TSA suggests dropping lifetime tenancies in areas with long waiting lists
Tenant groups unite over threat to secure tenancies
Share
Organisations representing millions of tenants have warned that they will campaign against the social housing regulator if it allows landlords to drop universal lifetime tenancies.
The National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations, the Tenants’ and Residents’ Organisations of England, and the Confederation of Co-operative Housing have joined forces to voice their concern at a line in a Tenant Services Authority consultation document, Building a new regulatory framework.
Between them, the organisations represent more than 5 million tenants.
In their response to the second stage of the TSA’s national conversation, the groups have outlined their strong opposition to the suggestion landlords could use less secure tenancies in areas with long waiting lists.
The groups’ joint opposition to the plans is significant because the TSA has continually pledged that it will act as a ‘champion for tenants of affordable housing in England - standing up for their interests and aspirations’.
But tenants’ groups say that they will actively campaign against it unless a line in its consultation document is dropped.
The line states that: ‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply, and the use of other tenure options may be more appropriate to meeting housing need and creating mixed income communities.’
In a joint response the groups say: ‘The three national tenant organisations will oppose and campaign against any proposals to dilute tenancy rights, either for existing or future tenants within the regulated housing sector.’
TAROE predicted the stance would ‘lead to a “postcode lottery” of tenancy rights where tenants only receive security when it suits, due to a scarcity of demand’.
Michael Gelling, chair of TAROE, said: ‘We feel that to require people to move out of a property which may be their family home, or somewhere their children have grown up, would not only be destructive to the families living in those properties, but it would also be destructive to the community.
‘Although the TSA has assured us that this is not something it would pursue at the moment, we are not so naïve to imagine the political climate could not change, and that this could become a very real issue in the future.’
A spokesperson for the TSA said it was still pulling together responses to its consultation.’The TSA continues to consider feedback and tenure is one of the standards that we are looking at,’ she said.
What the TSA says
The line in Building a new regulatory framework, a consultation paper from the TSA, which is led by chief executive Peter Marsh:
‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply, and the use of other tenure options may be more appropriate to meeting housing need and creating mixed-income communities.’
What the tenant groups say
Response from three tenant groups, including TAROE, which is chaired by Michael Gelling:
‘There are no circumstances where the needs of potential tenants should outweigh the provision of full security of tenure for existing tenants.
‘The three national tenant organisations will oppose and campaign against any proposals to dilute tenancy rights…’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (34)
B.S. Townroe | 16/10/2009 6:32 am
"Between them, the organisations represent more than 5 million tenants". Yeah, my family talks of little else.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 16/10/2009 6:49 am
I agree it would be unfair to have different rules for social housing in different areas so tenancies being reviewed periodically for all social housing tenants is the only real option to make sure social housing remains viable.
We need an evolution not a revolution.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 16/10/2009 8:55 am
How much of a threat is such a campaign? Obviously turkeys never vote for xmas and if I had a secure tenancy I'd fight like hell to keep it, but equally I'd imagine for every family currently in a social housing property there's another family that would like that house. The reality is that number of houses is NEVER going to be built and as such for every person with a secure tenancy there's someone else that would like that house. I think the truth is no one in need would ever suffer from such reviews, it would be people who are capable of fending for themselves that would find their tenancy not being extended but for that solution to work there would need to be better security of tenure in the private sector. That would mean smething along the lines of 5yr+ tenancies, assurances that private landlords cannot evict purely because resident is in receipt of HB, etc, etc.
Lets not forget though, that if such a policy was brought in it'd be the biggest weapon ever against persistent ASB, the hauling of offenders through the court and witnesses enduring intimidation with no guarantee of a final outcome. For that reason alone I believe a fresh look at secure tenancies is justfied.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Capaloff | 16/10/2009 9:49 am
How anybody who seeks housing and community sustainability, mixed communities, the avoidance of ghettoes, the need for security not only in terms of housing, but with regard to schooling, neighbourhood, etc, can persist in spouting that tenants should be insecure whilst having any value for community continues to be beyond me. And one sure way to encourage ASB is to ensure that sustainability is a bygone word and that such communities consist solely of the poorest and most in need, where achievement in terms of employment will result in the loss of the family home.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Holly | 16/10/2009 9:56 am
Yes, we are swamped with so called representatives who in reality are pressure groups with no claim to represent anyone.
