To wrap up the recent polarised debate in EHJ on the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, Andrew Griffiths looks at the recent series of DETR seminars hosted by the CIEH and highlights some of the questions raised and responses given by the speakers

The five seminars held at the end of last year were attended by nearly five hundred delegates, who listened to the DETR presenting the proposed Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme (HHSRS) to local authority EHOs and others who will be required to use it. Few EHOs can be unaware of the controversy surrounding the system and the diametrically opposed views expressed. This dichotomy of opinion was partly reflected across the seminars with questions and views ranging from support for the system through to outright opposition and scepticism. The clear majority assessment among EHOs is support for the principles of the system (ie risk assessment and concentrating on what is important); however, there are concerns about how the system will work in enforcement, particularly in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). There are no queues of EHOs eager to be the first to defend the system in court.

EHOs from pilot authorities that had tested the system made presentations at each of the seminars. All were supportive of the system in principle but they each identified different problems and concerns; we must ensure that all the issues raised are acknowledged and addressed. The questions at the seminars reflected, to a considerable extent, the local housing demand of the authority of the questioner. Delegates from London and other high demand areas were concerned about enforcement issues, particularly as the enforcement consultation document has still not been published. Others, from authorities where demand is low, were more interested in the implications for area regeneration and were generally more supportive of the proposals.

Behind all the arguments, though, are the following quotes: "We plan to replace the existing pass-or-fail fitness standard with a health and safety rating scale" (from paragraph 5.28 of the Housing Green Paper); and "We published in July, guidance for local authorities on the operation of the new system, which we intend will become the new tool for judging whether property conditions are acceptable" (from paragraph 3.9 of Way Forward for Housing, December 2000).

In other words, the system is coming and any suggestion that it can somehow be stopped is fanciful in the extreme. Conversely, any suggestion that it should be accepted without rigorous questioning and testing is unrealistic, which is precisely why the CIEH is urging authorities to try out the system. Not only will they be prepared when it is introduced but, more importantly, we will all stand a much better chance of ironing out glitches in the system before it is too late or someone stumbles in court.

USING THE SYSTEM
One important issue raised was that the electronic survey procedure only requires faults to be recorded. If nothing is recorded against an element it is by default, satisfactory. It was asked if this could be changed. This issue was the subject of considerable debate during the piloting. However, the majority of those involved, preferred not to "waste time" in recording something that was satisfactory. The programme was, therefore, designed so that satisfactory answers did not need to be recorded. There are three "failsafe" methods that should assist in ensuring items are not missed:

• it is advised that information is only recorded as the room or item is inspected. As a room is entered, the details of the room should be recorded, and in this way, if no faults are subsequently recorded it is clear that the room has been visited. As such, the lack of faults is not likely to be due to failure to inspect. This can also be done for amenities and external inspections;
• if no faults are recorded in a room, the programme prompts for confirmation. This is a second chance to ensure that items are not missed; and
• if the operator wishes to record something as satisfactory then the "note" facility can be used.

In some cases, the ideal that is being assessed against is higher than the Building Regulations. Some EHOs asked if this meant that they had to carry out work to new housing or to a standard higher than the Building Regulations.

The response was an unequivocal "no". For some hazards, it is possible to reduce the health and safety risk even further than compliance with the Building Regulations. In these cases, the ideal may therefore be a higher standard than the Building Regulations. This means that dwellings with these additional safety features would receive a lower rating score than those complying with Building Regulations only. In practice, the difference will be negligible and would not result in any action.

While the system should ideally produce consistent results, some EHOs have found that they have reached very different conclusions using the system. One way of improving consistency is to get different officers to rate a house separately before discussing what was seen and how it was rated. This quickly starts to bring different scores into line. Model answers for "typical" hazards could be developed to guide judgements, while practical exercises and discussions will develop consistency.

HAZARDS
On the question of why drowning is not included in the list of hazards, it was pointed out that the rating system focuses on physical causes of accidents and does not cover behavioural issues. The evidence shows that the vast majority of drowning accidents are due to a lack of supervision of children, which is beyond the scope of the rating system.

Some EHOs were concerned whether they have to test for radon, and if so, how it will be paid for. Defending a decision on radon in court would be difficult, if it has not been tested for. In terms of who pays, it should be the same person who pays for such testing on the current fitness standard. Testing for radon is no different to testing for structural stability, the state of the electrical installation or carbon monoxide.

As an example of "hazard": a landlord has installed a bathroom in the first floor back addition but it is only accessible via the first floor back bedroom. The house is still unfit under the Housing Act 1985 as the bathroom is not "suitably located". How would such an unsuitable location constitute a hazard under the proposed housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS)?

The lack of easy access to the bathroom is a hazard and could lead to a high hazard score. There are hazards associated with the following:

• inadequate provision for personal hygiene - due to the inappropriately sited bath/shower;
• inadequate provision of sanitation - due to location of WC; and
• crowding and space - due to lack or privacy in the bedroom and inappropriately sited personal washing area.

Possibly the most dangerous of these is likely to be inadequate provision of sanitation. There is a high likelihood of some form of incident, particularly at night, with occupants and visitors being reluctant to disturb the bedroom occupants. They may therefore use alternative facilities (maybe a bucket) with resulting high risk of infection and subsequent illness.

THE RATING SYSTEM
There have been criticisms of the formula and the acceptable and unacceptable scores and the system has been questioned as to how sound it is. The formula used to generate hazard scores is sound and robust. It was subject to considerable scrutiny by well-established experts in risk assessment and risk management. As the system is not in itself a standard, but a method of assessing housing conditions, guidance was sought which would help suggest where any lines should be drawn. Work done by the HSE suggested that hazard scores of 1,000 or more could be considered unacceptable, and scores of less than 100 considered acceptable. From the piloting and field trials, these scores seem appropriate. However, final decisions have not yet been made.

ENFORCEMENT
It has been asked if the rating system can be used for enforcement. At the current time, it can not be used for enforcement purposes, which remains on the basis of fitness standard. Legislation will be required to change enforcement from the fitness standard to the rating system. Some worries have been raised that the concept of "unfit for human habitation" will be lost. However, once legislation has been introduced replacing the fitness standard with the rating system, there will no longer be a simple concept of unfitness. Ministers wish to retain the principle that certain living conditions are unacceptable and local authorities should have a duty to deal with them.

Another issue is whether there will be a requirement for landlords not to let a property that has a rating of above 1,000 and to keep the property below 1,000 during the letting. The DETR does not think that it will be practicable to express a requirement in that way. The Law Commission has recommended that dwellings should be fit at the start of a lease and kept fit throughout, and that tenants should have a civil remedy in the case of a breach of that requirement. The recommendation is being considered in the light of the replacement of the fitness standard with the proposed rating system.

The impact of the Human Rights Act has also been considered. Both landlords and tenants have rights under the Act, however there are procedures within the Government for ensuring that the Act is taken into account when new legislation is developed.

HOUSING IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION
Many issues regarding HMOs have been raised. Issues such as fire safety are being extended to all housing rather than just HMOs. The "ideal" situation in an HMO will need to reflect the risks associated with larger number of people and the multiple households. It is anticipated that additional guidance within the HHSRS will be developed on particular hazards associated with multiple occupancy, eg fire, crowding and space, and amenities.

With regard to the HMO management standards, the rating system only replaces the method by which physical standards will be assessed under licensing. Licensing will address other issues relevant to HMOs such as management competency. There is scope to strengthen the existing HMO management regulations and this could be done ahead of primary legislation for licensing. It was the Government's intention to consult separately on physical standards in HMOs as part of the development of licensing proposals. The rating system will eventually replace the current separate HMO fitness standards, and provide the principal tool in assessing physical standards under the licensing regime. Other licensing conditions would also be relevant such as the provision of certification relating to gas and electrical safety.

On the subject of tourism, it was asked whether bed and breakfast and holiday accommodation would also be covered by the rating system. However, it is not proposed to extend the coverage of the system beyond what is covered by the existing fitness standard. If such properties are covered now, then they will be covered by the rating system. In terms of the licensing proposals it is not the intention to licensce HMOs used full time for tourism, ie as accommodation for people whose permanent residence is elsewhere. Licensing is likely to include mixed-use accommodation that is also let to people without a permanent residence elsewhere, such as bed and breakfast type accommodation housing the homeless.

PRIVATE SECTOR RENEWAL
Many EHOs were concerned how the new system would affect their authority's ability to give grants for private sector housing renewal. The main effect of the new HHSRS is likely to be where grants are used to help people to comply with fitness enforcement notices. In such cases, the grant - and the enforcement notice - would be triggered by a hazard rating above a certain level. In the majority of cases, however, local authorities' grant programmes are unlikely to be affected.

The question on how the new system would affect an authority's ability to carry out slum clearance generated a clear answer. By providing a more accurate measure of hazards, the new system should mean better and more effective slum clearance. The DETR will shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities on the use of compulsory purchase powers, including those in clearance areas.

FEEDBACK AND TRAINING
All people carrying out inspections should be trained in risk assessment and the details of the rating system. The DETR sees it as the responsibility of the local authority, as the employer, to assure themselves that their staff and/or consultants have the appropriate training and qualifications. Those people who are currently qualified to make decisions in relation to the fitness standard would, with training, be able to implement the new rating system. This would tend to be qualified EHOs who are trained in health and safety issues and risk assessment. Throughout the course of seminars there was a perceptible shift in emphasis in some of the presentations (reflecting the questions and comments from the floor). Statements that "there will be no separate standards for HMOs" were amended to relate to physical standards. The CIEH contends that separate physical standards will be necessary as the rating system could produce a low score in an HMO if many of the defects requiring attention relate to comfort and convenience (important issues for tenants). The DETR is, though, looking for comments as to the extent to which comfort and convenience should be part of the rating system - in particular whether or not S190 should be retained or amended.

The time has come for a realistic appraisal of the system by as many potential users as possible. Who better than EHOs, with training in building science and technology plus risk assessment, to use the system? Any surveyor can note defects, but this system requires an analysis of the hazard and the health effects of the defect.

EHOs should be using the time over the coming months to grasp the system and mould it into a shape that will stand up in court. The Chartered Institute urges EHOs to keep on asking awkward questions and challenge the system at every turn; making sure the DETR is kept informed. Some surprise has been expressed, outside of the environmental health profession and government, that EHOs are not welcoming the system as an opportunity to use their unique skills. Right or wrong, that does reflect the view that EHOs are the best placed to use it. The system is not, as has been claimed, complicated to use, as any EHO who has undertaken noise measurements and acoustic calculations will confirm. In short, it is a professional assessment of how dangerous the design and condition of the house is to someone living or visiting it. It involves looking at whether the problems in the house would lead to an accident and illness, and how serious that is likely to be.

Just as "walls, floors and ceilings" necessarily evolved into Haccp for food safety, so "windows, fireplace and door" will inevitably evolve into the HHSRS. If those who are uniquely qualified to use the system do not get to grips with it, there are others who will.

Andrew Griffiths is an assistant secretary at the CIEH.