Fed warns plan would create ghettos
Share
Scrapping permanent tenancies for social housing would create low-income ghettos, the National Housing Federation has warned.
The government is reportedly considering proposals put forward by the Chartered Institute of Housing that would end the right to a tenancy for life for new social housing tenants.
Instead they would be subject to regular reviews of their circumstances, and be encouraged towards home ownership or private renting should they became better off.
But federation chief executive David Orr said the reviews are ‘a very bad idea’ and would discourage unemployed tenants from seeking work.
He said if the government wants to encourage tenants to move out of social housing it needs to offer them positive incentives ‘such as shared equity in low cost housing, and not beat them with a stick’.
He added: ‘This proposal could also lead to the ghettoisation of low income groups and undermine the drive to build sustainable mixed income communities of privately-owned and social homes within the same neighbourhood.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
Joe Halewood | 10/11/2008 2:52 pm
I go much further than David Orr / NHF comments as to precisely how bad the CIH proposal, now clarified, is for social rented housing.
Just the posit that tenants need incentives to get out of rented accommodation is an inference that those in employment deserve better. Whatever way you look a it such a proposal negatively stigmatises tenants and social housing tenants.
The focus is upon the emotive 'tenancy for life' of future and not existing tenants. Yet this is almost all the debate upon this has focused to date. This is plainly wrong in my view.
The debate needs to be on whether CIH is fit for purpose after making such a gaffe. It is clear their proposals are in all practical operational terms unworkable and will only cause uncertainty and further damage the already negative perception of social tenancies. Instead of say focusing upon ensuring the basics such as the 'bricks and mortar' of rented accommodation reaches decency standards - and hence some may choose to live there- CIH instead frightens existing tenants and clearly deters future ones.
Even the most radical of suggestions and views acknowledge that social rented housing is an absolute necessity and there will always be a need for it, even as the absolute safety net or option of last choice. It seems this is the CIH position - one thats probably even to the rigth in political terms of Thatcherite governments who ,after all through the right-to-buy, created the current mess
CIH by clarifying the proposal make this view even worse, in fact shameful.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Paton | 11/11/2008 3:58 am
The promotion of this has been predicated on the myth of the "subsidised" tenancy. This untruth is far too widely believed and the CIH has sunk to a new low in promoting it.
So we leap from the rhetoric of "sustainable communities" to transforming council estates into transit camps. It's hard to imagine anything less sustainable than this utterly barking proposal. If it were ever to come about, it would no doubt be infested with the usual fandangle of targets and "performance indicators". One way to tick the box, of course, would be to make sure council estates became such hell-holes that people would be desperate and agree to almost anything to escape.
Behind this is gross disrespect, if not contempt, for those of us who live on council estates, are here for the long haul (unlike councillors, housing managers, etc.) and are trying to make our estates better places to live and better communities. We are already undermined by the transience and impermanence to which RTB has led, with many RTB flats now privately rented on ASTs, and badly need greater stability, not less.
Another myth on which this is predicated is that people whose financial circumstances improve will continue to be comfortably off. My answer to that is RONNIE HILTON.
Explanation for the under 65s: crooner with a couple of hits in the 1950s, pre Bill Haley, never mind Elvis. Shock & scandal! -he still lived in a council house in Leeds. Now, if Ronnie Hilton is still alive, his few months of fame and fleeting fortune were 50+ years ago and he's unlikely to be very prosperous now. He was sensible to keep his feet on the ground and hold onto his council tenancy. Or try to. I can't remember if he did eventually (I was only a kid at the time) or if he was hounded out by the publicity and pressure from the council. I hope not, but that's what the CIH would have wanted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 11/11/2008 9:47 am
But the inference from some of these comments is that tenancies for life haven't ALREADY created low income ghettoes. Admittedly they're the worst examples but we have in our area sink estates with 95%+ social rented properties with HB claimants at levels of 75%+ The reality is no "sane" person would buy a property outright or a shared equity product although the proposed pathfinder project hopes to do so. What they would have a chance of doing is possibly getting young working couples who could take advantage of intermediate market rents or similar to get the diversity of tenures that may lead to a more mixed community. In time they may decide to look at purchasing a property or a share in it, along the rent to homebuy model or similar. At the very least people accessing tenancies on a 6-12 month basis give the estates the chance of breaking the cycle they're currently in. Ask many residents on any estate whether they rather have neighbours in full time employment and renting or benefit claimants that are unemployed and I think I'd be confident of knowing the answer. Whilst many might deride me publicly for such comments I think I know what their private thoughts would be
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ronny | 11/11/2008 3:54 pm
Why has there been silence on the right to buy scheme. Surely this 'rewards' more affluent tenants just because they have paid their rent for many years. Why should this continue when the eligible tenants could be 'incentivised' into low cost open market ownership? Or is this a step too far for the CIH and Government? Maybe we could have comment from the new TSA members (some of whom actually 'grew up' in social housing - where do they live now????)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
nik masters | 14/11/2008 9:12 am
Welcome to Autocracy - New Labour Style. What next ? Council Housing Tenant's to be told they are 'entititled' to only one meal-a-day, if they are not in work ; and the need to be 'means tested' and their 'circumstances reveiwed' constantly ! The simple solution is to build more quality Council Housing, for those who need it. This will not be achieved through Private Companies, who want to profit. It can and will be achieved, by a Goverment that cares for all it's people; not just the 'well-off' and 'rich'. Unfortunately, this particular Labour Government has lost it's integrity and are using Housing as a Political Platform to squeeze in votes. Shame on you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment