Tenancy for life
Posted in: Discussion | Policy forum
13/10/2008 5:47 pm
Should social housing tenants have the right to a tenancy for life, or should they face higher rents or being moved if their circumstances improve? The questions has prompted an unprecedented level of debate in the comment section of this site after we published a news story on proposals along these lines. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6501371
So what do forum users think? Is this a sensible, realistic solution - given the scale of demand for social housing - or would it create the kind of ghettos and stigma that housing professionals have been struggling to avoid?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
Author
Message
13/10/2008 6:45 pm
Go back as many years as you want and social housing rents were historically kept low because it was good vote catcher. As a result, few tenants would be keen to move out of a council estate where they would pay double their usual rent to live under a private landlord. Many people of course would love to move away from a council estate and live elsewhere –but the rents charged by private landlords do not make that possible. And as far as I’m aware, housing benefit only meets a percentage of the cost of someone’s rent if they wanted to live under a private landlord, so again there is no incentive to move. Of course, as history has also shown, council estates have become a power keg for unrest and I dread to think what the social cost of crime is for council estates alone. So from a purely financial aspect it would have made sense to pay housing benefit that matches the rents private landlords charge to enable hard-pressed tenants to move elsewhere and live better lives if that’s what they want to do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
14/10/2008 9:57 am
it would be incredibly bureaucratic to set up tenancies with rents linked to income, it's bureaucratic enough without adding another layer
the majority of tenants are on HB, there are some who work, there should be incentives for those on higher income to find alternative accommodation.
I lived in a housing association flat in the 1990s, they offered an incentive to move out and buy somewhere, we were both working, so got a grant of £16000 towards buying a place, at the time house prices were low, so it was a worthwhile incentive
currently the only incentive is homebuy which isn't a grant, the tenant gets 25% of the value of a home purchased, this gets repaid when the property is resold. a re-introduction of a grant might encourage those who do have sufficient income to buy on the open market and free up social housing for those who can't afford to buy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
14/10/2008 2:28 pm
Incentivising tenants to leave in terms of providing a grant would certainly make financial sense. Considering the Housing Corp currently average c£50k a property then even giving £25k to people looking to move, possibly as an equity share but with no obligation to pay interest on this sum at any time would seem to make more sense than some other convaluted measure such as "reviews" - Speaking as a former Housing Manager I was lucky to see 25% of all my residents in total as your time was usually taken up with the "trouble makers" so the idea that you could get round and review the financial position of the other 75% is laughable....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
15/10/2008 1:59 pm
Tenancy for life or not is THE most controversial issue. Forget asb, arrears, estate mgmt and all else this is THE biggest issue.
Everyone needs and should have security of tenure, whether that be as a tenant or even as a homeowner. The roof over someones head provides stability to live. Yet, should these principles - the right to shelter - be written in stone?
Paretos law as Harry describes is common - 80% of tenants never seen as no need to - it is the 20% of tenants with arrears and estate mgmt problems that consume 100% of housing staff time. Yet, the 80% of 'good' tenants receive no service because of the 'bad' 20%. It is the same 20% that have created the negative impression tenancy has and yet little can be done under the current system of tenancy for life. In effect, the 20% can carry on damaging the peaceful enjoyment- a tenancy enshrined right - of all others. Something has to give.
Why not have revolving 2-year tenancies? The good 80% will automatically be re-issued, the 'bad' 20% will have their tenure reviewed. A negative incentive perhaps but would such an idea as this help the 20% to accept their responsibilities as a tenant, neighbour and membr of society?
The potential sanction of a two-yearly review - would this help reverse negative image of tenancy, help reduce asb, helpin many other ways?
Even if the question of tenancy for life was not brought to the fore because of scarcity of supply, such questions should be addressed. After all, the 20% spoil it for the other 80%.
I'm well aware that majority of the 20% are law abiding and often much of housing staff involvement is due to arrears of which HB complexities and errors are a significant part. So, even accepting that is the 'bad' tenant amount to just 5% they still are spoiling the 95% right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
This 'greater good' argument has long been used in supported housing where licences can be common to aid stability there. Why should it not be transferred to general needs housing?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
16/10/2008 8:05 am
I think we all – and especially Inside Housing – should stop using the term “tenancy for life”. It is inaccurate, and functions as a nasty smear, redolent of exactly that peevish envy that one of the original protestors commenting on the first CIH story accused people of. The term “job for life” is a sneer at people who can continue to earn large sums of money regardless of performance; and the more recently invented term “tenancy for life” is an attempt to transfer these connotations to social housing tenants, implying that they don’t deserve security of tenure.
In many circumstances, it is a tenancy for more than life, because on the tenant’s death rules of succession mean it may pass to another person – a widow or widower, or even another generation. (The rules are complex: sometimes the full tenancy will pass on, sometimes just the right to a suitable alternative tenancy). These didn’t come about by accident, through some perverse accidental legal judgement. They were designed, incorporated deliberately in the Housing Act 1985, by people who wanted to ensure that social housing tenancies – called Secure tenancies, and for a reason – met the needs of tenants. Not just their current needs, but their future needs; their hopes and ambitions, their ability to make reasonable plans, their desire to provide for their children, and quite possible their wish to live our their days amongst the familiar friends and neighbours of their community.
That is where the anger, disgust and contempt for this proposal comes from. And it isn’t all from tenants either, despite Inside Housing’s summary headline response. Many respondents are clearly housing professionals too; hence all the threats to resign CIH membership. The proposal is to replace a set of tenancy conditions designed to meet the human needs of tenants with one designed to meet the administrative needs of landlords and politicians. Possibly something darker and nastier too: the need of middle class property owners on the lower shakier rungs of the property ladder to continue recruiting – willing or not - new generations of investors to the failing Ponzi scheme called the housing market.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
16/10/2008 11:56 am
The context of this 'proposal' - the commas specifically there as no concrete proposals have been forthcoming - is akin to yet more kite-flying?
