Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
The ending of secure tenancies
The Tory half of the coalition have now floated the ending of permanent secure council tenancies, for all new tenants. The Lib Dem half appear not to have been consulted….. although this has been widely trailed in the press for the last month, before DC finally made mention of it in a Q and A session with the public.
In fact Labours Caroline Flint had also considered a similar idea.
There is now a mass of conflicting claims, in the press.
So should a council tenancy be for life, or for a fixed term of five or ten years?
The reason behind the idea of ending secure council tenancies is apparently because one of the politicians discovered statistics for the income status of council tenants which shows that not all of them are poor. A small proportion actually earn more than the national average wage! (though not a lot more). This means that they don’t deserve to have council housing anymore because they’re not poor. The idea of having five or ten year tenancies is so that local authorities can check which council tenants have become economically successful and evict them to make way for hard up tenants who can’t afford to buy their own houses.
The more you think about this, the more unbelievably stupid and unworkable it is. Whoever dreamed it up is not just out of touch with reality, they’re living in another solar system.
One of the main things that made council estates so unpopular in the 70s and 80s was that they were perceived as ghettoes for the poor, feckless, chaotic and criminally inclined. So, this government is aiming to engineer them back into ghettoes?
Most council housing has been sold off to housing associations, who have been doing their own social engineering in the reverse direction, that is, excluding people whose behaviour and lifestyles does not fit respectable mainstream norms. I’ve come across one in Manchester that does credit checks on their propective tenants, for example. How is it okay to be a successful tenant in an ex-council-now-housing-association property, but not if you are in one of the few remaining local authorities that has hung on to its housing stock?
Politicians throw the concept “community” around a lot but they haven’t the foggiest what it actually means. A lot of inner city areas and council estates are communities because people have lived there long enough to know each other, their relatives and in-laws live nearby, and successive generations go to the same schools. It can resemble village life. People form social networks and have a sense of identity and security rooted in where they live. Forcing people to uproot because they managed to get good jobs is going to work wonders for “the community”.
But the biggest problem is, implementing this time-limited tenancy idea is going to require redrafting at least one, maybe more than one, of the main housing statutes. How much parliamentary time is that going to take? Is it going to be worth giving priority to? And would it really have much of an effect, given that you can’t make a new law retroactive?
Duh! How about just building more council houses so that people who badly need them don’t have to spend so long on the waiting list?
“Duh! How about just building more council houses so that people who badly need them don’t have to spend so long on the waiting list?”
Wouldn’t that be just too obvious and easy??!! ;)
“Duh! How about just building more council houses so that people who badly need them don’t have to spend so long on the waiting list?”
Wouldn’t that be just too obvious and easy??!! ;)
Ok fine that will work where you have plenty of space, lots of resources, and the political will.
It ought to be part of the solution…..
But is it a total solution.
Take London, not so easy.
You have I dunno roughly a million on Londons housing lists, and growing….....
The fact is in a thriving city acts as a magnet.
Is there really room for a million new coucil homes in London? Close to where people want to live?
Or are you accepting that folks will have to move.
Or are you going for high rise.
The coalitions idea is to use the existing stock more “effectively”......
To make sure family homes are occupied with children…..
[ Edited: 26 Aug 2010 at 02:32 pm by Rehousing Advice. ]Pure political scare mongering by David Cameron, going for the headline grabbing sound bite designed to play to the right of his party. If that were seriously proposed the Lib Dems (unless the Party revolted) would lose completely what’s left of their credibility as it would put an end to any security of tenure in Britain because it would almost certainly extend to assured tenancies granted by Housing Associations because they are state funded through the Housing Corporation.
It would not extend to private landlords as the State would find it extremely difficult to interfere in matters of private law other than to oversee equity and punish fraud. But most private landlords only issue assured shorthold and fixed term tenancies so most private sector tenants have little security of tenure anyway. On top of that I agree completely with Tokky.
“Duh! How about just building more council houses so that people who badly need them don’t have to spend so long on the waiting list?”
Wouldn’t that be just too obvious and easy??!! ;)
Ok fine that will work where you have plenty of space, lots of resources, and the political will.It ought to be part of the solution…..
But is it a total solution.
Take London, not so easy.
You have I dunno roughly a million on Londons housing lists, and growing….....
The fact is in a thriving city acts as a magnet.
Is there really room for a million new coucil homes in London? Close to where people want to live?
Or are you accepting that folks will have to move.
Or are you going for high rise.
The coalitions idea is to use the existing stock more “effectively”......
To make sure family homes are occupied with children…..
As i don’t live in London (now) i can’t possibly comment - however there is definitely the room where i live to build enough council homes to accomodate ALL of the people on the waiting list.
Just because it may not be possible in some areas should not mean that the apparent refusal to build council homes, should apply to all areas…..surely?
I do agree that family homes should be occupied by families, however i do not beleive that this should be at the detriment to the secure tenancy - some flexibility should also be exercised - i am aware of a case where someone was in a four bedroom property, children all grown up but some care of the grandchildren undertaken - she was approached and offered a one bedroom flat in exchange for the four bed house, she said she would compromise and accept a two bedroom property as she had some care of her grandchildren.
Our council just refused this and the lady felt so threatened she exercised her right to buy so the council lost one of its last 4 bedroom properties forever.
Just because it may not be possible in some areas should not mean that the apparent refusal to build council homes, should apply to all areas…..surely?
Agreed. There are a lot of areas where building more council homes makes sense. And yes, they should be houses not high rise wherever possible. It should be part of the solution.
The problem is in some real high demand areas such as London and the South, the idea that the waiting list problem, can be solved, by say simply building a milion new council houses, in areas where people want to live eg near their family, in their local community….is I fear a non starter. There are only so many brown field sites.
So whats the solution, for London?
Was it not more the point that there were lots of couples in big family sized houses that didn’t need those size of houses, and families living in wee flats cos they couldn’t get one the size they needed - rather than to do with financials?
I may well be wrong but I thought it was the whole - your kids have moved out so you don’t need a 3/4 bedroom house anymore so we’ll move you to a one bedroom flat (or whatever) and let some deserving family (with none of the social nicities coming into it) have your house?
Different reason - same issue. My mum and dad stayed in the same place for 50 years, and had a 3 bedroom house. When me and my brother moved they only needed the one bedroom - so they would be kicked out under this proposal and moved where? There were no 1 bedroom flats around them available and it would be away from their friends and support network.
As much as I can understand that someone has had what they consider a great idea to solve the housing crisis, the other post is correct - it could well rip communities apart with no one having security in their home and no idea when they or their neighbours might be deemed to be staying in a home that is too big for them and having to move…..........which means any tenancy agreement wouldn’t really be worth the paper it would be written on because how could you give any sort of secure tenancy with those principles?
Sharon made an interesting comment that this proposal could well rip communities apart…..
Lets take a look.
A thriving community is based on both housing solutions for old and young.
The current system helps most, those lucky enough to be in council accommodation. They have securiity of tenure and right to buy. Many exercise this right ensuring the depletion of the total stock. Overwhelmingly these folks are older than those waiting.
The current system disadvantages the million plus on waiting lists, who often end up in the private sector or abandoning their community altogether, moving to an area with more affordable housing. These are often young families staying with family/friends or poor quality private sector. They have no hope of buying. They will wait years.
So does security of tenure and right to buy, (lets be honest they were both introduced early 80s) .... build communities or does it destroy them by not giving an opprtunity to the young families?
It is not clear to me that giving new tenants five or ten year tenancies, thus excluding tenants from right to buy, is going to rip apart said communities.
Ask yourself a question, if you are on a witing list in London with no hope of LA accommodation. You then get a politician that comes along and says that you will now have a much shorter waiting time for a home in your community but it will only be for a 10 year tenanncy ..... what would youre response be?.
The people proposing this are clearly aiming this at the poor folks on waiting list. If you can house these folks locally you will arguably be building the community, not ripping it apart.
You might ask about your older folk, currently in secure accommodation, like any reform there are winners and losers. These guys unfortunately going to end up in pensioner or smaller general needs accommodation….as the proposed HB changes kick in….not nice they are going to be in danger of losing a family home they have lived in for 20 years or so, they will probaly remain local, in smalier flats for 50 plus.
You might persuade them this might be a good idea if only they could be promised that “their” house will go to a “deserving” local family….
At that point you realise that communities are not just about inclusion but about exclusion…........and that the cocept of community has a darker side…..
I don’t think lumping together security of tenure and the right to buy is particularly helpful. Yes, they were both brought in the early 1980’s (1980 and 1985 respectively) but in response to different things. Security of tenure had already been considered by the previous Labour government in response to many councils’ attempts to pressurise tenants and housing activists in the 1970’s and was a proposal in its 1979 housing bill. If labour had been re-elected then we would have had security of tenure without the right to buy. Security of tenure was not new. Private tenants had been given it by the 1968 and 1977 Rent Acts and the Housing Act of 1980 merely extended it to all tenants. As housing associations were later established throughout the 1980’s the Housing Act of 1988 extended it there.
Security of tenure is far too unimportant to be thrown away for the purposes of some form of social engineering or to solve the problems in the housing market. The history of bad housing, bad landlordism and long struggle for tenants’ rights in this country has come too far for that. Any one who has been summarily evicted like I was in the 1970’s will tell you that.
Now I don’t see anything wrong in theory in saying to someone living alone in a 4 bedroom house whose kids have long grown up and left “look there is a family of 4 on the waiting list who need a 4 bedroom house like yours would you mind awfully…?” as long as suitable accommodation is given as a replacement. I would try to look for other solutions first but if all else fails and if this helps to solve the housing problem for this family while maintaining security of tenure for the single person (in the sense that he is not left without suitable accommodation) then there may be no other option. These kinds of provisions are not new. What is not going to solve anyone’s problems is undermining security of tenure in this way, shifting all the power back toward landlords with the result that people are thrust into the hands of private landlords with higher rents and practically no protection form eviction apart from due process. And do we really think that David Cameron really gives a damn about our communities and that he is motivated by pure altruism? Please!!
For the avoidance of doubt that last remark about cameron was not aimed at anyone here
When I said security of tenure was far too unimportant I meant, of course, far too important
The coalitions proposals have been doing the rounds for some time. They were floated previously by Labour.
This is rightsnet.
So lets defend a few rights.
Right of security of tenure….. Ok applause.
Right to be housed if your homeless…. More applause.
Right to buy….. Hang On ....
Right to put your name on a waiting list (with a reasonable expectation of social housing)....Exists in many parts of the country but if you live in large parts of the south you have a cat in hells chance.
The status quo has disadvataged younger families for the last 20 years, and its getting much worse. The ones that get housed either need to be homeless or have a high medical…....This is the reason why housing reform is back on the agenda. This is not about going back to the bad old seventies. Politicians are now having to respond to this constituency of people who have no hope of buying, no hope of social accommodation and are tired of existing in an expensive private sector.
By all means let us defend security of tenure, but you need a solution for the millions on waiting lists .....if you are going to win the argument…...
This is the way it is now being framed by the coalition…
HB reform and doing away with security of tenure, for new tenannts as a long term way of freeing up lists.
Call it cynical if you like, but if your one of the millions waiting, it will have appeal.
The way I see it is that restriction on paying HB only to rooms that a social tenant uses, is a key trigger to all this.
The tenant gets allocated a 3 bed council house. Whilst the kids are at home s/he is fine. If the children leave s/he will then only get the 1 room rate.
The tenant then has to find the rent difference, or presumably be invited for a Housing Option interview along the lines of “erhh you are either going to have to start work, take a second job or move to smaller” “We have a nice one bed if you return the keys to your 3 bed house and you will get full HB”
If the tenant declines and rent arrears continue then the Authority would evict for rent arrears?
This allows the government to presumably claim they are honouring existing tenants, security of tenure, whilst freeing up larger accommodation for young families on the list.
Perhaps the government is hoping that we will get fewer evictions from the family home at 16 or 17?
I am unsure about the exact process .... views please.