Residents slam tenancy for life proposal
Share
Tenants have hit back at the Chartered Institute of Housing’s suggestion that social tenancy should not be guaranteed for life.
A policy paper released by the institute suggested that tenants should be subject to regular reviews of their status, and face rent increases or being encouraged to move out of their homes should their circumstances improve (see story).
Commenting on the proposals on the Inside Housing website, tenants described the idea as a ‘nightmare’ and warned that it would ‘stigmatise’ social housing by presenting it as something only relevant to the least well off members of society.
One respondent wrote: ‘Social housing is just as much of a choice as is home ownership or renting in the private sector. Why should tenants of such accommodation be penalised for making a perfectly legitimate choice?’
However others gave some support to the proposal, suggesting that secure tenancy need not necessarily be in the same property, and that social tenants should be prepared to accept rent increases.
One tenant wrote: ‘I would be happy to pay a slightly higher rent to help those who are in much worse conditions than me.’
The CIH stressed it does not want to create a ‘disincentive to do well’. Richard Capie, director of policy and practice, said: ‘We need to look much more at people on an individual by individual basis - should a rent increase be considered for someone in low paid or variable employment? Of course not.
‘Should it be considered for someone who has moved in to a good secure job and could afford to pay a bit more towards what is a submarket rent? If you are on a good income is it fair that you should have such a level of subsidised rent?…let’s not be afraid to have that debate.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (12)
Liam Kelly | 13/10/2008 3:11 pm
"good secure job " - where do you get one of those these days? -maybe the CIH is one of the few remaining a safe havens-
Social Housing tenants DO get annual RPI+ increases PLUS service charge increases-payable even if they don't get the services.
Is this the same CIH which produced a report with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1997 ( Sustainable Home Ownership) which challenged " whether 'all is well' in the housing market. The question is: how sustainable is the UK's love affair with home ownership? Are we drifting towards another period of intense housing misery, repossession and debt when the economic cycle goes into downturn - as it must sooner or later? Have we really learned the lessons of the boom-bust years?
Time for some senior CIH to wipe the dust off and read again maybe and also remind themselves of the thier mission statment -We exist to maximise the contribution that housing professionals make to the wellbeing of communities.?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Woodward | 13/10/2008 3:17 pm
What is Richard Capie talking about when he says 'we need to look much more at people on an individual basis'? We need to look at the bigger picture of providing enough affordable homes for people in areas where they want to live with good services and a feeling that they are taken seriously by the people who own and manage their homes (landlords or financial institutions) - that's the key to providing good housing in any tenure. Capie and his crew have to get away from thinking we can do things on an individualist basis, as, unless we get the whole issue of social or affordable housing not being seen as the tenure of last resort, we in the CIH will never be taken seriously as a profession that takes our customers seriously. This approach of the report is trying to punish people 'doing well' who make a choice for renting in the social sector, surely we should be attracting more people into the sector to get away from the emphasis on home ownership that frankly sees housing as an route to investment when the present finacial situation highlights that the people in charge of finance have no idea how to approach 'building society.' The day we let Building Societies become banks was one of the worst decisions made in British financial history. Let's get back to building social housing that anyone would be proud of renting and concentrate on financing affordable housing through a nationalised banking system that retains the asset wealth with the nation as stakeholders. From FCIH and tenant, Harry Woodward, Edinburgh
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
V Edwards | 13/10/2008 3:47 pm
I am amazed at this suggestion. So the fact that I work should mean that I pay an increased rent to subsidise others; do I not already do that through the many taxes that I pay, which means that others that are on benefits are able to get their rents paid?
Why should I be penalised for choosing social housing as a perfectly legitimate choice. So rather than trying to develop communities, we should make them into transient societies that have to move on, should their circumstances change?
To know that it is the CIH that has come up with this ludicrous proposal really saddens me - I really don't understand their thinking.
So should this idea be initiated, I shall ensure that I lose my job, sit around on benefits and encourage my children to do so too, at least that way we can be guaranteed to keep our home, even though by this time, it will be in the "ghetto" that this proposal will have created!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Savage | 13/10/2008 4:03 pm
The headline is a bit of an understatement isn’t it! What I can’t understand is why the CIH didn’t consult tenants on its proposals before going public. Surely the damage is done no matter what the CIH comes up with to appease tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nicholas Butler | 14/10/2008 8:23 am
I am shocked but not surprised that this sort of idea is being discussed. It is yet another example of people from a sector of society that has no idea what it means to families on low incomes to have the security of a home for life. What is the constant preoccupation in this country with owning ones own home all about? For someone on an average or Low income this is an unrealistic goal and one that puts people and families under imense preasure. Good quality social housing should be available as a choice to all as an alternative to owning a home or lining a private investors pocket. The people responsible for this suggestion should try living in my shoes for a while on £12500 ayear as a sheltered scheme manager. I rely on accomodation that comes with the job and have a wife and four children to support. In an uncertain world where cutbacks and restructuring of services is relentless the one constant has been that if I were to be made redundant I would be eligable for Social Housing and finaly the security of a home for life that is not tied to my work. It may seem strange to them but for me the idea of getting into social housing would be life changing for me and my family!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 14/10/2008 9:30 am
Mr Capie says: "The CIH stressed it does not want to create a ‘disincentive to do well’. Richard Capie, director of policy and practice, said: ‘We need to look much more at people on an individual by individual basis."
Mr Capie in common with others of his clique, especially those in the New Labour Government appear to desire the shredding of rights protecting by legislation the most vulnerable in our society in relation to housing and employment opportunities and replace those rights with discretionary powers bestowed on Mr Capie and his ilk.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Capaloff | 14/10/2008 12:02 pm
As the anonymous 'respondent' whose quote is in the above article it has been good to read the general consensus to what are completely ludicrous proposals sent down from the comfort of CIH ivory towers and with no feeling for the real world of those people who occupy these tenancies, the majority of whom, if nothing else, seek comfort and security. Do such authors not see the ultimate conclusion of their contemptuous ideas, being the removal of incentives to improve life chances, the end of hope for sustainable communities consisting of people with a variety of backgrounds, with a variety of needs? What is the difficulty they have in identifying the elephant in the room they so clearly wish to ignore: that more houses need to be built and that unless this is tackled the issues that result in such nonsenses as Rethinking Housing will perpetuate. Additionally, where is the paper that addresses the obsession with home owership, especially when banks are coming to the realisation that they have to be more realistic in their lending policies - I assume this is being composed as I type!.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John | 14/10/2008 2:51 pm
This debate is not about punishing people. People need to calm down! There are social housing properties with new cars parked outside. Can it be fair that people earning £20,000+ live in the same property they moved into, paying about £200 month in rent when they can afford to pay far more? If people don't want to move - settled, part of the community, children in the local school, etc. then the rent can go up to reflect income.
This is not patronising - I don't believe that people out of work in social housing will stay that way. People can and do change, and improve their situation. Well done for that, but why should people who don't require help continue to receive it? That's patronising!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Rodgers | 15/10/2008 10:16 am
Well done CIH, if ever we needed a reason to consider giving up membership, here it is. Security of tenure was introduced for a reason, did you forget ? There is no problem with "flash cars outside council houses" - this is a sign of people working hard to better themselves and an indication of more sustainable communities rather than sink estate benefit dependent estates.
More the issue is the lack of affordable housing full stop. Of course, as long as we continue with the nonsense of revenue funding at the point of consumption ("let HB take the strain"), making provision very expensive, rather than using a combination of debt write off and returning to sensible grant funding proportions on new build costs, there will continue to be this issue.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joseph | 17/10/2008 4:16 pm
I think the issue of Secure Tenancies and a tenancy for life is one that should be looked at. Social Housing should be for people who are unable to afford market rents or purchase on the open market. If whilst in social Housing a tenant comes into a substantial amount of money it is only right that they should have to vacate the property to help create housing for someone in need. I am however, opposed to the idea of increasing someones rent solely based on their income.
Most councils have waiting list of 1000's of people, some of whom have to wait years to be housed, and we have a current climate where others who are reasonably well off, are occupying properties that can be used to help those less fortunate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment