Subletting for the good or the bad?
29/06/2009 12:17 pm
Are any of you aware of any research or study that has ben carried out into the effects of subletting, legal or otherwise, in mixed tenure neighbourhoods, eg owner occupier, shared ownership or social housing.
I am also interested to know how other RSL's manage the ever increasing problems associated with illegal subletting on estates generally.
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
29/06/2009 11:28 pm
See the related article at
Pray tell, how on earth can illegal subletting ever be "for the good"?
As the article states, illegal subletting by tenants gaming the rotten-to-the-core system of "needs based" allocation has resulted in an 85% illegal subletting rate in many areas. RSLs just don't care as the State (ie the taxpayer) funds these allocations via the bloated housing benefit regime. No chance of honest, working folk getting a tenancy from an RSL. So they have to illegally sublet from the sponger that has gamed the system to get the flat from the RSL in the first place.
Only in England, as they say....
20/07/2009 12:03 pm
Information currently available on the levels of unauthorised sub-letting within the social rented sector is patchy. While some evidence suggests that the level is between 1% and 5% of stock, with higher percentages in areas of high demand and the London Boroughs, it is unclear whether the levels differ between different types of landlord location or stock size.
As part of the National Fraud Initiative, the Audit Commission have been looking at how this issue can be tackled more effectively.
In addition, the governernment has signified its intention to crack down on illegal sub-letting - included in the draft legislative framework Building Britain's Future http://www.hmg.gov.uk/media/27749/full_document.pdf
CIH are working with CLG to support them to develop some good practice guidance on how to identify and tackle this issue. We would be really keen to hear from any local authorities or housing assocations who are doing innovative work in this area to inform this work.
Please contact me directly
21/07/2009 11:09 am
Just out of interest, has anyone ever obtained possession of a property for unlawful subletting?
22/07/2009 8:09 am
Joe: I have no idea what the numbers are, but it happens all the time. In the borough where I used to be a housing adviser, I was often in the position of advising the people actually evicted. Fortunately, at that time, that borough had some hard to lets, and being basically sympathetic to these usually innocent dupes, would make a one-off offer of such a hard-to-let. I doubt whether that's true now. In all this moral panic about subletting this is something that is usually forgotten. The people who actually take on these sublets are usually in desperate need of housing themselves. What happens to them? Dealing with sub-letting doesn't actually create a single new home. It may be technically necessary for social landlords to deal with it, but I'm deeply suspicious of those - including, now, Gordon Brown - who are raising the issue with crusading zeal. I suspect it's being raised in order to mask the underlying supply shortages, or to deny the need for social rented housing. It's a bit like pretending that dealing with benefit fraud would result in higher benefits for genuine claimants.
22/07/2009 10:34 am
Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:09 GMT .... "It's a bit like pretending that dealing with benefit fraud would result in higher benefits for genuine claimants."...
or that evicting tenants in rent arrears would result in better services...
23/07/2009 11:12 pm
John Souray says: "It's a bit like pretending that dealing with benefit fraud would result in higher benefits for genuine claimants."
Yes, dealing with benefit fraud will not immediately result in higher benefit for genuine claimants. But it will help reduce to cost to the taxpayer who are ultimately footing the bill for the intergenerational welfare dependent class of spongers that have bred in vast numbers over the last decade or so. Addressing this poisonous social phenomenon is essential to any real welfare reform. Citizens do not have the right to permanently leech of the State in order to breed vast families they patently cannot support from their own means. And have said offspring do same. Reducing the welfare bill will obviously lead to a lower tax burden and so could enable benefits for those genuinely out of work temporarily to be increased to the levels seen on the continent.
23/07/2009 11:23 pm
ILAG Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:12 GMT...
we have discussed this before at some length somewhere else on the site... benefit and welfare dependency can only be effectively broken if given better, worthwhile alternatives... even following your logic, the young women you talk about getting pregnant to get a flat would not do so if they would have possibilities of prospective relatively secure career giving them affordable housing in a relative short term.