Popular demand

Posted by: Jules Birch

12/06/2009

You have to wonder who the Tenant Services Authority (TSA) had a conversation with before it floated the idea of less secure tenancies in areas of high demand. 

Search through the findings of its national conversation with tenants, prospective tenants, shared owners and landlords and there is only one reference to security of tenure. Prospective tenants named it midway down the list of the reasons why they wanted to move into social housing in the next two years.

The idea does not appear in the summary of its regulatory proposals either [download all documents here]. The section on the tenancy agreement says that, although security of tenure did not feature as a high priority in the national conversation, ‘it is our view that a standard is essential in this area to ensure that tenancy agreements are applied to give actual or potential tenants an appropriate degree of choice and protection’. 

The summary proposes that ‘landlords must issue the most appropriate form of tenancy for the type of accommodation which gives the most security of tenure’ and says that ‘the practical effect of this is that most tenants will either have a secure of assured tenancy (for local authority and other types of landlord respectively).

So far, so uncontroversial. But the section on tenure in the full document reads rather differently. It says that the objective for the standard could be expressed as: ‘Providers must issue the most appropriate form of tenancy for the type of accommodation which confers the greatest security of tenure consistent with balancing the needs of potential as well as existing tenants.’

Is it just me or is that a very different principle? Both the summary and the full document mention that less secure forms of tenancy can be used, for example assured shortholds for new tenants. However, only the full document says that: ‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply, and the use of other tenure options may be more appropriate to meeting housing need and creating mixed-income communities.’

The TSA is right that security of tenure is about more than just the form of the tenancy agreement. Landlords’ policies on rent arrears have a crucial impact too - and there is a real issue about whether the national tenure standard should include them.

However, the principle matters too. High demand areas are the result of low supply policies. It’s hard to see how it would give new or existing tenants more choice and protection, or create mixed-income communities, by turning them into high turnover areas too.