DDB 16 Shelter
CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO DRAFT DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION BILL
Shelter is a national campaigning charity
that every year works with over 100,000 people. Shelter has two
aims: to prevent and alleviate homelessness by providing information,
expert advice and advocacy for people with housing problems; to
campaign for lasting improvements to housing-related legislation,
policy and practice. Our services include:
- A national network of over 50 housing
aid centres
- Shelterline - our free, national,
24-hour housing advice service
- Shelternet - our free, online, housing
advice website
- The government-funded National Homelessness
Advice Service, which provides specialist housing advice, training,
consultancy, referral and information to other voluntary agencies,
such as Citizens Advice Bureaux and members of Advice UK, which
are approached by people seeking housing advice
- A number of specialist projects
promoting innovative solutions to particular homelessness and
housing problems. Shelter currently has four 'Homeless to Home'
schemes, designed to help formerly homeless families sustain a
tenancy and live successfully in the community.
Shelter supports the introduction of this Bill. We
believe it contains proposals that are an important step forward
to ensuring full civil rights for disabled people. We also welcome
the Bill's housing-related proposals. There are important links
between disability, housing and homelessness: aside from levels
of statutory acceptances on the grounds of physical disability,
research evidence indicates[48]
that homeless households are more likely to contain a person with
a physical disability than a household in the general population.
Evidence from Shelter's own services[49]
for homeless families also indicates a high incidence of this
need - with 19% of families using the projects containing at least
one member with a disability. Appropriate housing and services,
on the other hand - especially those that are well linked into
the local infrastructure - can enable people to maintain independence
and prevent ill health[50].
Our response to the Bill relates to the proposed
extension of the duty to provide reasonable adjustments to landlords
of rented property (Clause 6) and their estimated costs; the proposed
exemptions to the new duty (Clause 7). The response also contains
comments on the proposed new duty on local authorities to promote
equality of opportunities for disabled people. .
We support the new duty under Clause 6 and believe
it is an important step towards ensuring that housing and services
are accessible to people with disabilities. However, we also consider
that the current scope of Clause 6 is too narrow to achieve this
aim. The omission of other rights from the Bill, such as the right
for disabled tenants to make adaptations to their homes at their
own expense, also make it likely that some disabled people will
not be able to enjoy full access to, or use of, their housing.
This jeopardises their chances of living independently.
We believe that there needs to be parity for disabled
people in terms of access to services and that this should not
be dependent on the tenure of their housing, or the status of
their landlord. We therefore do not support the proposal to exempt
small dwellings from the new s 6 duty. This will exclude certain
private sector tenants from protection, regardless of their need
for accessible housing and services.
The duties required of a 'public authority'
under Clause 8 should be extended to cover registered social landlords.
This would help overcome the current lack of clarity about access
to services for social rented tenants.
We also consider that, if the Bill is to be implemented
effectively, it needs to make clear the links between rights for
disabled people and wider strategic housing issues, such as planning.
Finally, we consider that the increased costs incurred
in enabling tenants to make adaptations to their homes should
be off-set by analysis of the longer-term benefits on housing,
health and social services budgets through reducing the need for
people to access institutional care.
Clause 6: proposal to extend aspects of the duty
to provide reasonable adjustments to landlords and others who
manage rented premises;
Clause 7: power to modify or end small dwellings
exemption
Shelter supports the proposed extension
of the current duty on managers of premises to provide reasonable
adjustments and auxiliary aids to landlords and managers of rented
property. This fills a gap in the current legislation and will
facilitate access to housing and services for people with disabilities.
We also welcome the fact that the proposed duty will cover all
rented housing. Firstly, it is important that disabled people
are given access to housing on the basis of their needs, not because
of rights that are linked to their housing tenure. Secondly, whilst
local authorities[51]
and registered social landlords[52]
are recognised as having a role to play in housing vulnerable
people, increasingly the private sector is also fulfilling this
function. A substantial number of vulnerable people now live in
the private rented sector - either because their low income excludes
them from other housing tenures, due to a shortage of social housing
and/or because they have been placed there temporarily by local
authorities whilst they await permanent housing. Many of these
people will fall under the definition of disability under the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and/or the new Disability Discrimination
Bill.
