Question 1

Retirement Housing

Accepted Answer

Q: We live in a ‘mixed tenure, retirement village’ occupied from June 2014 and managed by an RSL. Leaseholders’ Contracts of Sale included a pledge that “the Seller will build …… in accordance with the standards of the relevant new house warranty provider (NHBC.)” For almost a year now, we have been requesting that our landlord/managing agent adheres to the Lease (and ‘Easy Read Guide to your Lease’ – provided prior to signing) and “jointly writes with residents a Residents’ Handbook,” principally in accordance with the NHBC Sheltered Housing Code – ideally conforming to the ARHM Code of Practice, as the previous version specifically stated it conformed to the NHBC Code. We understand that the 2016 version of the ARHM Code is entitled ‘Private Retirement Housing’ and mentions that “registered providers of social housing that manage private retirement housing should have regard to this Code, but must also comply with the Regulatory Framework of the Regulation Committee of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).” After a vote of ‘no confidence’ and petition, our RSL is finally interested in our comments regarding their interest in becoming members of ARCO. On the face of it ARCO is nearly 4-years old with 23 members and it’s Consumer Code and the HCO’s Regulatory Framework both look pretty thin compared to ARHM’s Code and not impressive track record. FPRA Committee Member Martin Boyd replies: Sorry for the delay I have been checking the position with ARCO. The following may be relevant for your consideration. 1) It is very important the leaseholders and/or the managing agent have registered any faults with the developer within the first two years as most depredations sit at their responsibility. 2) After the two year period the NHBC guarantee becomes more relevant but I would be cautious of expecting too much from them. 3) In terms of ARCO and ARHM the ARCO code is much shorter and directed at setting an additional set of customer standards rather than duplicating the details provided in the ARHM code. This is because both the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code and ARHM Codes apply to all private providers in the Retirement sector. For registered social providers it gets more complex as only ARHM code applies regardless of them being members of ARHM or not. As an RSL they also have to follow the rules that apply to all such groups instead of the RICS code 4) Our concerns at LKP/Carlex over ARHM membership is that while their code has been very good their enforcement have been very poor in the past. 5) I've checked with ARCO and XXXX is indeed going through an application process. It will be very important to check that XXXX propose to include all properties at this site. There is of course no certainty ARCO will approve them until XXXX get to the end of the application. [Submitted August 2016]

Question 2

Retirement Housing

Accepted Answer

Q: We live in a ‘mixed tenure, retirement village’ occupied from June 2014 and managed by an RSL. Leaseholders’ Contracts of Sale included a pledge that “the Seller will build …… in accordance with the standards of the relevant new house warranty provider (NHBC.)” For almost a year now, we have been requesting that our landlord/managing agent adheres to the Lease (and ‘Easy Read Guide to your Lease’ – provided prior to signing) and “jointly writes with residents a Residents’ Handbook,” principally in accordance with the NHBC Sheltered Housing Code – ideally conforming to the ARHM Code of Practice, as the previous version specifically stated it conformed to the NHBC Code. We understand that the 2016 version of the ARHM Code is entitled ‘Private Retirement Housing’ and mentions that “registered providers of social housing that manage private retirement housing should have regard to this Code, but must also comply with the Regulatory Framework of the Regulation Committee of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).” After a vote of ‘no confidence’ and petition, our RSL is finally interested in our comments regarding their interest in becoming members of ARCO. On the face of it ARCO is nearly 4-years old with 23 members and it’s Consumer Code and the HCO’s Regulatory Framework both look pretty thin compared to ARHM’s Code and not impressive track record. FPRA Committee Member Martin Boyd replies: Sorry for the delay I have been checking the position with ARCO. The following may be relevant for your consideration. 1) It is very important the leaseholders and/or the managing agent have registered any faults with the developer within the first two years as most depredations sit at their responsibility. 2) After the two year period the NHBC guarantee becomes more relevant but I would be cautious of expecting too much from them. 3) In terms of ARCO and ARHM the ARCO code is much shorter and directed at setting an additional set of customer standards rather than duplicating the details provided in the ARHM code. This is because both the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code and ARHM Codes apply to all private providers in the Retirement sector. For registered social providers it gets more complex as only ARHM code applies regardless of them being members of ARHM or not. As an RSL they also have to follow the rules that apply to all such groups instead of the RICS code 4) Our concerns at LKP/Carlex over ARHM membership is that while their code has been very good their enforcement have been very poor in the past. 5) I've checked with ARCO and XXXX is indeed going through an application process. It will be very important to check that XXXX propose to include all properties at this site. There is of course no certainty ARCO will approve them until XXXX get to the end of the application. [Submitted August 2016]

Retirement Housing

Search

Articles Archive