Changes to flooring policy in ‘everyone’s best interests’

The States announced this week that it was changing the long-standing policy that saw departing tenants made to pay to remove worn carpets and other floor coverings and has now released more details on how the scheme would work.

The States will pay for new flooring through a contract agreement with a supplier in cases where new tenants need new flooring. It is expected that this will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

‘We’d be very pleased to see a higher proportion of floor coverings retained, which would be in everyone’s best interests, including the taxpayer,’ said Ed Ashton, director of operations for Social Security, States Housing and inclusion.

‘The floor coverings that we will install will have a warranty period, so unless they become damaged, they should last for a long time.’

But flooring will only be fitted in rooms where the current flooring is unsatisfactory, and existing tenants will not be entitled to claim on the scheme.

Tenants are able to fit their own flooring but when it has not been removed by the landlord, it will need to be kept to be put back in place at the end of the tenancy.

The new policy is expected to be introduced early next year once appropriate contractors have been found.

States Housing has been criticised in the past for removing perfectly adequate flooring and carpeting, leaving new tenants to foot the bill for installing new ones.

Mr Ashton said there had been a period of time when extensive renovations were taking place in some States housing, which meant that tenants were asked to remove their floor coverings when vacating the property.

‘This was because the costs of temporarily removing floor coverings, storing them during the refurbishment and professionally refitting and cleaning them was not cost-effective,’ he said. ‘However, for some years now, floor coverings that are in satisfactory condition have been left in situ unless it was uneconomical to do so.

‘Occasionally, although it may appear as if existing floor coverings are in good condition, we may not consider them salvageable due to infestations which are not cost-effective to clean, or if there are safety concerns with the way it was fitted.’

Tenants welcome changes

States tenants have welcomed proposed changes to a flooring policy that they said had seen hundreds of thousands of pounds of good carpeting removed and much of it ending up in landfill.

It is unknown how much flooring has been removed from States properties over the 15 years or more that the policy is known to have been in place.

Figures from 2022 showed that in three-quarters of new tenancies the flooring and carpeting were removed, at the cost of the departing tenants, with new tenants having to pay thousands of pounds to have new floor coverings fitted.

At Pre de l’Aumone tenants like Amy Legg said it had been a big and unexpected expense. She moved on to the estate two years ago.

‘I moved from private rental, and was glad to have a home, but it was still a bit of shock to find there was no flooring,’ she said.

‘Now, two years later, I still need lino in the bathroom and the kitchen. I’ve put down some floor tiles myself but they are not really adequate.’

Neighbour Gemma Haines also welcomed the changes. ‘It should have been done years ago,’ she said.

‘When we moved in we had to put in new flooring throughout the house, and it’s expensive.’

Jason Horsepool, another States tenant, agreed.

‘You tend to move into States housing because you have no money and then find you have to spend thousands on carpets. It’s a bit contradictory,’ he said.

‘Even a bit of old worn carpet would be better than nothing while you were sorting yourself out.

'I know at least one of my neighbours does not have any carpet in their kids’ bedrooms.’

Every tenant the Guernsey Press spoke to had stories of witnessing perfectly adequate flooring and carpet thrown away when neighbours moved out.

‘They would leave some flooring, but it’s only ever lino and wood, carpets always went,’ said Mr Horsepool.

‘We’ve been told that this was just in case there were fleas or something in it, but it was cheaper to remove carpet so they always removed them.’