Harry is right: there needs to be a workable and more secure alternative for anyone who could move out of secure housing. This means reform of private rented tenure although any hope of that happening has to be slim. None of the political parties show any interest in this and are more interested in attacking and reducing existing rights, which seems to be a consistentt theme of all public policy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michaelbarratt council tenant | 16/10/2009 11:51 am
The TSA is merely another Central Government acolyte actively promoting the undermining of secure tenancies while masquerading as an independent body.
Both Tories and Labour want to see the end to the secure tenancies of council tenants for a number of reasons, including:
Past governments over several decades have undermined the pay and working condition of manual and semiskilled workers to the extent many now earn less than if they were on benefits. To motivate workers on ‘breadline’ wages and those on benefits there has been an attempt to extend the insecurity of the workplace into the home by tying a place to live to having a job.
All the major political parties now represent Middle England and the socially disadvantage are now unrepresented. Labour and the other parties want to reduce the social housing tax burden on Middle England by privatisation. Privatisation will permit the ‘unlocking’ the underling value of council housing assets to permit borrowing in the private sector and develop further the social sector provision as a profit centre activity. This unlocking of underlying capital value requires the abolition of secure tenancies because banks demand the realisation of borrowers assets in case of default. The abolition of secure tenancies will remove the primary difference between housing associations and council housing thereby finally removing the barrier of council tenants reluctance to transfer to the private sector.
We have brought our children up in a council house having a secure tenancy. This secure environment has enabled all three of our children to graduate from university and continue on to postgraduate studies. I encourage all council tenants to join Defend Council Housing to ‘fight tooth and nail’ these persistent attacks on council housing and council tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 16/10/2009 12:09 pm
It's good to hear about these tenants represntatives... However I do not recall of never bee nasked to vote for any representatives, which is a bit odd considering that I might be represented by them ... What we need is real tenants representatives, properly elected nationwide to give tenants a strong independent voice. Only then tenants will be able to have their voice heard. Until then governements and landlords will go happily playing football.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John | 16/10/2009 1:03 pm
michaelbarratt council tenant
I'm delighted to hear you've managed to put your three children through university as a result of a secure tenancy - a fine achievement. Unfortunately a substantial portion of "middle England", who you feel all the parties represent, are not in the financial position to a)have three children, b)put them all through university. They're too busy paying the bulk of taxes to enable people like you to live in subsidised homes.
Incidentally, now you've succeeded in bringing up a family in your secure home, I would assume you're prepared to surrender it to allow another family the opportunities the social housing system has offered you?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt council tenant | 16/10/2009 1:59 pm
Dear John
My son attended a school where only 19% of male students achieved 5 A-C GCSE grades, our family has fought long and hard battle and certainly secure housing and home has helped greatly. Now our breeding and rearing phase has passed and we are pensioners where do you suppose we should go, into the arms of a private landlord? We need more council housing to ensure not just low income but also middle income families have an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of affordable homes and are not forced into the casino economics of the housing market.
It is not just Middle England who pays taxes. The tax system in this country favours the wealthy, with value added taxes in relation to income placing a proportionately greater burden on low -income earners.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 16/10/2009 2:01 pm
John | Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:03 GMT...
i WOULD SAY that anyone who has been helped by a secure tenancy to raise three children and put them trhough university has done exactly what many right wing people demand, put his tenancy to the best possible use. With all likelyhood that his educated children will be able to find good jobs and buy their own homes... So why should he give his home back or away, as opposed to a similar family with 3 children, unemployed and uneducated, with all of them needing social housing?... You just make no sense whichever way you look at it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment