Rules to restrict use of two year tenancies
Regulations covering affordable rent will make it clear two year tenancies should only be used in exceptional circumstances, the housing minister has said.
Speaking in a debate on the future of social housing in parliament this morning, Grant Shapps said he did not expect to see any tenants being thrown out of their homes after two years.
Under affordable rent, social landlords will be able to set rents at up to 80 per cent of market level and introduce fixed-term tenancies lasting as little as two years. Mr Shapps said tenancies this short would be very unusual.
‘I’m absolutely clear,’ he said. ‘Two years is to be used just in exceptional circumstances, and at least five years will be the norm.’
Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich Nick Raynsford asked why the government did not accept an amendment to the Localism Bill that would have made clear two-year tenancies could only be used in exceptional cases. Mr Shapps said it was because this would be set out in forthcoming tenancy regulations.
As an example of an ‘exceptional circumstance’ he outlined the case of a constituent who became paralysed from the neck down following a motorcycle accident. Mr Shapps said when he approached the council, he was told they could not offer the man a home because they had none available, and if they had they would have to offer it to him for life.
‘To believe that people will be thrown out of their homes after two years is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of social landlords in this country,’ he said.
Mr Shapps also defended moves in the Localism Bill to make tenants go to a local representative with any complaints before these can be referred to the housing ombudsman.
He said the move would help tenants and ensure councillors become more involved in housing issues: ‘I believe we will see far more cases resolved at a local level.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (15)
UnaPlanner | 28/06/2011 12:05 pm
5 years minimum makes absolute sense.
Start of Tenancy rent = 80% of market rent.
4 x annual uplifts of RPI + 0.5%, with RPI at say 5%, then by the end of 5 years the tenant will be paying a market rent.
In fact they might actually be paying more than market rent!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 28/06/2011 12:06 pm
".... fundamentally misunderstand the role of social landlords ...."
Quite so Mr Shapps, quite so AND this certainly applies to YOU!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 28/06/2011 12:31 pm
The Minister's position appears to be weakening, which is good news for the sector and reason to attack even harder to ensure success.
However, if anyone feels reassured by the exceptional comment (noting it is not to be part of the legislation, but an interpretational addition) just think back a couple of weeks to the outrageous actions by One Housing Group - those residents may have felt secure with the time limit given to them, but then the landlord kicked them out because it suited him and because he could. The two-year rule will be used because it exists. The only way to ensure that exceptional circumstance only apply is to legislate that way, but the Minister, as yet, refuses.
Is it any suprise that the Cex of One, through this website, extolled the principles of 80%MR and short term tenancies ahead of his good friend the Minister deciding to do the same. To judge the policy you only need to look at the behaviours and acts committed by its supporters.
One stands condemned Minister, or at least should be!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack Davies | 28/06/2011 3:11 pm
Interesting how Shapps clearly believes it would be totally unacceptable for social landlords to evict in as little as two years, Yet he is totally happy with private landlords evicting in as little as 6 months!!
The sheer duplicity and discrimination inherent in his personal political dogma is flagrantly contradictory...and of course he cant or wont see this
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Annonymous | 28/06/2011 8:14 pm
UnaPlanner | 28/06/2011 12:05 pm - you raise a very intriguing point. The annual increases above and beyond RPI will accelerate the speed in which AR reaches market rate.
Regardless of the statutory requirement for HA's to rebase the rent at the start of each new tenancy term, in some parts of the country social rents are already close or higher than private rents.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
gary wood | 29/06/2011 10:09 am
What will happen to the community if it was to become fluent ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 29/06/2011 10:36 am
UnaPlanner, fundamental floor to your maths i'm afraid.
If you are assuming that the AR rent will increase by RPI, then so will the market rent. The 0.5% above inflation increase will only amount to 2.5% over 5 years. You'd have to stop in the property, without the rent being re-based, for 40 years before the above inflation increase caught up with market rents.
None of you have ever tried to write legislation have you? You can't put 5 years, except in exceptional circumstances, it doesn't work. What is an exceptional circumstance? Do you provide a list to define it? What if there are others?
If you drafted a piece of legislation that wooly you'd end up with the Human Rights Act! A set of conflicting principles, with no substance and open the whims of the Judiciary to interpret how they want depending on whether they had a good journey to work or not! It doesn't work.
The legislation will provide for 2 years or as directed by the Sec of State (this is the normal phraseology of legislation), and the guidance that comes with it (which will say 2 years only in exception cases) will become a direction of the Sec of State under that legislation and will therefore be legally enforceable.
As much as I hate ministers being given this type of power, its necessary in these circumstances, situations may change, what is an exception circumstance today may not be in 10 years time - to use Shapp's example, the quadriplegic today would need round the clock care, in 10 years time we very well may have technology that allows us to repair the spinal cord and thus cure quadriplegic.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Electric Monk | 29/06/2011 11:53 am
The coalition also claimed that £9000 tuition fees would be the exception not the norm.
Lies lies and damn lies
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Electric Monk | 29/06/2011 11:59 am
If it was proposed that no housing benefit in excess of £550 a month was paid would this bring private/market rents down to an affordable level?
25% of £26000 (average earnings/minimum income guarantee/universal benefit for a family) = £6500 (no income tax taken into account) /12 (months in the year)
= £541 (I rounded up 'cos it's a nice day)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 29/06/2011 12:05 pm
Alpha One -- you have me confused 'good and proper' (as they say here up north) -- it could be that I'm a numskull or my medication is causing havoc (or indeed, both).
Are you saying that 80% market rent properties will NOT have their rent increased annualy as per the established formula (RPI + 0.5%)?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment