Professional bodies united in opposition to the ‘right to move’
Landlords warn Tories’ mobility plan won’t work
Share
Social landlords have condemned Conservative proposals to help social tenants move house as ‘unworkable’.
The two main representative bodies for housing professionals - the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing - both said they had serious concerns about the plans, which were debated at the Conservative Party conference this week.
The proposals, which would force landlords to help tenants move by selling their home and buying a property in another part of the country, would ‘set a huge challenge’ to providers, the organisations indicated.
They spoke out after shadow housing minister Grant Shapps reiterated the party’s commitment to pilot the scheme in his conference speech.
‘Under the Conservatives, social tenants who want to relocate for employment - or just to be closer to elderly relatives - will be able to take advantage of our right to move policy,’ he said.
But David Orr, chief executive of the NHF, said the plans addressed a ‘critical issue’ but were the wrong way to solve the problem.
‘A far more effective way to achieve social mobility would be to overhaul the allocations system for social housing, so that tenants needing to move for employment purposes will find it easier to get a home in the area they want to move to,’ he said.
He added the scheme would mean associations would have ‘properties dotted all over the country’, and that the costs of this would damage their ability to build new homes and provide services for their tenants.
The Chartered Institute of Housing said the Conservatives would need to work harder to develop a more sophisticated and viable model. Abigail Davies, head of policy, said: ‘There has been a big drive to get providers to rationalise their stock recently, and it sounds administratively difficult for housing providers to have properties all over the place.’
Ms Davies suggested providers could strike deals to swap tenants rather than purchasing properties in different parts of the country.
Mr Shapps told Inside Housing the plans were not yet set in stone: ‘We’re not going to push this out nationwide on day one - there will be a trial - but I want to make it very clear that putting people in a box and leaving them to rot is not acceptable.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
Peter | 09/10/2009 10:24 am
Another silly idea by Mr Shapps: considering the chronic shortage of housing in most the 'desirable areas' and sometimes within a 50 mile radius, proposing such false hopes tantamount to stupidity.
I have been waiting for four years to move through the mutual exchange scheme. Most of the exchange requests I have received are unsuitable and often 100s of miles away from my ideal location. Nevertheless, I am not expecting the local Authority or any HA in that area to give me priority because I want to move to their area or because of sick relative over local people in need of a home!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 09/10/2009 11:17 am
Perhaps IH could have told Mr Shapps to set this policy in stone, a concrete block perhaps and place them where nobody could find them as that is all they are worth.
This proposal is so unworkable and so incredibly stupid that setting them in the concrete block would save the Tories a huge amount of embarassment. They are totally unworkable and they could also bury the back of the cigarette packet they were drawn up on as well.
Do the Tories believe the myth that we have a glut of social housing nationally that are available for anyone wanting to be nearer sick relatives? How many on national waiting lists?
And David Orr is being disingenuous too, these proposals do not address the issue at all. As explained elsewhere on this site they would allow (in theory) the movement of tenants from London and other high cost areas but dont allow the movement of tenants to London from other areas of the country.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Antoine | 09/10/2009 12:44 pm
Joe Halewood : "Do the Tories believe the myth that we have a glut of social housing nationally that are available for anyone wanting to be nearer sick relatives? How many on national waiting lists?"
Perhaps you should actually read the policy before dismissing it. The idea is for landlords to sell the resident's existing home and use the funds (plus top up if necessary) to purchase a property in another part of the country. It does not suggest that moving tenants would be given priority to move into existing social housing.
And Peter - You're assuming that all tenants will receive job offers and have family that requires them to move to desirable areas - remember this isn't a straight choice thing - the idea is to enable residents who have a genuine need to move.
Haivng said that, I do agree the idea is unworkable on the basis that having assets pepper potted across the country can only drive down efficiency and increase maintenance costs - neither of which can be good for the tenant or the landlord.
However the idea behind the policy is laudable. It is wrong that social housing tenants do not have a system that enables them to move to pursue career opportunities or be nearer loved ones.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 09/10/2009 4:52 pm
Antoine - i dont need to read a policy that cannot work - see the similar thread on thi site about it - but i'll refresh it for your response.
Two tenants one in Fulham one in Crewe want the 'right to move' - job relocation whatever. Hamersmith and Fulham can sell his proerty worth say £400k and nuy jim a bigge and better property in crewe for £120k - No problems and H&F makes a tidy £280k.
Reverse that - the crewe tenant has a job to go to in H&F. Does crewe council sell his £120k property and buy a smaller one for £400k!!!!!
They cant and so the policy doesnt work - it can only work when the person is moving from a higher cost areas to a lower cost one - ergo London will cleanse itself of tenants.
The only way this policy can work is if its rationale is to remove tenants from high cost areas to lower cost areas - thats not a political point its an economic fact.
So how u can say the policy is laudable is trulu bizarre. It cant work unless lower cost housing areas such as Crewe massively ramp up the cost of council tax to pay for these top-ups. Then face the prospect of being rate capped by central government - in the expected case the ignorant Tories who designed this cock and bull system in the first place!
The added management costs are nothing in comparison to the costs of moving yet they will provide what sort of hsg mgmt service - HO by email / webcam anyone?
The policy is a dodo - its ill-thought out, ill-thought through and simply cannot work. If thats the best the Tories can offer.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
steve | 09/10/2009 7:12 pm
I think they should push this through quickly before someone realises how stupid it is because I as a housing officer will be able to afford my new mansion in the country - just from my fuel expenses !!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Bridger | 10/10/2009 3:41 pm
The other reason this policy doesn't work is that its other stated aim of bringing mix to social estates - by selling a social unit to a private buyer - can only be achieved if the purchase is regulated, so no buy-to-let or benefit claimants would be allowed.
However, that is impossibly difficult to police as courts will give not give forfeiture in most circumstances and what landlord has the time to check.
Nul Points, Monsieur Shapps!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B.S. Townroe | 11/10/2009 8:09 am
Let's just be clear here. To portray this as a tenant-focused policy is simply absurd and does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. It's about moving out tenants in high value locations and replacing them with much more Tory-friendly higher earners.
The practicalities, sorry, the impracticalities, of the policy make it all the more absurd. And shining through is the hallmark of Porterism. Schapps is a clown in policy terms but I'm not laughing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment