Page 53 - Solving Housing Disputes

intends for this to change. The MHCLG Strengthening Consumer Redress in
the Housing Market report evinced an intention to “bring forward legislation
to require all private landlords, including private providers of purpose-built
student housing and park home site operators to belong to a redress
123
scheme”. By way of context, the MHCLG English Housing Survey for
2018/19 reported 4.6 million private and 4 million social rented sector
124
homes.

2.80 As described above, we propose that if the HDS progress beyond a pilot phase,
125
it would take on the maladministration jurisdiction for all housing disputes.
It would subsume all pre-existing providers into one service and would benefit
from an expanded pool of resources brought by the proposed legislative
requirement that all private landlords subscribe to a redress scheme. To use a
blunt metric, if all rented units subscribed to the HDS, a levy of £20 per unit
per annum would give a post-pilot HDS a starting budget in excess of £160
126
million. This is to ignore mortgaged occupation, which would also fall
within the ambit of HDS and which would add substantially to that budget.

2.81 The requirement that all housing providers pay into a redress scheme provides
a significant source of funding for a nationwide, holistic, investigative and
alternative service for housing dispute resolution. We recommend that if the
HDS progresses from a pilot phase, it subsume pre-existing redress
providers and be funded in full by subscription from housing providers.

123 MHCLG, ‘Strengthening Consumer Redress in the Housing Market: Summary of responses to the
consultation and the Government’s response’, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/gove
rnment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773161/Strengthening_Consumer_Redress_in_the
_Housing_Market_Response.pdf

124 P. 7 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/860076/2018-19_EHS_Headline_Report.pdf

125 It is arguable that it should enjoy a free-standing maladministration jurisdiction of its own.

126 Though any funding arrangement would have to offer lower costs to those who offer social housing
at thousands of units; housing associations and the ilk might pay a lower subscription rate than those who
rent for profit.
47