this?
When one factors in that children are subjected to this 'non-decency' and potentially exposed to health issues, is this not abusive and immoral as well?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 26/08/2010 3:24 pm
Anonymous (you sure get around, BTW)
I strongly agree with your comments regarding social tenants. It appals me that social landlords sit such a high horse but had to be compelled to improve their stock. I don't detect any change in attitudes or the merest hint of shame, either.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26/08/2010 3:57 pm
Pickles abolishes Decency
It should have been as predictable as a Bernard Manning punch line.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack Davies | 26/08/2010 4:02 pm
It seems the point anonymous is making in my eyes is that should ANY landlord be allowed to charge rent for a non-decent property?
If so its an interesting point as why should a not fit for purpose / non-decent / sub-standard property be liable for rent at all?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 26/08/2010 4:09 pm
The answer is obvious and already happening Jack - they charge an indecent rent.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 26/08/2010 5:13 pm
The problem is that if you start a legal action on the ground that your property is "indecent" you are in for big trouble, as landlords start coming up with excuses like,
we run out of money, or the government did not give us enough, or with had extra expenses...
the real scandal is that not only the property might be indecent, but the scandal is a (average) tenant (which is 90 % of them) has no legal practical redress to change the situation or to charge the landlord for compensation.
How the landlords and the state in general can expect any respect in general if they are the enemies? And this from decent citizens, let alone the few who are not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26/08/2010 8:41 pm
The private landlords will never be checked for any standard of quality decent or otherwise as they are only after profit and that is what Pickles and Shapps want save money in the short term and look good and when it all goes wrong blame it on somebody else.
The RSL and LA's got regulated but the private sector did not so now we have lots of property that is falling into disrepair and high rents being charged because of lack of property for rent in all sectors and now Pickles and Co. want to privatise everything they can as soon as they can with no regulation or accountability, what a down turn in living standards we would have and after we are back with living standards back in the 1800's they might be satisfied but they save some money big deal
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment