Empty Properties

01/05/2009 2:35 pm

Mixed tenure seems the in-thing at the moment, but it doesn't work that well.

There is a natural mixed tenure in many older streets, take mine for example, it's about 100 years old, and there are private owners, private rented, housing association, council, hostels, and probably some temporary leased housing as well. This mixed tenure has evolved over the 100 year life span of the street. So people get used to others in a gradual way and there aren't many problems, despite being in Hackney!

In a way, the RTB created mixed tenure in a similar way, now on council estates, you will have council tenants, owner occupiers, and private rented.

In new schemes (and I have managed several) you will have the social rented units, and then a mixture of other tenures, owner occupiers, key worker rented, and key worker shared ownership, shared equity, other shared ownership schemes, and private rented as often the owner occupier units are bought in order to rent out. All the tenures are lumped together from day 1 and there are always teething problems, with the differing lifestyles clashing, over time relationships between the tenures will improve, but initially there can be fireworks

01/05/2009 4:02 pm

I agree with that up to a point Marty, I can certainly see in London how 100% social rented might not bring that about as many people in social housing in London are employed, this isn't so much the case elsewhere. Here in my authority we are toying with the idea of introducing the requirement of being in employemnt to access some properties, and to say it's a political hot potato is an understatement!! The socialist councillors are up in arms at the very thought, whilst most others can see what we're trying to achieve, the mechanics of it are painful....

07/05/2009 8:33 am

Therein lies the problem(s)!! The fact that Local Housing Allowance will ususally cover any rent eventuality makes it very difficult indeed. We have tried numerous hypothetical scenarios and the one above is a crucial one, as the minute a resident is effectively unemployed but has accessed such a property then the percedent has been set, and the floodgates opened. Trying to argue the "mixed communities" angle then, becomes very difficult. Also what constitutes being "employed" some on benefits can do up to 16 hrs, does voluntary work count, does a paper round?

We're still trying to work round it (excuse the pun), we see intermediate properties, both short term and in perpetuity as being important in the future - as long as there's a private sector in theory there will always be a intermediate market - why wouldn't you want to pay less rent and have a more reputable landlord? However private landlords can say "No DSS" and no one questions them - us on the other hand...... All suggestions gratefully received!!

08/05/2009 2:40 pm

The only problem I can see if that the rationale is plain stupid! You can have a tenancy if (a) you are working or (b) if you're a keyworker. Yet stop being employed or change jobs and you lose the roof over your head!

What a load of nonsense these ideas are! Does anyone know for certain they will be employed or in the same position in six months, 12 months, 2 years? Of course not- the theory and rationale is simply nonsensical and should be discarded asap.

08/05/2009 4:18 pm

Joe, the rationale is to create mixed communities in schemes when you're starting from scratch - many can say that RTB caused it to happen or their mum's street had it evolve over 50 years etc. Working in housing strategy as I do, we try to combat the issues that mono tenures CAN bring - I emphasise that I am not painting social tenants one way or another, but the issues around sink estates and the like are ones that it would be foolish to ignore. Encouraging those in employment and with differing levels of income all helps to create the mixed communities.

17/05/2009 3:36 am

The negative perception of social renting is a direct result of so-called "needs based" allocation policy which creates a perverse incentive, a "race to the bottom", as Robin Whales puts it, in order to obtain a tenancy. Social renting started out as a tenancy of choice - compared to the private rented slums at the time - and allocation used to be based around merit and time served on the list. Not so now of course. Check out my post on "The New Blue" and read the "Principles for social housing reform" report from Localis. It's all there....

17/05/2009 6:39 pm

I disagree. Social housing has not got its bad perception solely or directly because of needs based allocation policies. There are many factors such as bad design (sprawling estates, tower blocks etc) and lack of investment (again politically constricted) in upkeep and also speculative RTB in which the best stock was sold at massive discounts to appease and bribe voters.

Im curious as to the difference between needs and 'merit' that ILAG describes.

There is a perverse incentive that plays a major part I agree but this is due to the inability of courts to get rid of the tiny percentage of bad tenants that create the overwhelmingly negative perception for all.

One argument never explored is to simply get rid of the 5% or so of bad tenants so that th greater good of the well behaved 95% of tenants remains. What to do with this 5% or so I dont know however, if that did happen then much of the bad perception goes away.

ILAG unfortunately repeats the outrageous right-wing bias and slur on social tenants (as i say 95% are fine) that a needs based allocation system means that the dross only get social tenancies. That is ideologically and morally outrageous.

So - if the bad tenants are removed and at most this is 5% - social tenancies become prized and people want to have one because of the many benefits they hold.... presuming the real bad tenants and their associated behaviours go away. Get that right and mixed communities and all other innovative and theoretical approaches have a much greater chance of succeeding.

Unfortunately, just raising the idea that bad tenants need to be removed and evicted creates a furore. Yet whilst such nonsensical sacred barriers are in place and bad tenants remain then social housing gets worse for both its ideological supporters and its customers or tenants.

19/05/2009 9:17 am

Getting rid of tenants shouldnt be easy - it should be a matter of last resort. That said, when a tenant has to go the system has been proven to be arduous and this causes tensions that should and can be avoided.

If bad tenants account for 5% then 95% are good tenants and the greater good argument must hold that 19 out of 20 people in the community benefit and so this aids sustainable communities. That message that eviction will happen will soon spread so that the significant benefits of social rented housing - cheaper cost, more rights, affordability and stability, etc - and so social tenancies become prized and remove their negative perception.

It doesnt solve the immediate problem of lack of supplyyet it does clearly help with bringing back empty properties and new development. However, it means the nefarious and discriminatory RTB has to be removed else the more prized social housing becomes the more tenants will want to buy their properties and so the chronic shortage of supply will simply be exacerbated.

It also needs other overhauls such as changes to HB. Tenants may superficially have the power of choice if HB is paid direct to them, yet they also have the increased choice not to pay. RSLs would also need to use ground 8 more - another sacred cow.

ASB needs to be taken away from landlords and dealt with by Police and not housing officers. I could go on and on.

Yet the point is a simple one. To bring back empty properties into a non-working system - without all the above and other changes all aimed at making social rented properties what thy should be, i.e. prized for the product and service they are - is a nonsensical tinkering.

The sytem needs a conplete overhaul to protect the good 95% else if left as it is the 5% of bad tenants will rise making the current broken system totally kaput. Until any political party addresses the fundamental problem of bad tenants - rather then just berating the party in power and promising kneejerk reactive policies - then the system isnt going to get better for the 95% of good tenants and their neighbours.