Wider range of rental models needed, says CIH
The ‘golden age’ of home ownership is over, according to a new report from the Chartered Institute of Housing.
The report identified a group of ‘in-betweens’, people who are too poor to get a foot on the housing ladder, but not in sufficient need to be able to access social housing.
In-betweens are households earn between £12,000 and £25,000 who struggle to meet the day-to-day cost of living.
The authors of the report, Widening the rental housing market, predict that millions of in-betweens will face a lifetime of renting on short-term tenancies, which they believe could prevent long-term life planning.
The CIH is calling for housing providers to develop a wider range of rental models, including intermediate rents.
It believes a more flexible rented sector would lead to more stable mixed-income communities.
Sarah Webb, CIH chief executive, said: ‘The report shows that home ownership is out of reach for a lot of people and we need to move to a situation where renting is a positive choice.
‘A golden age of home ownership is coming to an end. The time has come to move away from the notion of ‘right-to-buy’ and ‘wrong-to-rent’.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (45)
Yoric Irving-Clarke | 17/08/2010 8:45 am
What is needed is a fundamental rethink of what social housing is for. My understanding is that originally council housing was intended to be let at market rent levels and was just another way of providing housing. However, what seems to have happened over time is that it has become a state subsidised resource for people who are unable to afford mortgages/market rents. The issue is therefore fundamentally that market rents are too high, caused by a lack of housing and high demand and it is this that needs addressing rather than the sticking plasters constantly applied by Government.
Not to mention the house price and buy to let booms manufactured by previous Governments!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17/08/2010 9:25 am
House prices are way too high with puts pressure on the rented sector. If someone on £25,000 cant afford to but a house despite being above the average slary in thaUK, then we have a real problem. The "golden age of home owneship" has been destroyed by greed and needs to come back if we are ever going to solve the housing crisis.
We need a rethink of all housing not just subsidised social housing (which we cant afford anyway) as a way out.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 17/08/2010 9:46 am
I'd like a closer look at the report but I'll admit to a sinking feeling about the way the CIH have presented this. It suggests they are preparing to support coalition plans to hack at security of tenure.
Sky-high rents are one factor affecting life-planning but more significant is the explosion since the 80s of employment on short-term contracts.
If rented homes and jobs come in six-month contracts of whatever value, how can you expect to build communities?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 17/08/2010 9:47 am
And it has taken until now for the CIH to work this out - nice to know they are so in touch with life in the real world where for years millions have not been able to afford outright ownership yet have not had sufficient need to gain social housing, and that's if there were a supply of social housing available. These are the people who are either trapped in private rent or have opted to over extend on borrowing to buy. If CIH want to have a quick measure of how many over extended home owners there are I suggest they do a quick headcount of Northern Rock customers and times by about three.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 17/08/2010 10:01 am
Yoric - interesting post and correct about supply. But you're wrong about council housing - it was always a means of providing affordable housing because of market failures, and it is not subsidised, it makes a profit nationally and probably subsidises the council tax by a large amount due to incorrect recharges made by local authorities. It's a brilliant model if only we could get past the ideological opposition to council housing. Shared ownership and home ownership in fact get more subsidy than council housing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr P | 17/08/2010 10:18 am
Dave Hollins | 17/08/2010 10:01 am
"Shared ownership and home ownership in fact get more subsidy than council housing."
Home ownership gets more subsidy than council housing??? Private home sales receive zero subsidy. Not much more to say. Wrong
Council housing is not subsidised??? The price gap between council housing rent and market rent is subsidy. The council could achieve market rents but take the hit to offer it as affordable housing. Clearly subsidised.
Moving on, I wouldn't be surprised if large numbers of the pro benefits cuts posters on this site fit into the group of "in betweens" mentioned in the article. Having a lower quality of life than a job seeker could quite easily fuel resentment. How frustrating to know that you could improve the quality of your life by hitting the bottle and giving up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 17/08/2010 10:44 am
If they want to improve the private renting options, or make it more attractive force landlords to offer longer term tenancies, two years minimum with the length increasing as the tenant stays longer. This would weed out those "playing" at being landlords. people's lack of stability and security are the main reasons people don't go for it, with rent restructuring in many areas there isn't a huge difference between RSL and market rents.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 17/08/2010 10:45 am
Get rid of the sticking plasters and mend it by building new homes and ensure these Housing Association are giving Value for Money. Stop building cardboard boxes. Make sure paying into Link Fund to deal with the Exterior Repairs on these Share Ownership Homes. One I talk to have not go the money to deal with exterior repairs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17/08/2010 10:50 am
Stoking up demand in the shape of 3m immigrants at a time when supply was already under stress wasn't a very good idea.
Excuse, I forgot. Immigration like the deficit is something we never talk about when we talk about housing
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 17/08/2010 10:58 am
Anon - would that be the immigrants shipped in by the land owners to work as virtual slaves in the fields - they were accomodated on the farms a cheaply as possible so no it can't be them.
would it be the immigrants shipped in by care companies, worked 18 hours per day for two-years without any days off - they were accomodated in private rooms for extortionate rents so no it can't be them.
Perhaps you mean the students who flock to our universities - well they live in digs so it can't be them.
Perhaps you mean the homeless on our streets eating rats - obviously not them.
Maybe you are referring those bought in to fill a range of jobs by other employers who chose not to pay a living wage, well they tend not to be in social housing either.
Please anon, can you let us know just where these immigrants are that took all of the social houses away?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment