A breach in security

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