Security of tenure has been the cornerstone of council housing since the 1960s. Now, the Conservative Party is considering ending it.
The thinking behind it is that the shortage of social housing means that many people are unable to get a home and waiting lists are getting longer. But, at the same time, there are people occupying social housing who could afford to rent or buy in the private sector. By ending security of tenure for all new lettings and granting fixed-term tenancies instead, a social landlord could regain possession of the home and re-let it to a needier person.
The implications
This proposal may look attractive in principle, but its implementation could be disastrous. Here’s why.
- What greater disincentive is there to deter people from going out and seeking work than the threat that, if you do, your increase in income means that you will lose your home?
- There will be a massive increase in litigation as tenants fight to stay in their homes and landlords (at the government’s bidding) seek to evict them.
- To ascertain whether a tenant is wealthy enough to be able to afford to buy or rent in the private sector there will need to be means testing, with all the problems that come with it.
- The proposal will only affect new lettings and then only those where the occupying tenant is deemed too wealthy to be entitled to remain in occupation. So, the actual numbers of homes made available under this proposal will be tiny and will make no material impact on the waiting lists, thereby defeating the whole point of the exercise.
Putting it into practice
So how will this policy work in practice? For council tenants, the Housing Act 1985 grants tenants security of tenure, so a change of legislation will be required to remove it. The change would force council landlords to grant only fixed-term tenancies in the future.
For housing associations, which use assured tenancies, it would work by insisting that they grant assured shorthold tenancies, which could be achieved by a change in regulation.
But changing the form of tenancy will not be enough. Legislation will need to prohibit a landlord from renewing a tenancy where the tenant is deemed rich enough to be able to rent or buy in the private sector. Expect many challenges under the Human Rights Act from this.
This proposed new policy is unlikely to achieve its stated aims and could cause immense distress (at a time when the nation is collectively struggling with the effects of the recession), not to mention the legal difficulty and costs of its implementation.
hugo.stephens@cobbetts.com
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (20)
Anonymous | 20/08/2010 5:38 am
I can see the logic of this article. But, will Shapps care? No. Secured tenancies are toast.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 20/08/2010 9:11 am
"This proposed new policy is unlikely to achieve its stated aims and could cause immense distress (at a time when the nation is collectively struggling with the effects of the recession), not to mention the legal difficulty and costs of its implementation."
This a welcome article. On related secure tenancies thread on this website posters have also reported these concerns.
Would I would like to add here is the following:
the abolishing of secure tenancies and the ongoing attack on lifetime tenancies from the conservatives, mainly, have already caused immense distress.
Up and down the country thei weakest and frailest of tenants, the old, the phyisically and mentally disabled, the jobless, etc. have been living in terror and anxiety about their tenacy, as for most of them their home is everything.
This spychological terrosism has never stopped for the last 10 years, giving the frailest in our society and the most susceptible and ongoing source of instability and insecurity.
If you agree that mindless violence in films or pornography can affect young people, this is what the anti-tenants lobby have beeing doing to social housing residents, an ongoing barrage of insecurity thrown at them.
This done by a governemnt is state terrorism in its purest form, and they are criminals for doing it.
The other darker aim for ending lifetime tenancies is to make social housing residents totally powerless and stopping them from claiming any of their rights or complaining about any disservice, by creating a climate of terror by spreading the fear that they could lose their home if they do so.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 20/08/2010 10:12 am
Go Hugo go that it you tell them the court's with with cramped with cases. I am a Customer the Consumer of the goods and services which come in blicks and mortar and Services under Repairs and Major/Planned Works (which if I was going to have any say would on be on the colour and material's which is pick out for me. Well that's not a choice and like with my neighbour whom lived in a Grade II listed building didn't want a modern kitchen - "Where was he/she choice ).
I have a Agreement with my Landlord.
Because the Government took away Legal Aid - Most Consumers/Customer's cannot get legal advise - but the big fatcat Housing Association use our rent money to employ big fatcat Solicitor's to take its Consumers/Customer's to court.
Please do not speak about the Complaint's Procedure another with men and woman whom sit on the board with loyal to the Management.
Do you think we all stupid - Well yes we original at first but once gone into the system once of twice - know whom's what going on in side with these Landlord's
Housing Ombudsman overworked and unstaffed.
My agrument not to sign the new agreement was the fact your not adhering to the old one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 20/08/2010 1:04 pm
Anon - I don't believe he doesn't care, I truly believe he does not understand. When you look at the Cabinet, and the former one for that, how many have the slightest notion of what life is like for those living on minimal incomes or with additional needs.
Shapps probably truly believes that he is doing right, the shame is that he seems to be selectively deaf to anyone who says otherwise, including his own Rural Coalition consituents and his consituents on minimal wages and with additional needs.
There is something fundementally wrong in our government and it stems from the vast numbers now elected who have had no or little real world experience, having started from privalege or emabarked from college on a job for life in politics. The odd job for a political colleague or think tank, or in Shapps' case running a little business for Daddy or the like whilst waiting for the political break to occur, does nothing to prepare these leaders for the position they are in. They truly believe that winning the argument makes their idea right, never questioning that it may be the wrong argument, winning the political game is all that now counts, and of course cashing the regular pay checks whilst waiting for the bigger pay to role in from the consultancies and speaking events, or even the odd book or two.
Somehow, we need to get the experienced and concerned to be available for election, and to redress the political vacuum at the heart of our system with people determined to give something back to society by building better and fairer solutions. How do we stop the rise of the yuppiemp?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 20/08/2010 1:30 pm
I do not know of any tenants who do not live in fear of losing their lifetime tenancies, whether it is true or not, because landlortds and governements have lied to them so much for so long and whatever the landlords and governemnt say now it is not going to be trsusted anyway.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 23/08/2010 12:59 pm
This article seems nonsensicle...
the last line sums it up:
'This proposed new policy is unlikely to achieve its stated aims and could cause immense distress .
So it COULD achieve its aims and MIGHT not cause much distress...
Hardly the words of someone with the courage of their conviction..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 23/08/2010 3:32 pm
Melvin Bone, I think the overall tone of the article makes it very clear to all, except yourself, where the author stands firmly on this issue.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 23/08/2010 4:56 pm
Oh Kass you makes me laugh..
I know the author is against losing lifetime tenancies.
If the legislation does go through and no future lifetime tenancies are offered do you really think that any future :abour government would reverse this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 23/08/2010 5:02 pm
Melvin - you are so damn right on this, and it is the point behind the disgrace of the Blair years that the former government's polices were just carried on. The new Blairs look of the same mould - never been anywhere, done anything, lived a life, just wannerbee elected types. And the prospective replacements for Labour Leader look much the same too.
I truly do worry that in the void that was once working class leadership, something extreme and nasty will emerge. In some ways it would be so deserved, but in many ways it would be a tragedy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26/08/2010 12:05 pm
Hello
This article is excellent, short and sweet.
Please don't forget that many of these 'policy' suggestions will never see the light of day.
Scrapping PCT's = paying the same guys doing the same job for twice the pay in the private sector.
Bonfire of the quangos = wait for problems to occur and throw money at it till the newspapers stop reporting the problems.
Cutting benefits = money out of the economy = recession. Maybe the truth will come out that most 'benefits' are paid to taxpayers and pensioners. Scroungers are a tiny minority.
Cutting fraud = costs more to cut the tiny 1% in fraud than the money you save.
The coalition aren't stupid just inexperienced. When they join the dots and get the cold sweats at realising the the chaos they will cause they will simply, quietly withdraw many 'policies' and bettter manage the sensible existing policies.
Limited tenancies = workless ghettoes. Who would vote for a law that guarantees new tenants will give up jobs and live on benefits??
How do you found out how much someone earns if they refuse to comply. Imagine a dad getting a letter to review his income. Would you comply with a process that guarantees your family will lose their home.
Turkeys will never vote for Christmas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment