Regulator raps housing association over failure to give sufficient notice of eviction

A housing association in the West Midlands breached the tenancy standard when a number of individuals with protected licences in one of its temporary accommodation schemes were given insufficient notice of eviction, the Homes & Communities Agency has found.

In a regulatory notice the HCA said that as a consequence of the breach, there was potential for serious detriment for WM Housing’s tenants.

The regulator is considering whether further action should be taken, including whether to exercise any of its powers.

Under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 WM Housing is required to give tenants and individuals with a protected licence 28 days’ notice before an eviction.

In July 2017 the housing association, which has more than 30,000 homes across the West Midlands, reported to the HCA that it had identified a breach of the tenancy standard.

WM Housing told the HCA that since the scheme opened in May 2015, a number of individuals with protected licences were not given sufficient notice as required by the 1977 Act.

“In some cases individuals had been given no notice, and in other cases they had been given seven days’ notice,” the HCA revealed.

“WM Housing told us that the majority of these individuals had found alternative accommodation, but that a small number of people had not done so and may be sleeping rough.”

The housing association had identified the issue following a change in management at the scheme and told the watchdog that the issue had been due to a failure to follow policies and procedures.

The regulator said it had considered the case as a potential breach of part 1.2 of the tenancy standard, which requires registered providers to meet all applicable statutory and legal requirements in relation to the form and use of tenancy agreements or terms of occupation.

The HCA concluded that WM Housing had failed to meet this requirement because it had not complied with the statutory requirement to give 28 days’ notice when evicting individuals with protected licences from the scheme in question.

The regulator noted WM Housing’s self-identification and its reporting to the regulator. But it “also noted that WM Housing had failed to ensure that the implementation of its eviction processes provided licencees at this scheme with the level of protection required in law. That meant that all licencees at this scheme may have been at risk of an unlawful eviction.”

WM Housing had provided assurance that the issues identified only related to one scheme. However, the HCA noted that this issue had continued for up to two years. “Given that, and given the large number of tenants who were evicted without complying with the necessary legislative requirements, the regulator has concluded that it is proportionate to find a breach of the tenancy standard in this case."

The HCA continued: “Although WM Housing was satisfied that it was right to serve the notices when it did, licencees were not given sufficient notice of the eviction and although most of the licencees did secure alternative accommodation in the time available, a small number did not.

“Furthermore we note that the failure to ensure established procedures were followed meant that all licencees at this scheme were at risk of an unlawful eviction process had they breached the terms of their licence. “

The HCA concluded that the serious detriment threshold had been met.

WM Housing had identified a number of actions to prevent a recurrence of the situation, the HCA, and was reporting on progress.

“The regulator will consider, in light of performance against those actions what, if any, further action to take in relation to the breach of the Tenancy standard. The regulator is also considering the potential implications for its grading of WM Housing’s governance,” the HCA added.