The government intends to bring in a revised version of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).1The revised version has been seen by the author but has not been subject to public consultation or review. The term ‘revised’ often implies ‘improved’, but this version isn’t – it’s just the opposite. In attempts to ‘simplify’, it has given more opportunities for landlords to challenge action by local authorities (LAs), added arbitrary minimum standards that will encourage a tick-box approach, and introduced ‘tolerable hazards’ and ‘occupier behaviour’.

The 10 years of development of the current (2006) HHSRS2Housing Health and Safety Rating System: operating guidance, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, February 2006. started with an extensive literature review, matching housing statistics with health data and analysing the linked results, trialling different ways to assess the severity of hazards, and finally producing detailed guidance on its application. The approach adopted changed how housing conditions were assessed, shifting the focus from the building (an asset approach) to the potential threat to the health and/or safety of occupiers (a public health approach).3The author was responsible for co-ordinating the development work for the HHSRS and that of drafting the 2006 operating guidance.

The principle underlying the 2006 HHSRS is that:

When introduced into law, it was seen as politically appropriate to place a duty on LAs to take action to deal with the most serious hazards (hazards in bands A–C, termed category 1 hazards) and a power to act for hazards in bands D–J (category 2 hazards). These duties and powers are set out in Housing Act 2004 Part 1. The Act provides for LAs to include a category 2 hazard with category 1 hazards in the same notice or require remedial action for one or more category 2 hazards.

The 'revised’ version has divided category 2 hazards into two (arbitrarily), and also colour-coded the now three sections (a traffic-light system). This dividing of category 2 hazards implies that those in the lowest section are either not worth bothering about or are ‘tolerable’.

If LAs include on a notice one or more hazards falling into the new lowest section of category 2, with or without a category 1 hazard, it opens the door to appeals on the basis that such hazards are tolerable and should be ignored. To avoid costly, time-consuming appeals, LAs could ignore the new ‘category 3’, leaving occupiers to cope with one or multiple relatively minor hazards.

The 'revised' version introduces minimum standards. This doesn't help; rather it creates problems.

The phrasing of the 2006 guidance carefully avoided prescribing what should be done to remove, or minimise, a hazard. As the HHSRS was made to be applicable to any form of dwelling (a house, a flat, a caravan, a park home, a boat, etc), it was left to the expert assessor to determine how to remove the likelihood of a hazardous event and, if it could only be minimised, what to look for to reduce the severity of the outcome.

Being intended to be used to assess any form of dwelling, setting minimum standards was inappropriate and avoiding them added several bonuses. It gave the guidance a longer life. It recognised that what was considered satisfactory on publication probably wouldn’t be in five or 10 years’ time. Technological developments and changing weather/climate patterns were allowed for.

The 2006 guidance advised that any matter relevant to a hazard should be taken into account. This meant that, as well as any defects/deficiencies present, any other current or subsequent requirements (whether statutory or advisory, such as those applying to smoke alarms and electrical safety) were to be considered.

For no obvious reason, the original list of 29 hazards has been reduced to 21 by amalgamation of two or more of the original hazards. It seems that one of the factors taken into account was the similarity of the outcome. This may seem a good idea – but is it?

While the HHSRS focuses on health (the outcome), it is the likelihood that is linked to the cause of a hazardous event; remove or modify the cause – the defect/deficiency – and the likelihood is, at least, reduced. Some hazards are necessary and these should be made as safe as possible by reducing the likelihood – eg, for stairs and steps, one handrail is better than none, and two handrails are even better.

One new hazard in the ‘revised’ guidance, ‘Domestic and personal hygiene’, combines three of the 2006 HHSRS hazards: ‘Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse’, ‘Food safety’, and ‘Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage’. The 2006 guidance gives the focus of each of these as:

While the outcomes from a hazardous event of each may be similar, it is the likelihood judged over the next 12 months that links back to the defect/deficiency. In the 2006 guidance, the likelihood for each is different – 1 in 5,585, 1 in 4,960 and 1 in 7,750 respectively – but the ‘revised’ version gives a single likelihood of 1 in 2,000.

A draft of the ‘revised’ guidance introduced ‘occupier/tenant behaviour’ as a factor to take into account when judging a hazard. (Although queried with those commissioned to draft this version, this may still be present.) If it remains, it raises several concerns. The HHSRS is a tool for the assessment of housing conditions and whether the condition of a dwelling is a threat to the health and/or safety of occupiers. Environmental health officers, while trained to assess dwellings using the HHSRS, are not trained to assess behaviour; nor is there any guidance on what is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ behaviour for the range of households that may occupy a particular dwelling.

The consultation paper on criterion A of the Decent Homes Standard (DHS),7Decent Homes Standard Review Part 2.1: Criterion A, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, May 2023, para 33, page 8 – as sent to consultees. referring to the HHSRS, states that while it ‘is an effective way to identify hazards at the most dangerous level … [it] is, necessarily, a complex tool and does not itself set a minimum standard or take into account the fact that, unlike some other hazards, damp and mould can be unpleasant to live with, even where it may not pose a direct risk to health’ (emphasis added). That final comment is particularly worrying.

The 2006 guidance gives relevant and important definitions, including:

The 2006 guidance goes further on the ‘Damp and mould growth’ hazard, stating:

What is stated in the DHS consultation paper implies that the ‘revised’ HHSRS guidance doesn’t include these or equivalent definitions, with the result that they need to be added to the DHS (applied nationally, not locally).

The guidance has been rewritten without recognition of the consequences: its attempts to simplify have opened doors to challenges; it has removed the need for professional/expert assessment and judgement; and (most importantly) it has abandoned the promotion of healthier housing.

Why wasn’t priority given to the protection of occupiers, rather than easing landlords’ responsibilities and easing the load on so-called professionals? This is not an updated version, built on what was seen as a major step forward in housing and public health terms; it is badly written, arbitrarily altered and undermines the basic HHSRS principle.

In the interests of housing and public health, it deserves to be consigned to the waste bin.