We have some reservations about Clause 6. We consider
that the proposed extension to the duty needs to be broader, if
disabled people are to enjoy full access to, or use of their housing.
We share the concerns expressed by disability organisations regarding
the omission of the Disability Rights Task Force recommendation
6.27.[53] This would
prevent landlords withholding consent unreasonably from a request
to make changes to the physical features of premises. We consider
that including the DRTF's recommendation is important because
existing Landlord and Tenant law does not provide protection or
clarity for disabled people wishing to make adaptations. Shelter's
legal team, for example, regularly deals with cases in which landlords
either refuse consent for work to be done, or in which tenants
who have carried out adaptations face the prospect of legal challenge
by landlords
Refusing disabled people the right to make adaptations
to their homes is also likely to restrict the day-to-day activities
that they are able to carry out. In effect, this will mean that
many people with disabilities are left in inappropriate accommodation;
this, in turn will jeopardise their ability to live independently.[54]
For local authorities, there is also a strategic need to increase
the supply of suitably adapted accommodation. The lack of access
to adaptations services is already recognised as being problematic.[55]
In addition to this, whilst most local authorities do not yet
hold complete information on the supply and ownership in of accessible
housing, existing evidence clearly indicates that a combination
of factors - including demographic change and the increased expectations
of disabled people - is leading to a mismatch between housing
need and the type of accommodation available. [56]
Allowing disabled people the right to make adaptations
to their homes could therefore have a positive impact: decreasing
the number of people who need to move each year because their
housing is no longer appropriate and decreasing pressure on existing
housing stock.
Shelter strongly recommends that this recommendation
be introduced into the Bill. We agree with the DRTF's recommendation
to consider further the factors that determine when it is reasonable
and unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent from a disabled
person to make adaptations. We consider that a regulatory clause,
stating the type of alterations permissible in given circumstances,
would useful. This would also have the benefit of being flexible
to changes in technology and user expectations.
Exemptions to the new duty (Clause 7)
We do not support the proposal to exempt
certain private sector landlords from the new duty. Disabled people
- whether current or prospective tenants of the private rented
sector - have a need for accessible housing and services. This
right should not be related to the landlord's status as an owner-occupier,
as currently or formerly resident there. Such a measure is not
consistent with other parts of housing law relating to the private
rented sector.
We are also concerned that the proposals will not
offer protection to people who are placed by local authorities
in temporary accommodation. The shortage of suitable social housing
means that people with disabilities, who have been homeless are
likely to wait long periods in temporary accommodation before
a suitable permanent property becomes available. The legal status
of many people living in hostels and B&B accommodation, however,
means that they lack legal rights as tenants and therefore would
not qualify under the proposed duty of Clause 6.
ESTIMATED COSTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REGULATORY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
WE AGREE THAT THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST - £650,000
PER ANNUM - OF IMPLEMENTING THE NEW DUTY UNDER CLAUSE 6 DOES NOT
REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF EXPENDITURE WHEN DIVIDED ACROSS
ALL LANDLORDS OF RENTED PROPERTY AND THAT THE COSTS IN TERMS OF
SERVICES TO INDIVIDUAL TENANTS ARE ALSO LIKELY TO BE SMALL. WE
SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL THAT ANY COSTS INCURRED SHOULD BE ABSORBED
INTO LANDLORDS' OVERHEADS AND SPREAD EQUALLY ACROSS TENANTS. WE
BELIEVE THIS IS A MORE EQUITABLE MEANS OF DEALING WITH THE ISSUE
THAN ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS, SUCH AS CHARGING FEES, WHICH WOULD
MEAN COSTS FALLING TO INDIVIDUALS. OTHER RECENT PROPOSALS THAT
HAVE COST IMPLICATIONS, SUCH AS RENTAL DEPOSITS, HAVE BEEN APPROACHED
IN THIS WAY. THE IMPACT ON COSTS TO INDIVIDUAL TENANTS HAS BEEN
DEMONSTRATED TO BE MINIMAL.
Shelter believes allowing tenants to
make adaptations to their home would have a cost benefit in terms
of reducing the number of people with disabilities who need to
move each year. This should be recognised within the RIA. Any
broader duty - encompassing rights for tenants to make adaptations
outlined above - would incur additional costs. Unfortunately,
gaps in current data make quantifying need and therefore cost
levels difficult. It is not possible to currently quantify, for
instance, the numbers of disabled people in the private rented
sector who seek to make adaptations, but are prevented from doing
so under current legislation. There is also difficulty in assessing
the relationship between housing tenure, low income and disability.
We therefore consider that further work needs to be done in these
areas. In the shorter term, however, we also consider that local
authorities should be more strongly encouraged to develop Disability
Housing Registers. Developing DHRs would promote more accurate
mapping of current and future levels of need and would therefore
enable councils to match the needs of disabled people to accommodation.
As the main source of funding for adaptations,
it is likely that a high proportion of costs under an expanded
duty would qualify for Disabled Facilities Grant. This would therefore
require a further increase in spending within this budget to take
place. However, this would reflect spending on currently unmet,
rather than new need. As well as providing an invaluable source
of assistance for low-income households in the private rented
sector - who would otherwise be unable to carry out works to their
homes - expenditure on adaptations has also proved generally to
be highly cost-effective.[57]
This is especially true in the longer-term and in comparison to
the costs of alternative accommodation, such as registered care.[58]
Government has recently announced that spending on Disabled Facilities
Grant is to be reviewed as part of the Spending Review 2004. We
consider that arguments about the longer-term cost benefits of
providing adaptations should be included in this.
Proposed new duty on public authorities to promote
equal opportunities for disabled people
Clause 8 of the Bill proposes new duties
on public authorities to eliminate unlawful discrimination against
disabled people and to promote equality of opportunity for such
persons. The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the definition
of 'public authority' will be the same as that used in s 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998.[59]
We are concerned about the implications
of this definition with regard to registered social landlords.
The Human Rights Act left open to interpretation the position
of RSLs in terms of the extent to which their functions are of
a public nature. Subsequent case law has also failed to produce
consistency on this issue, leading to confusion for tenants about
their rights and for social rented landlords about their responsibilities.
In relation to disability issues, differing frameworks for local
authorities and registered social landlords also produces lack
of clarity and can mean differing outcomes for individuals, according
to their landlord's status, not their need. Local authorities
and RSLs are frequently not clear, for example, about who has
responsibility for Disabled Facilities Grants. In our submission
to the Joint Committee of Human Rights, Shelter argued for clarification
of this issue, by defining housing associations' housing management
functions as being of a public nature, although their overall
status would remain as private law bodies. This would make it
clear that under Clause 8 housing associations would have to promote
equality of opportunity in the provision of housing and housing
services. We believe that this principle applies equally in the
context of the Disability Discrimination Bill and therefore request
that this issue be given further consideration.
48 eg Randall,
G (2003), The Support Needs of Homeless Households Back
49 Jones, A,
Pleace, N and Quilgars, D (2002), Firm Foundations - an evaluation
of the Shelter Homeless to Home service, London: Shelter Back
50 Housing Corporation
(2002), The Big Picture: Disability and Housing, London:
The Housing Corporation Back
51 ODPM homelessness
statistics show that at least 5% of acceptances each year by councils
are on the grounds of vulnerability due to physical 'handicap'
(representing over 7000 people in 2002/03). Nationally 8.7% of
decisions are also on the grounds of vulnerability due to mental
health (2001). Back
52 A recent
survey for Habinteg HA demonstrates that 42% of RSL tenants have
a disability (Responses to Regional and Sub-Regional Housing
Strategies, www.habinteg.org.uk Back
53 DWP (1999),
From Exclusion to Inclusion - Final Report of the Disability
Rights Task Force, London: DWP Back
54 The Big
Picture Back
55 Audit Commission
(2002) Fully Equipped - Assisting Independence, London:
The Audit Commission Back
56 Pathways
to Accessible Housing - Policy Context and Research Findings,
Part 1, The Papworth Trust and Habinteg HA; Shaw, V (xxxx),
A Perfect Match - a good practice guide to disability housing
registers Back
57 Heywood,
F (2001), Money well spent: The effectiveness and value of
housing adaptations, York: JRF Back
58 Quoted in
carers leaflet http://www.hants.gov.uk/socservs/0307activecare.html,
the cost of residential care is approximately £7800 per annum.
Back
59 Explanatory
notes para 76. Back
| 
