Social Housing and the Localism Bill

The Localism Bill has now been published and is currently out for a short consultation period. There are several proposals contained in the Bill, but I just wanted to concentrate on those which impact on social housing. There have been many comments concerning the various rights and the wrongs of the government's plans, but the ones that I have read seem to highlight the negative aspects of the plans. The key changes that are being proposed in the Bill are:

• Allowing housing associations to charge a rent of up to 80% of the market rate for their area. This, it is argued, will generate additional resources which will provide more building of new homes. This is being described as an 'affordable' rent, even though in some areas where private sector rents are relatively high, this is unlikely to be the case. In other areas where rents are low, the plan will be a non-starter as social rents are likely to be higher. Even in areas where additional cash will be generated, the number of extra new homes (that can also be let at this 'affordable' level) will be low. The Housing Minister has said that the new affordable rent model falls within the broad definition of social housing, but this does seem to me to be more akin to private renting by a private landlord. Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but let's make sure that we are not using incorrect terminology to descibe something.
• Another proposal in the Bill is to permit councils and housing associations to let their new tenancies for a fixed term of a minimum of two years. This is the so-called 'flexible' tenancy. I was recently reading a blog in The Guardian on this subject, where a posting from a council tenant summed up the issue very clearly.              It read as follows:

"I am lucky to be able to live in council housing with my family and we have done so for a number of years. Neither I nor my ex earn enough to get a mortgage (despite working for that fabulously paid area: the public sector), nor do we earn sufficient to make a move to the private sector without claiming housing benefit. As it is we have only ever had to claim Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (or Working Families Credits prior to that) as so many families better off than ourselves do.
The benefits have been immeasurable for the family: our son has had a stable upbringing, he is now in further education with his sights set on university. He has a strong network of friends and family. We have been able to remain in our socially useful jobs and I have put down some roots for the first time in my life. Our neighbours (composed of council and ex-council stock occupants) have also been remarkably stable so we do know most people on our street. This would not be possible if we had all had to move on after a few years. Our street is not what people would think of as typical of social housing; our local council put a lot of effort into maintaining the stock and it is appreciated.
I fear that many people do not appreciate stability sufficiently: I had moved house so often that even now, with 15 years council tenancy under my belt in one property I average moving house once every 2 years of my life. It's extremely stressful when you are single and more so when you are a child or have a child.
I expect to move later when I no longer require a 2 bed semi for myself: but it won't be to my own property as that is out of the question. I certainly don't feel that I am undeserving of this housing; I feel that there should be increased social housing so that people do not feel that owning your own property is essential with all the stress it can bring."

I don't think that there is a need for further comment here...

The article and discussion can be found at:   http://bit.ly/eIscj0

• Another proposal that I have some concerns about is the power for councils to be able to discharge their legal responsibilities to homeless families by offering a 12 month tenancy in the private rented sector. Whilst this may seem fair (at the moment this requires the consent of the homeless family), many people have expressed concerns about the condition of some privately rented homes, and the lack of investment in the properties by their landlords. This is clearly not the case everywhere, but safeguards need to be put in place in order to protect the most vulnerable from more exploitation by bad landlords. 

There are some more positive elements within the Bill, such as the reform of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system, which has effectively robbed the majority of councils and their tenants of significant amounts of rental income for years.

I would be interested to hear the views of others on these measures, particularly on whether there is a cohesive policy here, or a collection of policy proposals without any clear direction.

David Wardle, Jan 7, 2011.

Mr Shapps and Housing Waiting Lists

So Mr Shapps sees the long waiting lists for social housing and claims that this is evidence that there is need for reform. Well, I suppose not many of us who work in the social housing sector would disagree with that, but when we look at the reforms that he proposes, there might just be some parting of opinions.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-management/waiting-lists-confirm-need-for-reform/6512756.article

What do long waiting lists tell us? It may seem pretty obvious, but perhaps we need to take a closer look. Waiting lists are an indication of housing demand, not necesserily of housing need. Social landlords have methods - either by banding systems or points systems - to determine the relative degree of housing need of their applicants. So, there may be people on the waiting lists who are not in serious need for rehousing, whilst there will also be people who are homeless, and who are in dire need due to severe overcrowding, medical conditions, etc. People on waiting lists are not a homogeneous group of people. One thing they do have in common though in their desire to live in a home owned by either a local authority or a housing association. 


Since the right to buy was introduced by Mrs Thatcher in 1980, over 2 million council homes have been sold to sitting tenants. At the same time, the government stopped councils from building new homes and passed this responsibility to housing associations. So, how did they do? Well, as they were dependent on government subsidy to build, they managed to build about 1 million. The result is easy to calculate - a net reduction in the national social housing stock of about 1 million since 1980. 


The right to buy was a very popular policy and clearly enabled many people to realise their aspiration of home ownership who would otherwise have had little hope. The sale of those 2 million homes was the largest privatisation of them all, generating millions in capital receipts for councils. However, many people objected to the policy which said that councils could only (and this is still the case) spend 25% of the proceeds - and that did not have to be spent on housing. There are many leisure centres and plush council offices around the country that have been built from the sale of council homes.


The net loss in the national social housing stock of about 1 million has clearly had some effects and poses some questions. Is it any surprise that waiting lists are longer than they used to be? Would the lists be as long if councils had been forced to spend their right to buy receipts on building new replacement homes? Why were housing associations not provided with enough grant to enable them to fill the shortfall? 


So is there a need for reform? Clearly yes. But Mr Shapps' reforms are based on reducing the security of tenure for new tenants, raising rents to 'affordable' levels of 80% of market rates, and enabling landlords to deceide who can go on their lists. 


Previous policies can easily be criticised, and we are were we are. But to propose new policies which fail to address past mistakes (by Tory and Labour governments) is only going to compound the problems and to place more people in greater housing need. Real investment in building new social homes - by councils and housing associations - at genuine affordable rents has to be the way forward. The spin-off benefits are also clear in terms of employment opportunities, skills development, tax revenues etc.

Security of Tenure and some questions for Mr Shapps...

When Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979, council tenants had no security of tenure. If local authorities wished, they could serve a notice to quit on their tenants and they would have to go. The previous Labour government had a draft housing bill which included a 'tenants' charter' which would have granted security of tenure for tenants. Parts of this bill became the 1980 Housing Act, which included security as well as the right to buy. Thatcher and her Tory cabinet believed - albeit for political reasons - that council tenants deserved a better deal than they had had before. Security of tenure was undoubtedly a step forward for individual tenants as well as the collective tenant movement, which had campaigned on the issue for several years. This level of security, which has meant that tenants have a right to stay in their home for the rest of their lives as long as they keep to the terms of their tenancy agreements. Eviction could only be carried out if a court order was granted by a county court judge, and this was usually on the grounds of persisent non-payment of rent or engagement in serious anti-social behaviour. One of the additional rights that the 1980 Act bestowed was the right - under certain circumstances - to pass their tenancy on to a surviving family member.

These rights to security and to succession have been established as cornerstones of council and housing association tenancies ever since. However, since the election of the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government, there has been a persistent attack upon these rights, as well as other attempts to effectively change the role of social housing within the overall provison of housing in the country. 

During the summer, Cameron floated the idea that the days of the 'lifetime tenancy' may be numbered - with speculation that 5 to 10 years may be more appropriate. Now we are hearing some more definite proposals from the housing minister, Grant Shapps - and the news is that tenancies may not be restricted to 5 or 10 years in length, but only 2 years! It appears that councils would be able to assess the financial circumstances of tenants after this two-year period, to decide whether they have 'improved' themselves and therefore no longer in need of a social tenancy. Some have argued that the real assessment here is whether the tenant has progressed from being 'undeserving' to 'deserving'.

One of the other developments in council housing has been the removal of subjective judgements by local authority officers and councillors in terms of the allocation of housing. Previously, housing visitors used to inspect prospective tenants' homes and make reports as to their 'standard' and 'suitability' for council housing - all irrespective of housing need. Legisaltion has put paid to this ultra-paternalistic approach, but this is now under threat from the current plans.

There are several practical issues related to the proposals. Here are two of them. First, how are councils going to assess the finances of tenants? Who will have the power to check back accounts? What criteria will be used to make these assessments? What guidance will councils be given, or will there be a general power under the guise of localism, to make decisions on where people are allowed to live? Secondly,could the policy become a disincentive to gaining decent employment, as tenants who do secure a relatively well paid job could be at risk of losing their home. Is there evidence of joined-up thinking across departments here?

The 1996 Housing Act, passed by the the Major government, reduced the duty to provide housing to the homeless to a two-year period rather than a lifetime tenancy. Did this work? No, indeed it did not. There were serious problems which led to a 'revolving door' for tenants - when the two years were up they had to rely on usually unsuitable private rented accommodation under an insecure assured shorthold tenancy, which often lasted six to twelve months. Then they were forced to approach the council again as homeless...etc. etc. The result here, apart from the unsettling nature of the system, led to families - and children in particular - not being able to access essential services, including health provision and settled schooling. Is this the intention of the coalition government? Perhaps Mr Shapps needs to read and consider some of the research that was conducted at the time on this subject.

Social housing providers have been involved in dramatically changing their role over the past 20 years or so. Instead of being mere landlords and concentrating on the 'bricks and mortar' of housing - they have widened their remit to become providers and facilitators of services for some of the most vulnerable people in society. Support for people with mental health problems or learning disabilities have been provided. Services for people with addictions and people leaving the armed forces have also been delivered. Councils and housing associations have been at the forefront of the development of communties where people want to live and want to continue to live. Communities which are safe and secure, where tenants can develop skills and confidence and a pride of place, and put down roots to bridge gaps between generations and beliefs. Does the housing minister believe that the current proposals will assist in this vital work? Does he think that this work has not been worthwhile? 

Yes, there is a long waiting list for the nation's social housing. Cuts to the investment in new social housing is to be slashed.  Is this two-pronged policy the real solution to the 'problems' around social housing? Perhaps there is another route, but will the housing minister reconsider? Perhaps there needs to be a concerted campaign, like the one that brought about security of tenure in the first place.

New Training Courses

Here at learning4housing we pride ourselves in keeping our training courses up to date. With new initiatives and policies being announced almost on a daily basis, this can be something of a challenge. However, we are pleased to announce some new training opportunities for social housing providers. As ever, all training can be tailored to your specific requirements and individual training needs.

The new courses that are being developed developed include the following:

• Resident-led self regulation and developing the tenant scrutiny role 
• How can your tenants become genuinely involved within the regulation and scrutiny of housing providers?
• What practical steps do you need to take?
• What are the barriers and potential problems?
• What about leadership and strategy?

• Tenancy management and law
• What will the new 'fixed term' tenancy mean for you and your tenants?
• How will you manage these new tenancies?
• How will transfer applicants be treated?
• What extra demands will be placed on front-line staff?
• What about other rights of secure and assured tenants?

• Developing 'generic' skills for more effective working
• How can you become more effective by improving your skills of:
• assertiveness
• negotiation
• influencing
• communication
• listening

For further information on learning4housing, please visit our new website at www.learning4housing.co.uk

For an informal discussion about your particular training needs in connection with the above, or regarding our wide range of housing courses, please call David on 07986 246406 or email at skills@learning4housing.co.uk