Institute defends tenancy for life proposals
The Chartered Institute of Housing has written an open letter to tenants following the reaction to its controversial proposal to end static tenancy for life for new residents.
In a paper published earlier this month the CIH suggested that in the future if a tenants’ circumstances improve in a sustained way they should be given a menu of options to choose from. But it added that ‘the existing terms and conditions [of the tenancy] should not be an option’.
Instead tenants should be given advice on moving into low-cost home ownership, the private rented sector or a move into full ownership. Tenants who did not desire any of these option could see their rent hiked up towards market levels.
The recommendation provoked strong reaction in the sector with Shelter’s chief executive Adam Sampson suggesting it would ‘create perverse disincentives for tenants’.
The CIH itself said the move represented a ‘fundamental shift away from the majority of current lets that provide a largely static tenancy for life’.
Now, in a letter published on its website, it asks tenants to read through the proposals in detail saying ‘our key point is really nothing to do with security of tenure at all – it’s actually about our role as housing professionals in doing what we can to improve opportunities for people’.
In the letter it states that ‘it might be appropriate for some people in social housing to pay more for their housing if their circumstances change significantly’.
It reads: ‘It’s true that mortgages don’t go up if you earn more but the key difference is that mortgages aren’t subsidised – and that isn’t at all the same thing as saying you will be evicted if you start work!
‘We don’t have enough social housing to go round and we need to make sure it goes to those who need it most.’
It adds: ‘To be clear – our paper doesn’t call for the end of security of tenure, or for people to be evicted if they start work – or for housing officers to be able to force people into a job or shared ownership house against their will – and any changes that were made would apply only to future tenancies and not to any already in place.’
What do you think of the proposal? Have your say in the forum
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (3)
michael barratt | 28/10/2008 1:19 pm
From my observation few commentators have claimed that in respect to CIH proposals ‘social’ housing tenants would be evicted if they started work, rather CIH proposals represent a disincentive to work and most certainly undermine the security of tenure of social housing tenants, especially council tenants.
Over the years, council tenants with the means have with regret tended to purchase their homes the remainder in most instances do not have the financial resources as demonstrated in recent times by the fall in right to buy receipts. Arguably, CIH proposals are an ingratiating attempt to undermine the present security of tenures and thereby open the way for the full privatisation of the social housing sector.
Above CIH is reported as claiming that: ‘…. any changes that were made would apply only to future tenancies and not to any already in place.’ CIH appear in their document only to reluctantly concede that their proposals would apply to future tenants due to legislative difficulties and on page 21 of 35 of their Rethinking Housing they quote John Hills, Ends and Means, p196:
“For existing tenants, a system of regular review every few years could run through whether someone’s circumstances had changed to allow them to take up a different part of the “offer”.”
CIH claim owner-occupation is the majority tenure in the UK perhaps this model needs to be changed given the scarcity of building land and increased population within a speculative economic environment. CIH claim their proposals are necessary because there is not enough social housing to go around. Perhaps it is necessary to reduce the amount of local authority and public land made available for private development thereby increasing the land and resources available to build more local authority housing. Public housing made available for rent to those who might have alternatively cajoled to take the first rung of the housing market as well as those from the most vulnerable sectors in our society thereby creating truly mixed communities.
Perhaps it is time to take housing out of the grasp of apparently uncontrollable market forces and develop a national strategic that equitably manages land and resources. I am sure that many would agree that paying rents and mortgages determined by a casino economy presided over by predatory banks represents an outrageous impost on families and others on low to moderate incomes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 29/10/2008 12:32 pm
I don't believe it, CIH still don't get it. Do they forget the reasons why security of tenure were introduced in the first place ? And if the justification they rely on is because "there isn't enough social housing" then how about them doing something radical, like effectively arguing for debt write off for LA's rather than the dogmatic refusal of the treasury to allow this, coupled with arguing for more investment in a clearly needed area ?
Perhaps they could try the above before supporting removing security of tenure. Honestly, this latest feeble excuse at an exmplanation only compounds the error that they made in making this nonsense suggestion in the first place.
Maybe inside housing should run a poll. 3 Questions:
1 - How many members of the CIH agree with the proposal to remove security of tenure
2 - How many members are seriously considering resigning membership ?
3 - How many members think CIH would be better placed trying to lever in more investment and arguing for historic debt write off ?
Maybe if CIH had the nerve they would ask their members themselves. Honestly, one more bit of nonsense like this and my card is going back.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
nik masters | 14/11/2008 9:07 am
Welcome to Autocracy - New Labour Style. What next ? Council Housing Tenant's to be told they are 'entititled' to only one meal-a-day, if they are not in work ; and the need to be 'means tested' and their 'circumstances reveiwed' constantly ! The simple solution is to build more quality Council Housing, for those who need it. This will not be achieved through Private Companies, who want to profit. It can and will be achieved, by a Goverment that cares for all it's people; not just the 'well-off' and 'rich'. Unfortunately, this particular Labour Government has lost it's integrity and are using Housing as a Political Platform to squeeze in votes. Shame on you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment