Written evidence submitted by Salix Homes [BSB 297]

Q1 - How well does the bill, as drafted, meet the government's own policy intentions?

We agree that the bill as drafted goes some way towards meeting the government policy intentions that have been discussed. However, the further legislation will provide more detail on whether the bill will be able to deliver those policy intentions. One area where we do not believe that the draft bill is strong enough to deliver policy intentions is that of culture change within the sector which will be key to ensuring the new regime is effective e.g. the regulator is focussed on sanctions and penalties and not about harbouring a positive shift in culture.

Q2 - Does the bill establish an appropriate scope for the new regulatory system?

We think that there may be further work to do in terms of scope and looking at other factors other than storeys/height when addressing risk of a building. We understand why there is a smaller scope detailed in the draft bill with the Secretary of State having the power to amend which future proofs the bill. However, if the scope was to change, there would need to be consultation with industry and an appropriate transition time. Transition times are something which is currently missing from the draft bill (although some reassurance given that there will be sufficient time given) and this is urgently required. Further detail should also be provided as to how the regulator will work with other legislation/regulators to ensure no cross over and avoid confusion for dutyholders and residents.

Q3 - Will the bill provide for a robust - and realistic - system of accountability for those responsible for building safety? Are there sanctions on those who do not meet their responsibilities strong enough?

Yes, the draft bill does appear to provide a robust system of accountability and strong sanctions (further explanation on the breaches could be offered). However, the definition of the Accountable person during occupation needs to be clearer as the current definition would be difficult to rationalise in a mixed tenure building. There also needs to be an additional clause included to state that  if a duty holder has taken all due care and received evidence that a contracted third party was competent to carry out works and they were subsequently found not to be, that the sanctions would not be given to the duty holder if they could prove that they were not negligent when instructing that third party. In addition to this, the sanctions on the Accountable Person in occupation are very clear, however, there isn’t enough emphasis on resident and leaseholder roles to ensure that they comply with the AP/BSM and information on customer sanctions is also missing. The process for non-compliance in terms of residents will also be costly for landlords and time consuming when swift action is required.

Q4 - Will the bill provide strong mechanisms to ensure residents are listened to when they have concerns about their building’s safety?

The bill does appear to provide a strong mechanism to ensure that residents are listened to regarding building safety concerns. There will need to be a big communications campaign to educate residents regarding this which may be more complex for private providers than social landlords. The new Customer Committee sounds very promising and should play a big role in ensuring that customer communications are consistent. It may need to be considered whether one committee can represent all views across the country so regional boards may need to be considered. As this will play such a key role, is there an option to set up a Customer Committee working in shadow mode to start developing this work? It will be interesting to see how the new information request process will work, it needs to ensure that this isn’t a long-winded process for either the customer requesting the information or those providing it.

Q5 - Is the government right to propose a new building safety charge? Does the bill introduce sufficient protections to ensure that leaseholders do not face excessive charges and that their funds are properly managed?

In regard to new buildings, the charge will become an anticipated cost, however, for existing buildings, the charge will need to be clear and transparent. The bill needs to ensure that all charges related to building safety in the future can be shared proportionately between residents and leaseholders. The draft bill does seem to include leaseholders in the building safety charge, however, there will need to be extensive work with leaseholders regarding the requirements prior to legislation. The process for applying charges and consultation with customers seems fair and allows customers sufficient warning of works and costs. However, it is concerning that in certain circumstances payment can be demanded within 28 days without consultation. There will need to be clear procedures for recovering charges and a coherent list as to what can/cannot be charged.

Q6 - Does the bill improve the produce testing regime in a way that will command the full confidence of the sector?

The improved product testing regime seems to be comprehensive. It will need to be ensured that the list is unbiased and broad enough for it to be used practically. Product labelling needs to be jargon free and detail clearly when products meet the required safety standards.

Q7 - Is it right that the new building safety regulator be established under the Health and Safety Executive, and how should it be funded?

Yes, it does seem appropriate that the BSR be within the HSE. It will be imperative that the HSE and local authority members of the BSR work collaboratively together as well as with industry. There will need to be a culture change within the regulator, and it will need to be ensured that members of the BSR are working consistently across the country. Local Authorities and Fire and Rescue Services will need to be sufficiently funded to allow the required resources to continue with current role as well as deliver their role within the BSR. The initial set up of the BSR will be substantial and will require commitment from Government to provide this funding. The ongoing BSR costs should be funded through a cost per building payment for the building safety certificate (i.e. similar to a planning application) to ensure costs are proportionate.

Q8 - Does the bill present an opportunity to address other building safety issues, such as requirements for sprinkler systems?

The changes to leases being proposed may assist with landlords gaining access to carry out other building safety issues, however this is no guarantee and we are disappointed there isn’t anything further specifically to assist with the installation of sprinklers. Building safety needs to be considered holistically and all elements that contribute to the safety of the building and its residents needs to be considered within this bill.

September 2020