Latest tenancy for life views draw criticism
The Chartered Institute of Housing has been criticised after sending an open letter to tenants explaining its controversial proposals to end a static tenancy for life.
The CIH has published an open letter to tenants on its website outlining its views on the subject, after a policy document issued earlier this month caused outrage.
The paper suggested tenants who see sustained improvements in their circumstances should be given advice on low-cost home ownership, moving into private rented accommodation, or buying their own home. If they did not take up these options they could see their rent increase.
The proposals prompted a furious response from tenants. The CIH then published the letter to clarify its suggestions.
But comments sent to Inside Housing suggest the letter has done little to appease tenants. Peter Marron, a tenant of Carrick Housing in Cornwall, wrote to CIH president Steve Benson advising ‘when you’re in a hole – stop digging’.
Mr Marron, a former tenant inspection advisor to the Audit Commission, says the institute should ‘advocate for meaningful targets and measurable outcomes for tenant empowerment in all social housing organisations’.
Housing professionals have also criticised the letter. Writing in a personal capacity, Steve Smart, from North Somerset, describes the letter as ‘little more than an emotional spasm from some well-meaning people who have swallowed uncritically much of the superficial wrong-headed guff which currently shapes housing policy’.
He adds: ‘I don’t accept responsibility for the long-term poverty of some social housing tenants, and I won’t take on the mission of giving them “a step up in life”.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
michael barratt | 29/10/2008 1:43 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
Rust | 30/10/2008 3:39 pm
so why should someone earning £60k pa or more and living in a social rented dwelling be given a subsidy on their rent by the taxpayer?
Should those on high incomes be allowed to continue occupation and buy a second property elsewhere?
If you answer NO to both of these, then you support the CIH approach.
if you answer YES, then you support an inequality approach to affordable housing
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 30/10/2008 3:57 pm
I don't believe it. Rust, how many examples of £60kpa people living in social housing are you aware of ? With typical benefit dependency rates being 70% the stats suggest not many. And CIH/you still don't get it. Do you both forget the reasons why security of tenure were introduced in the first place ? Moreover, if the justification 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 explanation (and apologists for this position such as Rust) only compounds the error 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
Tom Hainey | 30/10/2008 4:15 pm
It's an interesting concept and one that recognises the scarcity of affordable rented social housing and the enormous demand from people with no other real choice in the maket place. I tend to think that it amounts to little more than rhetoric however given that most social housing is not occupied by households on incomes sufficient to allow them to realistically consider other options. They also have secure tenancies that cannot simply be over-turned.
Of course we should be trying to make social housing applicants aware that there are other options they might consider, appropriate to their means of course. It is not a reasonable suggestion to make however that existing secure tenants should have to move out of their homes if they financially outgrow them so to speak. By all means provide them with positive incentives to do so; Carrots not sticks if you please.
Security of tenure is something that was hard won and, while the right to buy increased the pace of residualisation in the social rented market, I personally would resist any move to undermine that security and add further to the residulation of the sector and imbalancing the socio-economic balance of our estates even further.
Just my first reactions of course and clearly much less important than any views I might have about Ross & Brand's puerile antics
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 05/11/2008 10:03 am
This document and in particular the letter has opened up a debate. That is good, very good in fact. Yet, it has exposed the absurdity of these clarified proposals and as I've said elsewhere CIH need to get their members houses in order with decent bricks and mortar FIRST before looking at the social aspects of 'social' housing. In stark overview give tenants decent standards and they will repay that respect.
Social housing is a scarce resource - and unfortunately bad in standard and especially in reputation - the option of last resort or Hobson's Choice in many eyes, including tenants. Do other say European countries where social rented housing is far more widespread have the same negative views? I'm no authority on this but I doubt it. As long as social housing is perceived in that way then the bad reoutation will only get worse.
The relevance of reputation is very pertinent. The CIH are saying that if you can afford to buy then you should. They are saying that working tenants should not really be in social rented housing and, that social rented housing is ONLY for the 'great unwashed.'
This is far more damaging impression and inference than whether a tenancy is a tenancy for life in many ways. The body that represents socil housing is saying if you have any sense get out of social housing. Think on that for a moment and one can see this appaling proposal in its true horror.
CIH are saying that social housing is ONLY a safety net, ONLY for the great unwashed, ONLY the option of last resort and they are the so-called professional body representing the providers of and workers in the sector. Gerald Ratner must be thinking that his gaffe is pale by comparison - CIH are saying social housing is crap and their position of influence makes this gaffe much much worse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 06/11/2008 6:55 pm
I posted article here that - apparently - has been removed after a complaint. I assume this is why I received an email from the moderator with links they went nowhere.
I made a simple point, albeit forcefully, and I'll restate simple here.
If CIH, the body representing housing and housing professionals, issues a clarification letter that says, in stark but simple terms, if you are a tenant that can afford to get out of 'social' rented housing then you should, are they fit for purpose? I maintain that such a massive gaffe shows they are not.
I further maintain that this point is being lost in the emotive discussion about 'tenancy for life' that perversely I applaud CIH for bringing out into discussion.
The brief discussions above show that CIH proposals cannot work anyway - they are wholly impractical if nothing else, emotive arguments aside - but the huge infererence from CIH is that the social rented housing sector is the option of last or Hobson's Choice and that hugely significant point cannot and should not be lost here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment