Conservatives claim allocation plans are illegal
The Conservative Party has claimed government proposals to reform the allocation of social housing are illegal.
Yesterday the prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced plans to change the rules governing how social housing is allocated to make it easier for local authorities to give homes to local people, and those who have been on waiting lists for a long time.
But the Conservatives say the plans would contravene existing legislation, and the Equality Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.
The Equality Bill will place a duty on local authorities to reduce disadvantage. The Tories claim that giving a home to someone who is local, rather than someone who is most in need, would breach this duty.
The party also said the plans would breach current rules that say councils have to give preference to homeless people, those in unsuitable housing, and those with medical or welfare problems.
Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps said: ‘Gordon Brown’s spin, pitched at Labour’s disillusioned core vote, has been exposed to be a sham.
‘Housing waiting list policies need reform and we need more affordable homes. But Labour are unable to deliver the change we need.’
The government’s plans are contained in a policy document, Building Britain’s Future, which also outlines a £1.5 billion investment in affordable housing over the next two years to build 20,000 affordable homes
The plans have been well received by the housing sector. The Chartered Institute of Housing said the cash would allow 13,500 homes to be built for social rent, and 6,500 low cost homes.
Chief executive Sarah Webb said: ‘We welcome the proposals, both in terms of the new affordable homes they create, but also the commitment to reform key areas of the housing market which create unfairness.’
Eileen Short, chair of Defend Council Housing and a tenant in Tower Hamlets, London, said: ‘20,000 new council homes would be a good start, councils should be allowed to start building them immediately, and to improve existing council homes too.
‘This must go hand in hand with a moratorium: the housing minister must declare a halt on further privatisation, sell offs and demolition of council homes now.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
Mr. Sharabi | 30/06/2009 6:30 pm
Am I the only one going crazy with all this talk of letting Councils build homes? We already have in place perfect instruments to develop homes in the form of RSLs and their commercial partnerships with developers. We know roughly how many extra homes are needed, and we also know roughly how much surplus land Councils own which has the potential to be developed for residential use. Why not sell this land to the RSLs to develop and open up for potential purchase, rather than allow local authorities to enter into a commercial partnership with a developer and expose the Councils to Market forces?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Pipplington | 30/06/2009 8:08 pm
For sure we need the investment in building more units for social rent, but I am dubious about the value in investing in low cost homes.
As an Allocations Officer for a social housing provider who has been able to build a substantial number of new homes, both for rent and low cost homes. I have spent much of my time over the last 6 months allocating the homes, originally built for Shared Ownership, for outright rent instead as we have not been able to sell these units.
This experience leads me to believe that any extra funding should be aimed at building properties for outright rent rather than any form of home ownership. If our tenants aspire to home ownership, there are plenty of properties up for sale out there.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
disillusioned | 01/07/2009 9:57 am
All this talk of affordable homes, where are they?. All we hear is how many homes are being repossessed and how high the rent arrear levels are throughout the country. This does not tell me there are affordable homes out there for rent or buy. We will wait with anticipation to see these affordable homes appear and the rent arrear levels come down.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Paton | 01/07/2009 11:13 pm
I think Mr Sharabi probably IS the only one, at least outside the arrogant RSL coterie. RSLs are the perfect instrument for unaccountable, undemocratic, behaviour, disdain for tenants, high rents, patronising attitudes, political bias, instability, cultural narrowness and prejudice, rapacious development, wasteful practices, disrepair and allowing homes to stand empty. They are little more than job clubs for their senior staff. Nobody should have the power they have over people's lives without transparency (for instance through the FoI Act) and proper, direct democratic control. They urgently need to be closed down and their housing stock appropriated for the benefit of tenants and the wider public.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 01/07/2009 11:24 pm
"We already have in place perfect instruments to develop homes in the form of RSLs and their commercial partnerships with developers"
Err...you must work for a housing association yes? I wonder how many of the unfortunate tenants of housing associations reading this post would describe their HA as a "perfect instrument"? It's really so laughable one would think you are being sarcastic. As many MPs have found out, HA's are all about appaling mismanagement and are a law unto themselves; accountable to nobody but themselves and a toothless regulator, divorced as they are from the democratic process that at least still exists with retained stock Councils and ALMOs (who are arms length in name alone). These are but some of the reasons why LA or ALMO development is preferable to HA, from a tenant / leaseholder / MP / Councillor perspective.
"I have spent much of my time over the last 6 months allocating the homes, originally built for Shared Ownership, for outright rent instead as we have not been able to sell these units."
Yes, well, no surprise there. HA Shared Ownership is a joke. What could be worse than a part share of a badly built property that you can't sell on or sublet yet you have to pay 100% of the bloated service charge? Just ask the "shared owners" of the Notting Hill HA Barrett built development whose neighbours dropped dead from CO poisoning. Don't think they will be in rush to repeat the shared ownership experience do you? Nobody else should either.
ILAG
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr. Sharabi | 06/07/2009 5:37 pm
In response to both Jim Paton and I(B)LAG, I suppose it is partly my fault that I did not go on to elaborate further as to the reasons why I am against Council House building. Here are some of the reasons:
1). Councils should not be subjected to the pressures of a housing market because they are a Public Authority and not a Public Body. One of the main reasons for this is because Council tax should be spent on Council Services and not on subsiding losses due to 'Market Forces', otherwise there would be mass chaos if a Council ever became Bankrupt. I am sure both of you would agree on this point. If not, then please let me have what you are having and we can all fly together...
2). ALMOs which can be classed as a Public Body have the potential to develop houses, but that potential is limited to shoddy PFI frameworks, as well as restricted in terms of the present HRA system and PSBR as well as ALMOs not having ownership of any properties hence, no net worth in the eyes of an investor or lending institution. So, no assets to securitize against, no mechanism in place to allow the money gained by Councils when disposing of surplus land to be handed over to the ALMO without affecting the PSBR and no real help from the HRA due to expenditure restrictions limited to Housing Management and Maintenance, ALMOs don't have much going for them at present. This may change in the distant future if the Central Government push ahead with the reforms they have planned, but I cannot see it happening soon.
3). The current proposal from the HCA to give developers and potential owners an equity stake in the development process from the houses built on surplus Council lands may initially arouse interest from developers who would then be able to focus upon the housebuilding and be less exposed to land values, which in turn would make social housebuilding a more attractive proposition - but what about the people buying these properties, again we have an equity stakes model being presented to us in a different format. The first one didn't solve the problem, and neither is this one. People do not want half measures to full scale problems. People want to either rent, or buy. No in betweens. Being in between is not a choice but a reactionary response to the current housing market.
4). As for the argument of who provides a better service to tenants, I am afraid there is no argument, because my initial comment was based upon building homes for sale, not rental purposes. Which is why I have now elaborated. But if you want an argument, then please read on .....
Local authorities find it easier to manage their stock because most local authorities have a centralised nature delivering services through just one local authority boundary. RSLs as you know have to deliver services across multiple local authority boundaries, which makes service delivery more challenging, but not less interesting or less transparent. Both RSLs and Councils have their pros and cons, and Councils at times, just seem that much better equipped to make issues and challenges to the systems and process because of their constitution and political make up. However, RSLs can do the same depending upon the strength of their governing Boards which are becoming stronger due to monetary payments.
RSLs have the freedom to borrow because they OWN their assets, even if they are classed as a public body, they are NOT a public authority, whom ARE accountable to the FOI rules(!).
RSLs are still partly limited by the HRA system depending upon the tenure of their properties. And because they are partly unrestricted by the HRA system, they are able to invest in properties more intensively than local authorities and in some cases ALMOs too depending on their stock. This is why a lot of local authorities shift their stock onto RSLs, or create one if they can't find an RSL to shift the stock onto.
As for the issue of Elouise Littlewood who died of CO poisoning, I do not know what shared ownership has to do with a concealed flue system which caused the unfortunate incident. The Scheme Development Standards pertaining to Shared ownership properties do not stipulate a requirement for such a flue system to be incorporated. This is normally a decision the LOCAL AUTHORITY building control department would approve at detailed planning stage, before an RSL or its commercial partner would go out on site, to fit one!
I am by no means an expert on social housing, just an observer like you. I am an unemployed member of the minority ethnic population who likes a little tipple now and then to confront some demons of the past.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to post them, I shall gladly be of service.
Bottoms up!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment