Scottish Government

6. VOLUME FOUR - THE TOLERABLE STANDARD

6.1 Introduction

This section provides the findings from the consultation analysis relating to Volume Four: the Tolerable Standard. This volume of the guidance:

• introduces the updated tolerable standard;
• sets the context of the tolerable standard within local authorities' new powers;
• gives practical guidance to those assessing houses against the tolerable standard; and
• aims to improve the consistency in assessments of houses against the tolerable standard.

6.2 Question D1

We have developed the draft guidance in a way that encourages consistency but retains the scope for flexibility and professional judgement. Do you agree that the balance is right?

Table 6.1: Responses to D1 by professional group

Of the 38 respondents answering this question 29 (76%) said that the balance in the guidance was right, describing it as "very good", "helpful", "good guide", "fair and reasonable", "workable and achievable". East Dunbartonshire Council expressed the view that the expert group had an ambitious task but had done "a very good job", feeling the guidance had "benefited greatly from its members diverse backgrounds". Scottish Borders Council said "at long last guidance is being provided on Tolerable Standard. It is long overdue". Most of those that responded thought the guidance would help local authorities and professionals, and improve consistency.

There were different views on how the guidance could be improved. Some respondents were of the view that "some of the criteria were too prescriptive" (Dundee City Council), or the guidance (whilst helpful) was "over complicated" in places (North Lanarkshire Council).

Other respondents felt that the guidance should be more specific on particular issues, or that the scope for flexibility may lead to inconsistencies. For example, Changeworks thought that the lack of specific guidance on technical standards or performance will lead to local variations in how the guidance is interpreted. Dumfries and Galloway Council and Loreburn Housing Association asked for more information on the financial implications for local authorities relating to BTS ("below tolerable standard") demands.

Clackmannanshire Council called for a "single integrated unified national standard for the private sector", expressing concern that there is room for uncertainty and confusion between local authorities and customers because of the number of standards (Tolerable Standard, Scottish Housing Quality Standard ( SHQS), building control standards and local standards). This was an issue raised by a number of respondents to various questions.

6.3 Question D2

The chapters on electrical installations and thermal insulation reflect new provisions and as such there is no body of experience in working with them. Do you think that the approach we have set out is useful? If not, what parts should we change and what would you suggest?

Table 6.2: Responses to D2 by professional group

*Nb. some responses overlap

Of the 41 respondents answering this question, 23 (56%) supported the approach taken, although some suggested improvements.

Twenty-three respondents (56%) suggested alternative approaches, although some of these did welcome or agree with elements of the guidance. Some respondents suggested that the guidance is sufficient at the moment although further advice may be needed after experience has developed.

Respondents also took the opportunity to highlight their general support for including electrical and thermal issues in both the legislation and guidance. Electrical safety was seen as an important issue and respondents highlighted the environmental and financial benefits of improved thermal efficiency.

Thermal insulation

There was a great deal of concern that the guidance did not specify the level of insulation required. There was general agreement that only specifying for the use of roof insulating material (regardless of thickness, condition or efficiency) was unhelpful. Twelve respondents highlighted this. Others felt this did not address the legislation. Argyll and Bute Council felt the "mere presence of roof insulation does not meet the test" set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 which refers to "satisfactory thermal insulation". Orkney Islands Council agreed, suggesting the measure might be "so low as to effectively undermine the intention and will of the Scottish Parliament when they introduced it". There was disagreement about what the level should be. Some wanted a higher standard or thickness but not so high (as in Building Regulations) as to bring too many properties below the tolerable standard. Others felt that the Building Regulations standards would be appropriate.

Practical challenges raised included getting access to loft spaces, and making assessments on the levels of insulation. Several respondents recognised it is difficult to define "satisfactory thermal insulation" but Changeworks felt it would be better to "adopt a common standard rather than relying on the subjective view of the assessor". The Scottish Rural Property and Business Association ( SRPBA) supported the presence of roof insulation as an indicator, but would like the Scottish Government to include other properties in the exclusions, including cottages with attic rooms.

Changeworks and the Energy Saving Trust both felt that the guidance should require assessors to highlight the advantages of better insulation, rather than leaving it up to the individual assessor. The Energy Saving Trust also suggested that the 'Further Information' section (on page 42) should signpost local authority staff to support programmes run by the Energy Saving Trust.

East Ayrshire Council questioned whether Tolerable Standard was the best mechanism for improving insulation and other respondents suggested that incentives, grants and guidance would be a better mechanism. Fife Council did not see any value in the thermal insulation provision.

Electrical Installation

As with thermal insulation, guidance on electrical safety was welcomed by many, but concerns were raised about some elements of the guidance and suggestions for improvement put forward. A common issue was the need to define what is meant by a "competent person". Some respondents suggested that the definition should be consistent with guidance on the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Respondents expressed concern that assessors would be asked to determine and declare "the electrical installation is adequate and safe for use", based mainly on visual evidence. Whilst some found them helpful, there was concern about the content of Table A and Table B, and the robustness of this evidence in determining the safety of a system. For example, Argyll and Bute Council did not think the presence of ceramic wired fuses in metal consumer units indicates that the installation may be unsafe. A few respondents suggested the tables should be reviewed by electrical specialists.

Another issue raised was the cost of bringing in a "competent person" to assess electrical systems, and there was concern about the availability and standard of some independent electricians.

Several respondents suggested that additional training (particularly for local authority staff) would be helpful or necessary in interpreting and implementing the guidance.

6.4 Question D3

Assessing the severity of rising and penetrating damp can be difficult. Do you agree with our proposed approach for assessing houses against the rising and penetrating damp element? If not, what would be a more useful framework?

Table 6.3: Responses to D3 by professional group

Of the 39 respondents answering this question, 19 (49%) supported the approach taken to assessing housing against rising and penetrating damp, with 20 respondents (51%) supporting an alternative approach.

Favourable comments on the guidance (from respondents who supported the approach) included "very good", "a great improvement", "appropriate", "a useful starting point" and "clear and helpful". Loreburn Housing Association and Dumfries and Galloway Council both said they were "happy that there is finally such an assessment protocol".

Rising damp

Several respondents disagreed with the approach taken to assessing how much rising damp should mean a house is below tolerable standard. Concerns were expressed by some that a single point of rising dampness would cause the property to fail the tolerable standard - this was seen as excessive given that the legal definition is "substantially free from rising damp" and would mean a large number would fail the test. Critics also described the approach to measurement as "too prescriptive", "too rigid" and "too stringent". Dundee City Council and others suggested that decisions should be left up to the professional judgement of the assessor.

Penetrating damp

Some respondents, who were critical of the approach to rising damp, were more content with the definition of penetrating damp, but there was some criticism and confusion. Attention was drawn to Section 5.22 in particular, which outlines the percentage dampness which normally means a house is below tolerable standard. East Dunbartonshire Council described the criteria as "very confusing" and Falkirk Council questioned how these percentages had been chosen.

Stirling Council thought the criteria were too prescriptive (given that the percentage doesn't determine the severity of dampness), and would prefer that the assessor exercised their professional judgement. Whilst North Lanarkshire Council felt that the approach could lead to an increased number of properties being declared Below Tolerable Standard, several local authorities believed the percentages set out were too low - three respondents highlighted that 50 per cent is the long established standard for "substantially free". Argyll and Bute Council suggested that visible signs of penetrating damp should be sufficient, as with rising damp.

Other issues

Several respondents were concerned that the guidance does not reflect: the overall condition of the house; underlying causes of the dampness; or allow for professional judgement. North Lanarkshire Council was concerned that the guidance implies that the scale of remedial work should not be considered. They also emphasised there can be practical issues in the percentage of damp, like access to loft space.

The Scottish Disability Equality Forum expressed concern that a house must only be "substantially free" from any rising or penetrating damp, viewing this as a definite health risk. In their view houses should be entirely free from damp. The Forum was also concerned about the reference in the guidance to the "provision for heating", as heating (not just the provision of heating) should be present.

6.5 Question D4

Do you think the level of detail we give in the draft guidance is appropriate? Are there areas that you would find more detail helpful?

Table 6.4: Responses to D4 by professional group

*Nb. some responses overlap

Of the 40 respondents answering this question, 25 (63%) believed the guidance is appropriate. Comments included that the content and format were "appropriate", "adequate for a wide range of assessors", "the detail is good and welcomed", "clear and very helpful". Glasgow City Council said "The detail given is enough to form a basis for making a judgement, but not so much that it becomes rigid and confusing".

However, 18 respondents (45%) disagreed or identified gaps and issues to be addressed. The most common concern was that the guidance on natural light and ventilation is inconsistent with the national building standards - six respondents called for the two sets of standards to be the same.

Dundee City Council did not feel the guidance takes enough account of the Sullivan Report - A Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy for Scotland - which recognises the impact of existing domestic buildings on carbon emissions. Inverclyde Council called for a comparative assessment system to allow local authorities to monitor the (increased) numbers of BTS properties.

Changeworks described the section on heating as "inadequate" because it says the minimum requirement is that each apartment should have a fixed electrical installation capable of servicing a plug-in electrical heater. Changeworks explained that this is neither an affordable nor effective way of heating a home. Their response drew attention to the equivalent reference in England (The Decent Homes Standards) which sets much higher heating requirements.

Individual respondents highlighted very specific areas they felt the guidance had over looked or had not given enough attention to, including: the position of the WC in the house; technical issues, particularly associated with condensation resulting from thermal insulation; how cost implications of requesting reports or samples should be addressed; and gas safety (alongside electrical safety).

North Lanarkshire Council asked for clarification on section 181 allowing local authorities to take an electrician into a property. East Ayrshire Council said that the flow chart in Section 4.8 should reference and link to Sections 28 - 30 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and that the guidance should emphasise the need to liaise with the Building Standards Service.

6.6 Question D5

Is the pitch and tone of the draft guidance appropriate for the audience we are aiming at? If not, how could we improve this?

Table 6.5: Responses to D5 by professional group

*Nb. some responses overlap

Of the 36 respondents answering this question, 26 (72%) believed the pitch and tone of the guidance was appropriate for the audience, describing it as "written in a clear style", "well written and understandable", "not too technical and at the same time not too basic", and "correct for the target audience". East Dunbartonshire Council suggested that the guidance could be improved by including illustrations of the types and causes of dampness and structural instability.

Several respondents felt the guidance should emphasise the need for joint working and reference partnership working protocols. Aberdeenshire Council thought that the volume should include more information on follow up action to ensure compliance. Dundee City Council felt that the guidance should emphasise that not all properties Below Tolerable Standard are "uninhabitable".

Aberdeenshire Council highlighted a number of very specific issues that should be addressed in terms of water supplies, location of WCs and drainage.

The Scottish Disability Forum provided a detailed response to this question, and raised a number of concerns:

• The guidance should be developed for a wider audience to encourage responsible housing;
• An independent vetting authority should be established to assess who meets the standards and take action when needed - this would improve consistency and avoid a "postcode lottery";
• Some elements of the guidance are statutory but others are not - all parts of the guidance should be important enough to warrant consideration by local authorities;
• Funding should be provided to support Local Authorities apply the guidance; and
• There is a danger of creating a "two tier standard on tolerable housing", if all housing is not made to meet the needs of disabled people.

6.7 Summary

• Most respondents felt the guidance on the Tolerable Standard was helpful and struck a good balance. The level of guidance was seen as appropriate, although some gaps or issues were identified. Respondents generally liked the pitch and tone.
• Whilst there was support for thermal insulation and electrical installations being included in the guidance, a significant number of respondents felt these sections needed further clarification. There was a great deal of concern that the guidance did not specify the thickness, efficiency or condition of the roof insulation. In terms of the guidance on electrical safety, there was concern about what is meant by "a competent person" and the robustness and accuracy of the evidence outlined in Tables A and B.
• When it came to the guidance on assessing rising and penetrating damp, views were very mixed. About half of respondents welcomed it and found it useful. But others disagreed with the approach taken and the definition of terms - there was evidence of a lot of confusion about what was being advised and some criticism about the approach.