Memorandum from the Chartered Institute
of Housing (DDB 22)
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, ie 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.
February 2004
| 
