CIH response to the consultation on emergency repairs under the higher-risk building regime

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) is the professional body for people who work or have an interest in housing. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) consultation on Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: emergency repairs under the higher-risk building (HRB) regime.

Our high-level response focuses on the impact of the proposed changes on housing organisations, housing professionals and residents. This follows previous responses we have made on changes to the higher-risk building regime, such as the Review of Approved Document B.

For more information on CIH’s position and response, please contact Megan Hinch, policy manager, at megan.hinch@cih.org.

Our response

Gateway 2 process and emergency repairs definition

CIH has long supported the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) as an important step in ensuring both new and existing homes are safe for residents. However, concerns have been raised in the sector that the current processes under Gateway 2, particularly for existing buildings, are not protecting residents. CIH responded to the related inquiry on the BSR to further highlight issues of workforce capacity, clarification of responsibilities and roles, and the need to embed cultural change throughout the HRB regime.

As outlined in the consultation, the definition of ‘emergency repairs’ is too narrow and often means that crucial works are excluded from this route. In practice this leads to housing providers debating and negotiating with the BSR, rather than spending the time completing the works, meaning that residents could be left in unsafe conditions for longer periods of time. Housing providers want to complete these essential works and support residents, and the processes to protect residents should not act as an obstacle to this. We therefore support the widening of the definition of emergency works to cover replacement and/or upgrading where this is necessary and appropriate, such as the installation of a new fire door. We also support the introduction of the new critical works category.

We understand the need for some works to be excluded from this route, as not everything can be treated as an emergency. The health, safety and wellbeing of residents should not be compromised, either by overloading the emergency repairs route by bringing in additional works without adequate resource for the BSR, or by not including enough scope for what is included within emergency repairs.

It is therefore essential that the government listen to the housing sector to best understand what should be included, resulting in a clear, prescriptive list on what would be considered within emergency works, to avoid inconsistencies, delays and additional costs from differences in interpretation.

However, we are concerned about the proposal for self-certifiable emergency or critical works to be introduced to the Competent Person Scheme (question 32). While we understand the intention to speed up the process for emergency works, this could mean that residents are left in unsafe conditions with little accountability or review. We believe that checks and balances within building safety are essential, as noted in the government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report. The building safety environment has changed significantly in recent years, yet culture change can take time, and we must therefore ensure that the safety of a block of residents must not only be left to one individual without any checks or reviews. A reasonable approach may be to allow the works to go ahead, but the BSR must be notified and then works must be checked retrospectively to ensure these were effectively and competently carried out. This will provide reassurance to residents that the BSR is involved in the process, as well as help mitigate delays to necessary works.

Guidance, accountability and joined-up working

It is essential that clear guidance is provided to the sector to ensure greater understanding of how changes to emergency repairs processes will align and interact with wider policy reforms. This includes timescales under Awaab’s Law, the Decent Homes Standard, and Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazards.

There must be clarity and greater understanding within the sector on the requirements and expectations in meeting emergency repair timescales, to ensure that these are not just treated as a ‘tick-box’ exercise. A holistic approach to understand the root causes of repairs, the ongoing history and patterns of repairs in the home and wider block, and the impact on residents is crucial. This means that when complex issues arise, housing providers must understand what they are expected to do in the first instance, including how to ‘make safe’ the home, as well as taking the time required to effectively understand and complete full remediation works.

As the consultation notes, uncertainty and widespread confusion in the emergency repairs route under the BSR are therefore unhelpful and potentially harmful for residents. This means more guidance is required for the sector to understand best practice approaches to tackling complex repairs, such as sequencing and changes to existing plans when further issues are identified. We therefore support the clearer guidance on the new system and changes for landlords, Responsible Persons and residents. We encourage the government to work with the sector and resident groups to produce this guidance to provide a clearer process going forward and ensure it is effective and accessible.

Resident engagement

Finally, it is vital that residents remain at the heart of all building safety reform. Proposals outlined in the consultation will change how repairs are actioned and completed for residents, who ultimately live in the homes impacted. Residents must be informed of how these changes may influence their repairs processes, expectations of timeframes, and alignment with wider changes such as Awaab’s Law and the Decent Homes Standard.

Residents must be clear on what to expect from their housing provider, including when repairs are more complex than they first appear, and the role of the BSR in ensuring that their homes will be safe both in the short- and long-term when issues are identified. This is necessary within all reforms to the HRB regime, and the government must encourage meaningful engagement, clear communication, and genuine listening to residents within a wider change in culture for building safety.