Fixed-term tenancies are failing abroad, report says
Doubts have been raised over plans to introduce fixed term tenancies after a report revealed the same policy has been unsuccessful in other countries.
Homeless charity Shelter commissioned research into government plans to remove security of tenure and give landlords the ability to offer fixed term renewable tenancies with a minimum of two years.
The report by Heriot-Watt University, Security of tenure in Social Housing: An International Review, looks at how other countries have fared after introducing the same policy.
One of the key findings of the report occurred in New South Wales, Australia, which showed that less than 1 per cent of fixed-term social tenancies so far had been terminated since the plan was implemented in 2006.
A lack of freed up housing stock has been blamed for the low statistics and the report says there is mounting pressure for it to be reviewed.
‘Fixed-term tenancies have accentuated the existing disincentive for self-improvement resulting from income-related rent regime’ the report says.
‘With only a very small per cent of lease reviews leading to ‘ineligibility’ decisions, a question as to whether the framework has been worthwhile (sic).’
Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick, co-author of the research, said: ‘The Australian (NSW) experience calls into question the efficacy of the policy now proposed in England, given that so few of their fixed-term tenancies have been terminated, generating a negligible number of additional vacancies, but raising serious concerns about work disincentives.’
Shelter said it was concerned that the costs associated with implementing the policy, where social landlords will have to go through lengthy tenancy reviews every two years, seem to far outweigh any benefits in freed up stock.
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: ‘The Government argue that this proposal will free up housing stock, yet research has revealed that in practice it fails to do so.
‘Questions must be raised about the value of a policy that will impose insecurity on thousands of vulnerable people across this country, removing a vital housing safety net for little to no benefit.
‘On the one hand the Government continually say they want to encourage people back into work. Yet they have produced a proposal that will act as an enormous disincentive to someone to increase their income when it could mean losing their home.
‘As the Localism Bill travels through the Lords this week, we strongly urge the Government to rethink these plans, rather than create yet more insecurity for people in these difficult times.’
Related Files
Security of Tenure in Social Housing: An International Review
PDF
, size 0.33 Mb
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (11)
gordon thompson | 06/06/2011 5:10 pm
Surpise surprise. It has been clear that the Tories are not in favour of social housing and they will kill it out of dogma regardless whether any alternative is better, worse or the same.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Barron Dent | 06/06/2011 5:31 pm
You are spot on, Gordon. For those who can remember back to the 80's (or are prepared to look it up) the Tories wanted to decimate social housing because that was predominantly where the Labour vote was. Dress it up how you want, and many of our narrow minded 'posters' on IH do just that, the Tories are at it again. Now they think they can attract votes from those who have no interest in or need of social housing - our 'fellow professionals' - many of whom are attacking social tenants who are trying to better themselves and trying to get them out. Social housing will always be stigmatised as long as there are so-called professionals agreeing with the Tories that it is housing of the last resort. We should be making it housing of choice by investing in it and building more.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Neil | 07/06/2011 9:35 am
Gordon is spot on and anyone who doubts this should read 'Making Housing Affordable', published by right wing 'think' tank - Policy Exchange.
There is a further sting in the tail of this one however. On the basis that the less well off incline towards Labour, this destruction of social housing will disenfranchise many Labour voters. Imagine a whole nation where even social tenants have little more security than in the private sector? Millions moving constantly, maybe six months here, two years or even five years somewhere if they are lucky. How many people forced to live like that will actually vote or even be registered?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Venk Shenoi | 07/06/2011 9:39 am
Political dogma apart, it is time people started taking responsibility for themselves - social housing is a safety net - not an automatic right - as such need to maximise availability for those in real need due to circumstances.
So measures such as fixed term tenancy, downsizing when need decreases, rent adjustment when income level rises, and being asked to look for market housing when finances improve, etc, etc, are all in order so the scarce resource can be channelled when the need is greatest. Writing cheques when there is no money in the bank as practiced previously just is not sustainable.
Barron Dent must be living in Soviet era public housing land - yes we can build non-descript apartment blocks on the cheap to increase supply and allocate familes as was the practice there - is that socialism? That has faled by the way even in Soviet land. Political systems do not create wealth - social systems can spend wealth but it is the enterprise of individuals which creates wealth. State-dependency stunts individual enterprise/.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark W | 07/06/2011 9:50 am
good points venk, nice to hear some realism on these posts for a change!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
MBPB | 07/06/2011 9:59 am
Spot on Gordon, the International Review shows up what many suspected, that this is just another boot aimed at the less well off for no good reason. Mr Schapps Localism Bill appears poorly thought through with little regard to the heavy administrative burden of flexible tenancies and with no attempt to increase supply which is the fundamental problem that successive governments have failed to tackle. The stigmatisation of tenants serves to distract the public from the main issues.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 07/06/2011 10:02 am
Spot on Venk, I echo everything you say.
Barron, why don't you come back to the real world for a bit. The Tories didn't decimate Social Housing to do away with labour voters, you make them sound like they were clensing the population! If you believe that, then surely you must concede the labour policy of building new affordable estates in rural areas was an attempt to cleanse the native population of tory voters? No, I thought you wouldn't! The left only ever sees it one way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 07/06/2011 10:22 am
The point posters are not addressing is why apply failed ideas to our problems when we have proven successful ones to use.
Whilst it may not fit with the current dogmatic faith in the man-created god of the market, building new homes for affordable rent in sufficient numbers will reduce costs for everyone, increase choice for everyone, and improve economic sustainability.
Other than the dubious 'but if you ask for investment then you are denying the wisdom of the High Priests' reason for not building new homes, nobody has put an argument forward that explains why this can not be the most effective way to reduce house prices, overcome the shortage, and create jobs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bonola . | 07/06/2011 12:57 pm
Venk/Alpha One - You are out of touch.
It's the same right wing ideal all over again of concentrating the poorest, least equipped members of society into concentrated areas of our towns and cities. We've spent nearly 15 years trying to undo the damage of similar policies.
Strong communities are mixed and diverse communities, with choice, quality and access in all aspects of life. That way communities become strong enough to sustain themselves rather than continuing to cost the tax payer increasing amounts of money to educate, rehabilitate and at times incarcerate as neighbourhoods are left to sink ever further under the weight of unmet needs.
Everyone needs role models in life and mixed communities provide these. It sounds to me that you guys are more interested in returning to the ethos of out of sight, out of mind and packing people back of to the margins of society.
What makes you think that the thought of losing your home or paying more rent if you begin to achieve will provide any incentive.
Chris, you're spot on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Omega 3 | 07/06/2011 1:49 pm
daily mail clones only see it one way-the tory, myopic ,short term fast profit , take care of your tax avoiding funders in the city and chaps and chapess' in the HoL way. Social Housing has worked well in many countries e.g. Holland, Germany, Austria- there is such a thing as a mixed economy where folks can choose tenure without compromising quality of life- tends to be a better community for all concerned also
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment