How unusual is it to be under 25, single, and in need of social housing? Not particularly, you might think.
But in the London borough of Barnet it appears to be quite a rare occurrence, at least if the council’s reform of its housing allocations policy is anything to go by.
Barnet is proposing to limit all new tenancies given to single under 25s to two years from April this year, despite government directions to the Tenant Services Authority stating that two year tenancies should only be issued in ‘exceptional circumstances’.
Housing policy watchers may remember this caused a bit of a fuss last year. Housing minister Grant Shapps resisted calls to add the ‘exceptional circumstances’ restriction to the Localism Bill during its passage through Parliament, but later promised MPs it would be set out in the directions to the regulator.
When the directions appeared, however, there was no sign of the two year clarification. Various people accused the minister of breaking his promises, and then, a few weeks later, an amendment to the directions appeared including the ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause.
All of which now appears a little pointless if councils are going to define being single and under 25 as exceptional.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
From House work
Examining the latest news on allocations, evictions, rents, anti-social behaviour, and a host of other day to day housing management issues
Readers' comments (16)
F451 | 05/01/2012 10:43 am
At least they didn't follow the government's own ageism and discriminate against all under 35's, preferring instead to stick with the previous Tory discrimination, supported by Labour, of under 25.
Isn't there a group somewhere looking for reasons why our young people may feel a little aggrieved and prone to violent protest?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 05/01/2012 10:51 am
I wonder what the main age group will turn out to be when we analysise the 2012 riots?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 05/01/2012 10:55 am
Tom - exeptional?
For HB claimants we have the figures and of the 4,934,110 HB claimants (social and private housing) just 164,970 are single and aged under 25. This is 3.34%
Extrapolating the above and noting that 67.87% of HB claimants are in social housing the figure becomes 111,972 or 2.27%
I'm amazed that such a proposal is not met with the term 'age discrimination' which it clearly is and also staggered that this is not unlawful.
F451 - is your last sentence tongue-in-cheek? Firstly, the younger person is typically discriminated against because of age. Secondly, linking 'young people' and 'violent' protest is typical pejoratve language that typically sees at the other semantic extreme 'older people' and 'challenge' most often used.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 05/01/2012 10:57 am
Rick - I wonder what the main age group was for the foxhunting brigade riots.....oops sorry protest with odd public order incident?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Lloyd | 05/01/2012 11:00 am
As a bit of an update on this, the government has just put out a consultation on allocations, although at a quick glance it seems more concerned with overcrowding policies than the length of fixed-term tenancies. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/2060701.pdf
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 05/01/2012 11:37 am
The riots were about blatant opportunism, it had nothing to do with housing allocation policy, no matter how many times people say it and want it to be true.
The people on the street were there to get free stuff, not to protest, otherwise they wouldn't have been ransacking Primark and Currys!
You can argue all you like about root causes, but the reason people took to the street is that they saw they could get away with it, plain and simple.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 05/01/2012 11:46 am
I wasn't talking about last year's riots but the potential riots of this year perhaps being fuelled by government constantly getting at the younger generations.
Surely the politicans can see that they are driving most of the electorate towards the arms of the extremest parties -- do we really need this?
History teaches valuable lessons but this bunch of chumps in power seem to be ignoring history on so many levels.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 05/01/2012 11:54 am
There will be no riots this year. The root causes of last years unrest came from a specific event which bled into a recognition of the opportunity to do something without consequence. Like the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand precipitated by First World War, the killing of Mark Duggan precipitated the riots by causing an unrest in a certain area, solidarity turned into opportunity when criminal elements invaded the mobs and started looting, and when people saw they could get away with it, they continued.
Has the depth of feeling been as strong as people suggest or as deep rooted as people want to believe, then the riots would have continued beyond the deployment of extra police, people would not have been looting either, they would have been demonstrating.
The 2011 Riots were not a demonstration, they were shopping with a five finger discount.
Unless we get some nexus event to push people on to the streets, we are unlikely to get riots in 2012. Furthermore, with the police and army presence during the Olympics, nothing will kick off, it won't be allowed to.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 05/01/2012 11:55 am
I should add I agree entirely with Rick's last paragraph. You'd think with a monarch who has been on the throne for 60 years, Cameron would ask her where he's going wrong, she has a unique insight into the past that he does not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 05/01/2012 12:09 pm
The extremists will be well aware that the security forces/police will be overstretched during the £9bnplus Olympics -- the country exists outside London and the Olympic zones -- riots will occur where there is a minimal police presence.
Shafting the young and the electorate will cause masses of unrest that the extremists will seize upon for their own opportunistic purposes.
I will be more than happy to be proved wrong should I live that long.
I also agree with the comments about the Queen.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 05/01/2012 12:20 pm
The issue here is that young people are stigmatised and blamed for violence or ASB and that 'feeling' appears instrumental in this policy decision.
I've just looked on Home Office website for the ASBO age statistics which used to be there and they are no longer published. The last copy I have from 2009 reveals that the majority of ASBOs are issued to those OVER 25.
Can anyone imagine the uproar if Barnet announced they were only issuing 2-year tenancies to those OVER 25 yet normal ones to those under 25?
That last question places this policy in its true context as blatant age discrimination and premised on a myth that ASB is committed only or in the majority of case by those under 25.
However, if Barnet wish to publish their reasons behind this proposal or can provide statistics on ASBOs by age that disprove the 2009 and all earlier figures....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 05/01/2012 12:37 pm
Tom --
You referred to the new consultation -- any chance of an IH article?
That nice Mr Shapps says --
"For years the system for social housing has been associated with injustice - where rewards are reaped for those who know how to play the system the best. Despite this terrible image a lazy consensus in social housing has ensured that, for an entire generation, no one has bothered to do anything about it.
"That's why I have today published new guidance for councils that will release them from the one-size-fits all approach and give them genuine freedom to ensure people benefit from living in a social home when they need it, for as long as they need it.
"No longer will people who gain a council house be able to leave their aspiration and ambition at the door - instead, they will be helped to make a better life for themselves and their communities.
"These changes will not only ensure more people benefit from the privilege of living in a social home, it will also restore pride to social housing, so a social tenancy is no longer seen as a stagnant option for life, but a launch pad to fulfil aspirations."
Sounds like the onset of some sort of WELFARE HOUSING.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Lloyd | 05/01/2012 12:41 pm
It's just going online now. I might do another blog too once I've had a chance to read it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 05/01/2012 12:47 pm
Thanks Tom, much appreciated and thanks for the signposting.
Happy New Year by the way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Layzell | 05/01/2012 12:50 pm
What happens if you're aged 24 years and 11 months? Do you wait until you're 25 years and 1 month old? Just shows how ridiculous the whole thing is. Social housing should be 'social', not exclusive or discriminatory.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 05/01/2012 12:57 pm
Good luck Tom - loads of repeating of the various legislation and minimal invite for comment seems to be the theme (i.e., significant areas are not up for consultation, and indeed considerable areas are confirmation of previous practice.)
The discharging of the homeless duty through an offer of private housing needs comment, but it is not invited, so no protests against cost viability or location can be made.
As with most items with Shapps's name on, it really is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment