DDB 22 Chartered Institute of Housing
DRAFT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
RESPONSE FROM THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF
HOUSING
TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
DISABILITY AND CARERS DIRECTORATE
February 2004
Response of the Chartered Institute of Housing
to the Department of Work and Pensions, Disability and Carers
Directorate.
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill
1. Introduction
The Chartered Institute of Housing welcomes
the opportunity to comment on the draft disability discrimination
Bill. Our response will focus in particular upon Clause 6, discrimination
in relation to letting of premises. The CIH represents 18,000
housing professionals working in local authorities, housing associations,
academic institutions, in both the voluntary and private sectors.
As such, many of our members work in housing organisations committed
to providing decent homes in safe neighbourhoods. We believe
that housing of good quality that is affordable and secure, is
the base from which disabled people access work, and participate
in the community, and in which they can receive help and support
they may also require.
2. Scope of the Bill.
The extension of the provisions in relation
to letting of all properties, i.e. including the private rented
sector is important, in order that, potentially at least, disabled
people can enjoy greater scope and choice in terms of tenure.
However, we believe that, in many respects, the provisions proposed
within the draft bill do not go far enough to give disabled people
access to a decent home of their choice. Below we set out our
main concerns.
3. Limitations of the provisions
included in the draft Bill.
3.1 Request for action.
The controller of let premises only
has to act upon a request made by or on behalf of the person to
whom the premises are let or relevant disabled person in the question
of letting the property. However, where controllers such as managing
agents have numerous properties to let, it would be reasonable
to expect them to be more proactive. They could at least ensure
that their practices, policies and procedures in advertising and
letting properties do not disadvantage a disabled person in becoming
the one to whom the premises are let or that they have auxiliary
aids or services in place. So, for example, they could have basic
information about tenancy conditions available on audiotape for
those with sight impairments.
Such measures are already accepted as
good practice in many social housing organisations, and could
be extended to larger private sector landlords or managing agents.
This would actively encourage disabled people to consider private
rented sector as a tenure of choice available to them.
3.2 Omissions from the draft Bill.
The major shortfall of the draft Bill
is the exclusion of a positive right to adaptations. The Disability
Rights Task Force recommended that landlords should not be able
to withhold consent unreasonably for a disabled person to make
changes to the physical features of the premises.
The provisions do refer to the need
to take reasonable steps to change a term of letting that has
the effect of making it impossible or unreasonably difficult for
a relevant disabled person to enjoy the premises. The explanatory
notes refer to the waiving or changing of a term that forbids
any alterations to the premises. Changing or waiving such a term
would enable a disabled tenant to make alterations necessary by
reason of his/her disability with the consent of the landlord
(by implication, that consent will not be unreasonably withheld).
However, failure to require landlords/controllers
of premises to let to include terms as recommended by the Disability
Rights Task Force means that disabled tenants will face a potentially
lengthy and complex process. This will be particularly the case
in relation to accommodation in the private rented sector where
no right to alterations exist and many tenancy agreements expressly
exclude it.
If the Bill were to be enacted as currently
proposed, it would involve:
- Requesting that the term prohibiting
alterations is adjusted, under the terms of the Disability Discrimination
Act. This would be subject to consideration of whether it is
reasonable to do so.
- If successful in the above, the
disabled person would need to request permission for the alteration,
which, if refused, would have to be appealed under the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1927, with another test of reasonableness.
Given the difficulties already experienced
by many disabled people, in terms of employment, and the consequent
lower incomes of many, this may effectively deny them the extension
of choice in terms of housing that the Bill is seeking to introduce.
It is important to appreciate that the positive right to make
alterations/adaptations as proposed by the Disability Rights Task
Force still allows a test of reasonableness in its application.
It does not override the property rights of the owner, but seeks
to bring a balance between those rights and the rights of disabled
people to appropriate accommodation. (Please refer to Briefing
Note of the Disability Rights Commission for a fuller assessment).
The draft Bill should also reflect impact
of proposals made by the Law Commission's work on a single tenancy.
For type one agreements, the Law Commission recommends a term
that gives occupiers the right to make improvements subject to
the landlord's consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld.
It does not extend this to type two
agreements. However, the private rented sector will largely use
a type two model (based on assured shorthold). If the process
above has to be followed, the term of the letting could be over
before the process is completed, and therefore the same right
and test of reasonableness should be included.
4. Role of Local Authorities.
Clause 8 within the draft Bill covers
the duties of public authorities, including the general duty when
carrying out its functions, to improve equality of opportunity
for disabled people. Within its statutory duty to produce a local
housing strategy and its role as a strategic enabler of housing,
a local authority should undertake assessments of the needs of
its population in terms of housing.
Specifically, it should assess the need
for suitable and accessible housing for disabled people within
its boundaries and the extent of current provision. It should
then plan for provision to address unmet needs, in partnership
with housing providers. This should incorporate choice of tenures
for disabled people, and address issues of accessibility more
widely. With the increasing provision of choice based lettings
schemes, local authorities should seek to encourage the participation
of private sector landlords as well. One of the concerns for
private landlords in allowing adaptations to properties is the
potential detrimental effect for future lettings. Choice based
letting schemes which hold accurate information and market available
properties widely would facilitate more effective use of adapted
properties for landlords and increase the choice for disabled
people.
5. Conclusions
Whilst the aim of the draft Bill to
remove barriers to opportunity and choice in terms of housing
for disabled people is welcomed, we do not consider the proposed
provisions are strong or extensive enough to achieve this aim.
We would recommend the inclusion of a right to adaptations, subject
to a test of reasonableness to be required.
| 
