1 / 60

Working for success in the public sector

Presentation On:. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Working for success in the public sector. The Development of HHSRS. Research and Reviews Monitoring of fitness introduced in 1989

eavan
Download Presentation

Working for success in the public sector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation On: • The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Working for success in the public sector

  2. The Development of HHSRS Research and Reviews • Monitoring of fitness introduced in 1989 • Reported on in 1993 and highlighted some shortfalls in Fitness Standard – e.g. arrangement, noise, fire, radon, falls could not be accounted for. • Legislative anomalies identified • LA’s simply not coping with extent of unfitness • Building regulation reports on health and safety in housing (1995) • Reported that main health and safety risks not identified in Fitness Standard • Used Risk Assessment techniques to report findings.

  3. The Birth of HHSRS • 1998 – Government commissions development • 2000 – HHSRS Version 1 released • 2003 – Evaluation and review • 2003 – Application of HHSRS to HMOs reviewed • 2003 – Statistical evidence published • 2003 – Draft version 2 issued for consultation • 2004 – Finalised version 2 published and Housing Act receives Royal Assent

  4. Weaknesses of Fitness Standard • Dwellings are either fit or unfit – there is no middle ground • The distribution of unhealthy housing does not follow this sort of pattern • Some dwellings will be VERY unfit, others just unfit • Some dwellings will be completely satisfactory either only just acceptable • Fitness does not compare one category to another – it does not say whether an unfit kitchen is better or worse than an unfit bathroom • It does not measure the true impact of the identified defect but only the fact that it is there. • It is a standard and therefore prescriptive. • It does not measure for many typical health and safety issues in housing

  5. Advantages of a Rating System • Can include all health and safety hazards • Allows for hazards to be graded according to severity • Can be applied to all dwellings • The statistical evidence can be updated as research continues • Provides a more structured approach to an assessment – how likely is a health and safety threat AND how dangerous is it likely to be – a Risk Assessment approach

  6. The Principle • Any dwelling including the structure and outbuildings, it’s garden and fencing, amenity space and any shared facility or access, should provide a safe and healthy environment for the occupier and any visitors

  7. The Aims of a Rating System • To rate the EFFECT and not the DEFECT • To rate how serious the effect may be on health and safety • To be supportable by evidence • To be practical to apply • To be legally sound and acceptable

  8. Potential Housing Hazards Arranged into four groups: A - Physiological Requirements B - Psychological Requirements C - Protection Against Infection D - Protection Against Accidents

  9. The 29 Hazards Identified B. Psychological Requirements • Crowding and space • Entry by intruders • Lighting • Noise A. Physiological Requirements • Damp and mould growth etc • Excessive cold • Excessive heat • Asbestos (and MMF) • Biocides • CO & Fuel combustion products • Lead • Radiation • Uncombusted fuel gas • VOCs

  10. The 29 Hazards Identified D. Protection Against Accidents • Falls associated with baths etc • Falls on the level • Falls associated with stairs and steps • Falls between levels (e.g. from windows), • Electrical hazards • Fire • Hot surfaces and materials • Collision and entrapment • Explosions • Poor ergonomics • Structural collapse and falling elements C. Protection Against Infection • Domestic hygiene, pests & refuse • Food safety • Personal hygiene sanitation & drainage • Water supply

  11. Rating Different Hazards Using statistical data from actual events allows us to: • Compare widely different hazards • Assess for both frequency of occurrence and health outcome and combine these two factors • Present a structured argument based on an assessment and published evidence

  12. Generating a Hazard Score This relies on three sets of figures: • The LIKELIHOOD of an event occurring • The HARM OUTCOMES likely to result from that event • A WEIGHTING of different outcomes depending on their severity

  13. Likelihood • The likelihood of an occurrence over the next twelve months which could cause harm to health and safety. • An ‘occurrence’ can be a one off event or a period of exposure • Likelihood is expressed as a ratio – e.g. 1 in 560, 1 in 180, 1 in 6 • A Caveat • Likelihood is always assessed for the vulnerable group i.e. those most likely to be victim of such an occurrence

  14. Harm • The possible health outcome from an occurrence, whether temporary or permanent. This can be any adverse physical or mental effect on the health of a person, and any effect on their social well-being. • A Caveat • The health outcome is one that requires medical intervention – the statistics are based on reported incidents, and of course very minor harm in the home is not reported.

  15. Spread of Harms • Harm outcomes requiring medical attention vary widely from death to moderate cuts or severe bruising, therefore there is a classification: The four main classes of harm are ~ Class I – Extreme Class II – Severe Class III – Serious Class IV – Moderate These classifications have been set by medical experts according to the degree of incapacity they cause

  16. Class of Harm Weightings • Weighting given to each class of harm to reflect degree of incapacity Class of Harm Weighting I Extreme 10,000 II Severe 1,000 III Serious 300 IV Moderate 10

  17. The Formula

  18. An Example Assessment of a fall out of a window to a ground floor room: • Likelihood - 1 in 18 ( considered quite likely to happen) • Spread of harm outcomes - • Class I - 0% death judged very unlikely • Class II - 10% chance of serious fractures • Class III - 30% chance of severe concussion • Class IV - 60% chance of severe bruising

  19. The Calculation

  20. A Comparative Example Assessment of a fall out of a window to a fifth floor room: • Likelihood - 1 in 180 ( Considered much less likely than the first example) • Spread of harm outcomes - • Class I - 50% chance of death • Class II - 30% chance of serious fractures • Class III - 20% chance of severe concussion • Class IV - 0% severe bruising judge very unlikely • The outcomes are assessed as more serious due to the window location

  21. The Calculation

  22. Banding of Scores Calculated

  23. SESSION 2 - The Guidance

  24. The Guidance • Introduction • Terminology • Overview of rating • Assessment of conditions using HHSRS • Flats and multi-occupied buildings • Annexes

  25. The Annexes • Landlord’s responsibility • Suggested survey procedure • Examples of the four HHSRS classes of harm • Hazard profiles • Selected references and sources of further information

  26. How to Judge the Likelihood Matters to account for: • The vulnerable group • Relevant matters affecting the likelihood – refer to Guidance and identified deficiencies from the assessment. • Where is the deficiency sited and what is the exposure to it. • How different is the condition from an Ideal • What is the average likelihood given in the Guidance

  27. How to Judge the Outcomes • What are the relevant factors – are there secondary hazards? • How different are these secondary hazards from an Ideal • Where is the deficiency located – might this influence the outcome? • What are the average spread of harms from the Guidance

  28. The ODPM Worked Examples Laid out in 2 pages: • Page 1 describes the dwelling and details the deficiencies relating to the particular hazard • Page 2 shows the working of scoring the hazard, and suggested remedial works and the subsequent re-assessment

  29. For Example

  30. Falls: on level, Associated with Stairs and Steps, and Between levels Foot of stairs/entry to kitchen Ground to first floor stairs First to second floor stairs Roof garden fence Roof garden

  31. Description of Hazard • Ground floor to 1st floor stairs are not steep but are not fixed to the r/h wall and move when used. The handrail is fixed only top and bottom. 1st floor to 2nd floor stairs are steep/winding and have no hand-railing at all. The door at the top opens onto the top flight. The kitchen and bathroom amenities are all on the ground floor, the living room is on the 1st floor and the bedroom is on the 2nd floor. • Decking to roof garden is approx 0.4 m off the roof level. The roof surface is asphalt with a grit coating. The fence overlooks the waste tip and car-park area of the adjacent wood yard and the fence itself is rotting. • Dwelling is a pre -1919 terraced house

  32. Model Answers Falls associated with stairs and steps (vulnerable group over 60) • Likelihood = 1 in 10 ( average = 1 in 180) • Outcomes: Class 1 = 4.6 (average = 2.2) Class 2 = 21.5 (average = 10) Class 3 = 31.6 ( average = 21.5) Class 4 = 42.3 • Score = 7740 Band A ( average = 169 Band F) • Justification: There are multiple flights of stairs and steps, none of which is adequately protected. The lower stairs are also loose, and the upper stairs are steep, uneven and winding and the bedroom door at the top opens outwards onto them. The arrangement of the rooms is such that all flights will be in regular use. The presence of the radiator and stub wall at the ground floor, the protruding shelf and constructional detail on the upper stairs and the highly abrasive nature of the surface to the roof garden, all indicate an increase in the harm outcomes as a result of a fall on these stairs and steps.

  33. Model Answers Falls on the level ( vulnerable group over 60s) • Likelihood: 1 in 56( average = 1 in 100) • Outcomes: Class 1 = 0.2, Class 2 = 10, Class 3 = 31.6, Class 4 = 58.2 all unchanged • Score = 394 Band E ( average = 198 Band F) • Justification: The threshold to the kitchen and the protruding bottom step of the stairs that crosses this are an awkward arrangement likely to increase the likelihood of a fall. This location is however the only trip step in the dwelling. Although the surrounding surfaces are not carpeted, they are not sufficiently hard or abrasive enough to justify increasing the harm outcomes.

  34. Model Answers Falls Between levels ( vulnerable group under 5s) • Likelihood: 1 in 10 ( average = 1 in 1800) • Outcomes: Class 1 = 2.2 ( average = 0.1) Class 2 = 4.6 ( average = 0.0) Class 3 = 21.5 ( average = 10) Class 4 = 71.7 • Score = 3377 Band B ( average = 2 Band J) • Justification: The decking on the roof garden has no protection, but of considerably more concern is the rotting, and climbable fencing overlooking the neighbouring wood yard. This is easily accessed by members of the vulnerable group and a curiosity regarding the activity in the wood yard may also tempt young children to climb the fence. The abrasive nature of the roof garden surface, and the fact that off-cuts of timber are stored immediately below the fence, and that vehicles use this area, all contribute to an increase in the harm outcomes

  35. Enforcement • Housing Act 2004 is very much an enabling Act - detail contained in secondary legislation • Part 1 does not actually refer to HHSRS – “new system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards” • The Regulations and the Guidance made under Part 1 set this out in detail • Remember that HHSRS is not a standard • Method of assessment which generates evidence on which action/intervention can be justified

  36. Review of Housing Conditions • LHAs required to keep housing stock under review and to identify any action – largely informed by inspections • Inspector must • Have regard to the guidance under s9 • Prepare an accurate and detailed record of findings • Purpose is to determine whether any HHSRS hazards exist

  37. Inspections • Good practice to survey whole of premises • Regulations require Inspector to: • Have regard to the Guidance under S9 • Prepare an accurate and detailed record of findings • Whatever the basis for the inspection, premises should be surveyed to determine whether Cat 1 or Cat 2 hazards exist • The actual subject matter of the complaint does not matter – should inspect for all hazards

  38. Enforcement Guidance • Statutory basis and LHAs must have regard to it (s9) • Replaces Annex B of DoE Circular 17/96 and DoE Circular 12/92 (HMOs)

  39. Enforcement Concordat • Set clear standards • Have clear and open provision of information • Help landlords by advising on and assisting with compliance • Have a clear complaints procedure • Ensure enforcement action is proportionate to the risks involved • Ensure consistent enforcement practice

  40. A Strategic Approach • Particular issue will be the use of discretionary power • Duty to deal with Category 1 hazards but power to deal with Category 2 hazards • Blanket policy not to take action in respect of Category 2 hazards open to challenge • Decision rules should be put in place, but each case should be judged on its own merits

  41. HHSRS rating and Action • Stage 1 – determine hazard score(s) • Stage 2 – in light of score does LHA have duty or power to consider action • Stage 3 – what is the most appropriate means of dealing with hazard(s)

  42. Options for Action • Improvement Notice (s11) • Prohibition Order (s20) • Hazard Awareness Notice (s28) • Emergency remedial action (s40) • Emergency Prohibition Order (s43) • Demolition Order (s265 1985 Act as amended) • Clearance Area (s289 1985 Act as amended)

  43. Some points to note • Cannot take >1 action simultaneously for same hazard • Can take same or different course for same hazard subsequently if initial action failed • Emergency remedial action – single course of action • Category 2 Hazards – Emergency remedial action, Demolition and Clearance not available

  44. Matters to consider • Action should be proportionate • Multiple hazards may indicate run-down property • Current occupants and regular visitors • Vulnerability • Occupancy likely to change • Social exclusion • Views of occupants

  45. Statement of Reasons • Required by s8 • Copy must accompany all notices and orders and copies of them • For clearance areas to be published as soon as possible after resolution of declaration • No prescribed form

  46. Statement of Reasons • Similar to Principal Grounds • Echoes the obligations for justifications on likelihood and on spread of harms • Stems from Human Rights Act • Highly likely that will be referred to at any Residential Property Tribunal hearing • NB Copy also served on Tenants

  47. Improvement Notice • Requires action to • Remove Category 1 or 2 Hazard • Same notice can deal with >1 hazard (whether Cat 1 or 2) • Prevent recurrence within reasonable period • Not available where Management Order under Part 4 Chap. 1 or 2

  48. Improvement notice • Must specify in respect of each hazard: • Whether served under s.11 (Cat 1 hazard) or s.12 (Cat 2 hazard) • Nature of hazard and the premises on which it exists • Deficiency(ies) giving rise to the hazard • Nature of remedial action and premises on which remedial action should be taken • Date when remedial action to be started (not sooner than 28 days) & when to be completed (periods for which each part is to be completed) • Can specify different times for different deficiencies • NB Remedy for Cat 1 hazard must reduce to Cat 2

  49. Prohibition Order May be appropriate where • Remedial action unreasonable, impractical or unreasonably expensive • May prohibit • the use of part or all of premises • for some or all purposes, or • occupation by particular numbers or descriptions of people (vulnerable groups eg those over 65 years)

  50. Hazard Awareness Notice • Notice advising the person on whom it is served that Category 1 or Category 2 hazard(s) exist on the premises • Content similar to Improvement Notice but • No dates for the work to be started or completed • No offence is committed if not complied with • Must also include reasons for deciding to serve such a notice as the most appropriate course of action

More Related