Home swap scheme to help tenants move
Social tenants in England will be able to swap their homes with tenants in other parts of the country, under plans announced today.
Housing minister Grant Shapps has set out details of a ‘freedom pass’ that will allow tenants to register on a National Home Swap Database if they want to move home.
The initiative is designed to make it easier for tenants to move to find work without having to leave social housing. The government also hopes it will encourage some tenants to move out of large family homes they no longer need, freeing these up for families who are living in overcrowded accommodation.
It said there are 230,000 overcrowded social homes, and 430,000 where households could easily downsize.
Mr Shapps said: ‘Social housing should provide more than a roof over people’s heads - it should lift them out of poverty, and free them to take chances to improve the quality of their own lives.
‘Instead, many tenants are left trapped in their own homes, while councils and housing associations turn their attention to record waiting lists.
‘This cannot continue - as we work to tackle the record budget deficit we must ensure vulnerable people benefit from, but don’t become trapped by, the safety net that social housing provides.
‘That’s why I’m putting tenants in the driving seat, with a new opportunity to see people like them looking to exchange social homes not just in their area but across the country, through a new National Home Swap Scheme.’
Mr Shapps has also announced two London boroughs, Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham will pilot a ‘right to move’ scheme. Under this some tenants will be able to ask their landlords to find them a home in the area where they want to live.
Mr Shapps said that unless there is progress on helping tenants to move he will take further action, including introducing legislation to back the ‘right to move’.
The National Housing Federation has published a report, commissioned by Mr Shapps, on improving social housing mobility. It found many tenants do not apply for a housing transfer because they believe they will not be re-housed, and they see mutual exchange as the only realistic option for existing tenants who want to move but do not meet a priority need category for social housing.
Mutual exchange service Homeswapper has carried out a survey analysing its member’s views on existing home transfer schemes. It found nine in 10 families looking to move have no faith in current schemes.
One in 10 said they wanted to move to find work, and 25 per cent wanted to move between 10 and 100 plus miles from their current home.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (33)
michael barratt | 04/08/2010 8:30 am
How long before this ultra right wing government introduces compulsory home swaps? With the transportation of the disable, retired or otherwise unable to work to domicile in rural idiocy while those able to work are moved to employment hotspots - as any reader can see the Government has declared war on those on benefits and living in a council house.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 04/08/2010 9:58 am
Is the really a new initiatve? Homeswapper websites have been up and running for years!! To my knowledge they are not very effective. Don't really see this as ground breaking!! Come on Grant, you need to be doing better than this!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 04/08/2010 10:04 am
Stalin operated a similar scheme for the 'excess' population in the western states. He shifted them east where there were mines and heavy industry demanding large volumes of manual labourers.
Meanwhile - tenants currently have the right to move, anywhere at any time. There is the local and national mutual exchange schemes already in existance. So what is new? Compulsion?
How about a right to move for the rest of us? I'd like a social rent property in South-central London please, so that I am closer to work, have less travelling, and a higher quality of life. Yeah - some chance!
If the basis of the problem trying to be solved here is: 'tenants are left trapped in their own homes, while councils and housing associations turn their attention to record waiting lists' - then address the lack of supply issue. There has been an over-use of the term 'elephant in the room' on this site of late, but lack of supply has to be a whole herd of elephants tramping through the House of Commons wearing pink pyjamas and blowing trumpets!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 04/08/2010 10:05 am
Yes Michael they have, and that's a good thing.
We cannot afford, and neither should we, a system where people can live in affordable housing all their lives, no matter their income, and claim benefits in lieu of finding a job.
Ask yourself this, is it right that a person who is broke today and in need of assistance, but whom tomorrow gets a job in the city and in five years time is on £100k a year plus bonuses, is allowed to reside in affordable housing?
I don't, I can't understand why the socialists think this is a good thing either.
Surely, even in a socialist paradise, the people with money should be paying for the people without, and how are they doing that living in social housing? That house could go to a family who are in dire need of accommodation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
McMadman | 04/08/2010 10:21 am
I'm interested to see how this will work in practice. The principle problem is a massive mismatch in overall supply and demand, so exactly how many homes will in practice be available for movers is questionable.
Of course, this is the practical effect of selling off (in some locations) up to two thirds of the affordable housing stock and then using the money to pay down other government borrowings, rather than investing the money in new provision and repairs. If we had done this, the repairs backlog and need for SHQS/Decent Homes would never have arisen and there would be less of a significant mismatch in supply/demand, making these suggested mobility schemes actually feasible.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 04/08/2010 10:26 am
So Alpha One - extend your logic:
All of us will pay taxes to fund the NHS, but only the poor and destitute will be allowed to use it.
All of us will pay taxes to fund education, but only the poor and destitute will have access to the schools.
Is there an outcry yet
All of us will pay taxes for roads and rail, but only the poor and destitute will be allowed to travel on the public highways.
I think you fail to understand the meaning of the term common good.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
McMadman | 04/08/2010 10:28 am
Alpha 1 of course misses the point. These are very isolated examples when ta sizable number rely on full or partial HB because of sheer poverty, and I doubt the number of persons in the category Alpha 1 refers to is even statistically measurable.
A lack of affordable housing means that many are forced into private sector renting at vastly inflated rents, and those that are actually living in the social rented sector are often prevented from working due to high marginal rates of taxation from benefit withdrawal.
Even the tories realise that taxing people at 90% (the reate of HB/CTB withdrawal in some cases) is stupid. Almost as stupid as letting HB take the strain so rents always rise, rather than actually investing sensible capital grants in provision in the first place.
I think Alpha 1 is a tory troll, but there you are.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 04/08/2010 11:18 am
When is Shapps going to grasp the mettle and restore right-to-buy, including the tenants of HAs.
Make every tenant a king in his castle, a model of responsbile empowered citizenry. Solve at a stroke the asbo problem. Counter the dead hand of entrepreneurial social landlordism. Instant resident involvement. Instant mixed communities. Use the cash to replenish the nation's treasure. Ensure the Conservative party stays in power for at least four generations. Exclude the Labour party from power for at least four generations.
Most of all, annoy the hell out of the loony lefty fascisti on this website.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 04/08/2010 11:57 am
When this hare-brained scheme was called (by the Tories) the Right To Move (yes snappy but a misnomer) it was vilified on here a few months back not out of any political leanings, but because it cant work. All it can do and can achieve is the export of social tenants from London to lower cost areas. It cant work from any other area into London.
it doesnt need any further discussion it cant work
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 04/08/2010 12:12 pm
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut.
After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money from you , I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you , I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop.
The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Member of Parliament came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The MP was very happy and left the shop.
The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen MPs lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment