Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Decision register
Modern.gov Content
Decisions
Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.
08/10/2019 - Section 21 Consultation ref: 683 Recommendations Approved
Central Government sought views on: A new deal
for renting: resetting the balance of rights and responsibilities
between landlords and tenants. This consultation, which ran between
21 July 2019 and 12 October 2019, asked for opinions on
implementing the government’s decision to remove Section 21
of the Housing Act 1988 and improving section 8 eviction
grounds.
As the proposals outlined in the consultation are likely to have a
positive impact on homelessness and on the ability of local
authorities to prevent and relieve homelessness, it was felt
important that the authority respond to this consultation. The
Cabinet Member for Housing was consulted and was supportive of the
final draft used for submission.
Decision Maker: Director: Housing and Landlord Services
Decision published: 25/11/2019
Effective from: 08/10/2019
Decision:
Bristol City Council (Housing Options Service)
responded to this consultation as follows:
Bristol City Council (Housing Options Service) is grateful for the
opportunity to respond to the Government’s consultation on A
new deal for renting: resetting the balance of rights and
responsibilities between landlords and tenants. We have submitted a
response to the consultation questionnaire, but would also like to
submit this written statement.
The following is a summary of some of the key issues raised by
colleagues in the Housing Options service in response to this
consultation.
Overall, we welcome the proposals to abolish the assured shorthold
regime (including the use of section 21 notices).
However, we recognise that there may be circumstances where no
fault possession is still required, specifically with respect to
supported accommodation. Some types of supported housing rely on
the delivery of support, either directly or by means of financial
provision, from an external agency. If this is withdrawn, for
reasons that may be entirely beyond the control of the provider of
that accommodation, such housing cannot currently be sustained and
section 21 is used to end the tenancy. There would have to be a
similar arrangement in place in future to avoid supported housing
being ‘log-jammed’ and/or occupied by people who no
longer require support or pose some kind of risk if they continue
occupancy.
Most supported housing is supplied in circumstances where the need
for it is likely to cease to apply at some future point. If section
21 notices are completely withdrawn, some special form of
legislative process will need to take its place.
In general we would like to see more emphasis on discretionary
rather than mandatory grounds for possession.
With respect to the premise of question 4 – ‘that a
landlord should be able to gain possession if their family member
wishes to use the property as their own home?’ – we
would wish to see greater clarification as to what is meant by
‘family member’ in this context. It is suggested that
this should be a discretionary ground which is best considered on a
case by case basis. Both nationally and locally, the ‘end of
an assured shorthold tenancy’ has been recorded as the top
cause/trigger for homelessness. In 2018/19 there were 433
presentations to Bristol City Council’s homelessness service
who reported their last settled home as a private rented tenancy
and this has consistently been the foremost reason for people
presenting as homeless in Bristol for the past five years. In many
cases, landlords state that they want to move back into the
property or want vacant possession for a family member. Landlords
are not obliged to provide any proof that this is actually the case
and there may be occasions where landlords use this reasoning when
in fact they require vacant possession to re-let a property at a
higher rent.
Question 5 asks – ‘Should there be a requirement for a
landlord or family member to have previously lived at the property
to serve a section 8 notice under ground 1?’ We would
question how this will be policed and what will be the sanctions if
the law is improperly used in such cases. We believe that such
cases should be discretionary and considered by the courts on a
case by case basis.
We do not agree that the ‘ground under Schedule 2 concerned
with rent arrears be revised so: The landlord can serve a two week
notice seeking possession once the tenant has accrued two
months’ rent arrears.’ The implementation of welfare
reform/universal credit has led to lengthy delays in payment for
some people. Bristol also has a high number of short term,
temporary, low paid and zero hours contract jobs. We recognise that
many people on such contracts are frequently in and out of work,
making it difficult for low income households to meet housing
related costs. Nor do we agree with the proposal that courts
‘must grant a possession order if the landlord can prove a
pattern of behaviour that shows the tenant has built up arrears and
paid these down on three previous occasions’. We would
reiterate our concerns about the implementation of welfare reform
and the proliferation of low paid/zero hours contracts. In fact, if
a tenant household has accrued arrears but has ‘paid these
down’ it does suggest irregular income, but more importantly,
a tenant intention to maintain the tenancy by eventually paying the
rent. It is felt that the proposals outlined in this section could
undermine our ability to tackle and prevent homelessness.
With respect to the grounds available to end a tenancy where
anti-social behaviour is a problem, we believe that 7A (‘The
tenant has been convicted of a serious offence in or around the
property, against someone living in or around the property, or
against the landlord’) – should be a discretionary
rather than a mandatory ground, considered on a case by case basis.
Our reasoning is that there is no definition or examples of
‘a serious offence’ provided in the consultation. We
can imagine that there may be cases where such an offence has been
committed but that this in no way affects the ability of the tenant
to sustain a tenancy and be a good neighbour.
We are in agreement with the proposals concerning domestic
violence. With respect to question 27 (‘Should a victim of
domestic abuse be able to end a tenancy without the consent of the
abuser or to continue the tenancy without the abuser?’) we
would agree that a victim of domestic violence should be able to
continue the tenancy without the abuser and would like to see it
specified that the tenancy should continue on its original terms.
We would also like to propose consideration of how such a victim
can be enabled to continue their tenancy through financial and
other support if needed i.e. if their financial situation would
lead to hardship in paying the rent.
Question 28 (on Property Standards) asks whether we would
‘support amending ground 13 to allow a landlord to gain
possession where a tenant prevents them from maintaining legal
safety standards’. We would argue that a landlord should be
able to gain access to the property, to ensure legal safety
standards, not gain possession.
We would like to see this considered on a case by case basis.
Overall, we believe that the proposals outlined in the consultation
will have a positive impact on homelessness and on the ability of
local authorities to prevent and relieve homelessness, though we
would reiterate our belief that a number of the mandatory grounds
outlined in the proposals should be reduced in favour of
discretionary grounds. By moving the homelessness relief stage to a
point earlier than when a possession order is being sought, local
authorities will have more time to focus on early intervention and
working with households to prevent their homelessness. Offering the
victims of domestic violence the opportunity to remain in their
homes is also likely to have a positive impact on reducing
homelessness.
However, before implementation of any of the proposed changes,
there urgently needs to be reform of the current court system, with
the introduction of the new ‘housing’ court. It is
strongly felt that the proposals being made will not work
effectively without a concomitant change to the existing court
process, as the current process is too slow and unwieldly for both
tenants and landlords.
Lead officer: Louise Baker
16/10/2019 - Urban Tree Challenge Fund – grant acceptance ref: 658 Recommendations Approved
To allow acceptance of the Forestry Commission
offer of grant and agree cash match contribution.
Decision Maker: Executive Director: Growth and Regeneration
Decision published: 17/10/2019
Effective from: 16/10/2019
Decision:
Accept the Urban Tree Challenge Fund grant
offer - £338,703.15 to enable the planting of 400 new street
trees and ten new small woodlands (3,241 trees) in Bristol over the
next two years. Bristol City Council is accepting the grant on
behalf of North Somerset Council who will also be planting 400
street trees within their administrative area. The locations of
these must trees meet the guidelines provided by the Forestry
Commission in their grant award.
Lead officer: Louise Baker
25/09/2019 - City Museum and Art Gallery - Roof renewal ref: 657 Recommendations Approved
The glazed roof section is in poor condition
and if not addressed will affect other parts of the property. The
building is a grade 2 listed building and the works being
undertaken have been stipulated by planning.
Decision Maker: Executive Director: Resources
Decision published: 16/10/2019
Effective from: 25/09/2019
Decision:
To approve the commencement of the works
following the commissioning via an open tender under a JCT Form of
Contract the renewal of the glazed roof.
Lead officer: Sarah Wilson
07/10/2019 - Old Market Network (Phase 1a) Civil & Mechanical Construction Project ref: 650 Recommendations Approved
Following a full open tender procurement
process, Vital Energy Ltd was the successful bidder. The tenderers
were scored on price, quality and social value.
Decision Maker: Executive Director: Growth and Regeneration
Decision published: 10/10/2019
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
To award a contract to Vital Energy Ltd for
the construction
Lead officer: Louise Baker
16/07/2019 - Heat Network Integrated Studies ref: 649 Recommendations Approved
BCC are actively installing heat networks
across the city in order to support the Mayor’s commitment
for Bristol to be a carbon neutral city by 2030 and to reduce fuel
poverty. There are a number of existing networks and many areas
identified in the heat priority area, which require work. A direct
award was taken in to order to provide value for money and due to
tight timescales owing to the progression of further heat networks
in the city and the need to ensure pipe sizing currently in design
was appropriate for wider networks. As such direct award was
awarded to the supplier who had carried out the previous work
Decision Maker: Director: Management of Place
Decision published: 07/10/2019
Effective from: 16/07/2019
Decision:
Approval for the award of a contract to
Sustainable Energy Limited in order to carry out assessment study
of existing heat networks, and how they could integrate into a
single city-wide heat network. The second part of the award is for
a number of feasibility studies for other heat network areas of the
city including Easton, Spike Island and Temple
Lead officer: Louise Baker