Fixed term tenancies

Housing policy has travelled a long way from post war Britain. The modern approach was described by Housing Minister, Aneurin Bevan. When announcing major investment in building social housing he said he wanted to see places, “...where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all lived in the same street. I believe that is essential for the full life of a citizen... to see the living tapestry of a mixed community.”

Today, housing policy has regained its Victorian ethos; a tool used to divide. A scalpel is being applied to the ligaments that bind community. Where there is harmony, they bring discord. The gap between the haves and the have nots, the deserving and the undeserving poor, is growing wider. For individuals, that divide is increasingly difficult to breach.

Remember 2016. It is not just the year that for the first time the state permanently stopped subsidising the building of social rented housing, it is also the year that the undeserving were chased out of their homes. After previous voluntary arrangements failed to take off, legislation is now introduced to force councils to only offer fixed term tenancies - limited to between two and five years, with an extension to 10 years for some groups.

The legislation implicitly casts social housing as the exclusive preserve of those on benefits. Home ownership is seen as the default tenure for normal people; welfare housing is for the poor and deprived. Exposed in the Government’s ‘Lifetime Tenancies - impact assessment’ published this May, the main aims of the policy are to:

improve landlords’ ability to get the best use out of social housing by focusing it on those who need it the most for as long as they need it
ensure that those who need long term support are provided with more appropriate tenancies as their needs change over time
support households to make the transition into home ownership where they can

Statutory guidance will set out the circumstances in which local authorities will be expected to use tenancies of different lengths. 5 years will be the normal maximum (for households without children of school age), with 10 years applicable for those with longer term needs, such as older people, the disabled and their carers.

The justification for this policy is that 1.24 million households are on social housing waiting lists, 247,000 social tenants are forced to live in overcrowded conditions due to lack of suitably sized properties, whilst 338,000 households occupy social housing with two or more spare bedrooms. But instead taking a collective responsibility by building new homes, regulating the privately rented sector or changing preferential tax arrangements for home ownership, the individual must pay with the loss of their home. The assumption is that people only have a temporary need for the welfare safety net.

Young people in particular, will find it difficult to keep hold of a social housing tenancy. Already subject to the highest proportion of sanctions on their benefits, there is now the combination of the freeze on Local Housing Allowance and the benefit cap at £13,400 p.a. (outside London). For 35s and under only the shared room rate of benefit applies. For 18 to 21 year olds, all benefits for housing are removed completely. At least one housing association in England has already stopped housing those under the age of 36.

Many have serious concerns that this will inevitably lead to an increase in youth homelessness. Homeless charity Crisis reports that it’s already on the rise: 8% of 16-24 year olds report recently being homeless and in four years the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled.

Even those with a job and some money will struggle. Sky high house prices mean that many young people are locked out of buying a home. If you are young and lucky, it is generation rent; not so lucky, uncertainty, poverty, a shared home and the risk of homelessness awaits.

Comments

Leadership and Seductive Innovation

Whatever sector, whatever industry you are in, these are challenging times. It is all hands to the pump to find the right course. And for those fearing their very survival, it is understandable that the search for that new, powerful idea should dominate. But success will never lie in new technology alone; it is also critical to look in the right direction, not to get waylaid into seemingly seductive solutions. Look at the business and be honest, are a series of technological innovations likely? And if they are, will they make the impact on your industry that you anticipate? For service organisations in particular, constant technomania is probably an absolute distraction from the core business. Worse, it will beguile you into believing there is a promised land; that there is a magic bullet that will solve the organisation’s problems. The techno-fetishists earn their crust by promoting ever whackier and unachievable ideas. New jobs are being created, innovation labs are springing up. Cha...

Homing in on the public sector

Published in The Guardian, 8th February 1995

Homelessness: A Growing Crisis and the Role of Housing Associations

As homelessness in the United Kingdom continues its relentless rise, reaching over 350,000 , the pressing question remains: why are housing associations (HAs), the wealthiest players in the housing sector, doing so little to stem this tide? With millions of pounds flowing into their coffers annually, housing associations have the financial muscle to make a significant impact. Yet, their contributions to addressing homelessness seem conspicuously limited. HAs have long been a cornerstone of social and affordable housing, managing extensive property portfolios and collecting substantial rental incomes from their tenants. These funds are intended for the maintenance and expansion of housing stock, ensuring that affordable housing remains available to those who need it most. However, a closer examination reveals that the priorities of these associations have shifted over time. The increasing pressure to operate with a business-like efficiency has led housing associations to focus o...

1984 and Truth Social

How Orwell’s masterpiece can predict Trumps next steps I decided, with a grim sort of duty, to re-read Orwell. Pulled my old, dog-eared copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four from the shelf, expecting, perhaps, a historical curiosity. A powerful warning, yes, but one whose specific horrors belonged to the mid-20th century, to Stalin and the nascent Cold War fears that birthed it. Instead, I found myself gripped by a chilling, nauseating sense of déjà vu . Page after page wasn't just resonant; it felt like a dispatch from the present. Not the whole terrifying architecture of Airstrip One, not yet. But the tools, the language, the psychological distortions – they leaped off the page, smeared across the news reports from Donald Trump’s second presidency, barely four months old. It’s uncanny, and frankly, terrifying. Orwell wasn't just writing about totalitarianism; he was dissecting the mechanisms by which truth is dismantled and power becomes absolute. And seeing those mechanisms depl...

How social landlords must respond to Trump tariff impacts

Economic turmoil will have knock-on impacts for affordable housing supply chains in the UK, but it also presents an opportunity for social landlords to demonstrate resilience, argues Peter Brown Trump's tariff barrage, with a 10% baseline tariff on its goods exports to the US includes a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports , materials fundamental to the construction industry. Manufacturing and construction supply chains are directly in the firing line and perhaps more importantly, unforeseen turbulence creates uncertain future costs, risks of contract failure and possibly more company insolvencies. This is no longer a distant concern. How should the sector respond? Decisive action is needed. The potential impact of these tariffs, particularly on steel and aluminium, will ripple through our supply chains, inflating construction costs and jeopardising project viability. Housing organisations, from the largest G15 to the smallest community-led associations, must adopt a war-room...

Shared Ownership - a housing market fix?

Shared Ownership has given homes to around 180,000 families and it’s claimed that it offers a third way, an opportunity to house many more at a lower cost, another tenure that broadens the landlord offer. Some housing association websites go further and claim “It’s about getting your foot on the housing ladder. It’s a great alternative to renting and perfect if you can’t afford to buy a house outright.” Really? Whilst housing associations like selling them, the experiences of the occupiers can be quite different. Higher entry costs, administrative charges, rents rising annually, plus the responsibility for all repairs can mean the worst of all worlds. Why do increasing numbers feel trapped in the tenure? “It’s a step on the ladder” , yet Cambridge University found ( 2012 ) that over 12 years only 27,908 had staircased to 100%, and in many rural areas freehold ownership is expressly prohibited. They concluded that many shared owners simply cannot afford to buy their property in fu...

Redefining acceptable conduct: Using social landlords to control behaviour

Abstract The 1996 Housing Act brought ‘antisocial behaviour’ within the remit of housing legislation for the first time. This legislation is directed exclusively at those living in council housing. There still remains uncertainty about the exact nature of ‘antisocial’ behaviour. This has implications for the reasons for outlawing it and for the application of this legislation. Using data from the British Crime Survey, it is argued that there is insufficient evidence of a growth in antisocial behaviour. This legislation is directed exclusively at those living in council housing. What appears to be occurring on local authority housing estates is that a combination of, among other things, high unemployment, high child densities and lack of public funding in community and associated facilities is resulting in higher rates of vandalism. The legislation, in reality, seeks to legitimise opposition to a range of previously acceptable behaviours. For publication click here . For complete ...

8 facts you need to know about welfare reform

8 facts you need to know about welfare reform This blog is simple. It gives facts that contradict commonly held and repeated views. It debunks the myths that we hear regularly. Print it out and keep it near you. MYTH 1. Keeping the rise in benefits to only 1% is fair because it hits shirkers, not workers. Fact: 60% of the reduction falls on in-work households. Why? Because the 1% rise - which equates to a real-terms cut - affects universal benefits like child benefit and tax credits like child tax credit. MYTH 2. Spending on benefits for those out of work is out of control. Fact: the majority of all welfare spending is on pensioners - 53%. Also, benefits for those out of work is less than a quarter of the total welfare budget. Second, on average, between 2000 and 2010, welfare spending grew annually, in real terms, by only 1.75% - compared to 5.5% in the 1950s and 1960s, and 3% in the 1980s. Third, benefit spending in 2011-12 accounted for 10.4% of GDP, lower than the mid-80s ...

Will Housing Investment be Pivotal?

Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement on 26th March is poised to be a defining moment. We stand at a crossroads, with stark choices before us. The Chancellor must resist the siren song of austerity and instead embrace a bold vision of investment, especially in housing, and safeguard the vital safety net of welfare. The idea that we can achieve economic growth by slashing benefits and public spending is not just misguided, it’s downright dangerous. It’s a cruel delusion to think that we can starve the very people who need support the most and somehow expect the economy to flourish. Cutting wages and benefits for the poor, the old, the sick, and the disabled is not just morally reprehensible, it’s economically illiterate. It will only deepen inequality and stifle any hope of real progress. Instead of these shortsighted cuts, Reeves must prioritise investment in social housing. A decent home is not a luxury; it’s a fundamental human right. Building more social housing will not only provid...

Who should cast the first stone?

Published in The Guardian 18th April 1998

Housing: creative solutions

Search This Blog