To take John's point further those who may have thought they had a 'job and even home for life' may now need 'social' housing - yet another ingrained term 'social' - after all tenancies relate to people and as much as they may be treated as yet another bricks and mortar rent account, tenants are people with social needs, primarily stability that a house / roof gives.
Just because the south-east (mainly) has a chronic shortage of supply coupled with an increasing demand for housing doesnt mean the rule (law?) book should simply be thrown out with the bathwater.
Yet, whilst this kite-flying 'proposal' will probably not come to fruition, the debate raises many issues around scoial housing that do need addressing - such as how 'social' housing can operate better, how the term 'tenant' can change to not mean second or even third-class citizen and how the tiny minority of 'bad' tenants create a massive one-bad-apple syndrome for the vast majority of 'good' ones.
The enduring legacy of the right-to-buy prevails - a short-term vote winner that has stored up this massive problem of undersupply and over demand - and labelled tenants as third-class citizens in the national psyche.
Instead of further kicking social housing and tenants harder by threatening the removal of security of tenure, the 'great and the good' should be addressing how they can make the model better and include more of those that need it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
16/10/2008 12:08 pm
"Instead of further kicking social housing and tenants harder by threatening the removal of security of tenure, the 'great and the good' should be addressing how they can make the model better and include more of those that need it."
Exactly. And now - I mean, this month, this week - when even hardboiled conservative economists may be ready to concede there are certain fundamental human needs and priorities that cannot be left to the market, is exactly the moment the social housing profession should be seizing the opportunity to make this case.
Instead of which....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
16/10/2008 1:47 pm
I don’t believe the CIH proposals are part of some dark plan to prop up the housing market. Even the most staunch defenders of secure tenancies must admit that the current system is not operating fairly. The CIH proposals are just an attempt to deal with the unfairness created by a lack of investment and the Right to Buy… an attempt that will fail because it will just create new winners and losers without addressing the fundamental problem which is a lack of affordable rented stock. John, as many people do, you see the current near-collapse of the financial system as an opportunity for some progressive actions that will improve social provision. Sadly I believe it will have the opposite effect, and the economic situation will soon be used as an excuse to cut social spending and dismantle parts of the welfare state. Then the Ponzi pyramid will start to grow again…
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
Inside Housing staff post
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
28/10/2008 10:58 am
The CIH inhabit the proverbial cloud cuckoo land. This letter is so ridiculous it is genuinely laughable as this one excerpt proves.
"if someone can easily afford to pay more for their rent then shouldn't we think about asking them to do so - especially if this means we could use the extra income to make someone elses rent cheaper."
So, the CIH want means tested social housing then!! This attempt at explanation of their paper is more risible than the original and shows naivete in the extreme. This is far, far more than the perverse incentive it was labelled by Adam Sampson of Shelter.
Then take the second part of that extract. CIH want to charge Mr Smith more so he can subsidise Mr Jones! Cloud Cuckoo Land is paying this explanation a complement!
What happens if Mr Smith loses his job? Does he rent decrease and then lower paid Mr Jones subsidise him? Or has Mr Smith by paying a higher rent overpaid his account as with some mortgages and can claim a rent free period? Anyone who has ever dealt with arrears or with HB can see the logistical practical nightmare of such a proposal never mind the moral reprehensibility of it.
CIH should focus on a relatively and comparatively simple aim. Make its member landlords provide homes to a decent standard and nothing else. If that aim was achieved all of the 'additional' roles it ascribes to its own remit such as housing providing a stable base for employment, general wellbeing and all others would flow. Rather than insisting upon that it chooses to release pie in the sky and ill-though out proposals seeing itself as some form of (delusional) social pioneer that can change peoples lives.
Or in their terminology if their "desire to see housing as much more than just bricks and mortar" holds good, then ge the bloody bricks and nortar bit right first! Walk before you can run!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
29/10/2008 0:40 am
Well, yet again is you are a social tenant like me, you have to be outraged by this CIH initiative. This is a real insult to any social tenant. At a time when we all need more security and peace of mind to survive the next day in the current recession the CIH comes out with what I can only think close to a terrorist attack on the most vulnerable in society. And it's all based on a false premise, that social tenants are getting richer and richer and therefore they should pay more for their rents!... What a bullshit!... Someone some time ago protested about the son of someone who had won the lottery had kept on living in his council flat. Suddenly everyone was talking about millionaires prefering to live in a council estate rather than villas, warm climate and sia and beach.... Come on, grow up!... This is an inexistent problem. The far greatest majority of social tenants who are making any money to afford to move out will move out!... If you want for that to happen a little faster, as someone said, give them proper incentives!... Besides you will always get the odd and cranky milllionaire who will chose to die as a social tenant -
but hey! there can't be many of them to worry about.... Besides as a social tenant why should I be getting a good job if it would mean they are going to mess about with my tenancy?... Since the Thatcher era there has been this insidious campaign to devalue social housing and make tenants feel that their home is not their home. this is just another attack do devalue people's lives.... Well, I just hope we tenants can kick these guys in the goolies so hard they never walk again....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
Inside Housing staff post
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
03/11/2008 1:22 pm
Not a tenant but share Kass' sentiments on how 'social housing' become deiberately synonomous with sink estate / hot bed of crime etc etc. Yet keepgoing back to CIH and their pie in the sky scenarios and kite flying wish lists.
No pun intended but CIH should get their own house in order first - ensuring that decent homes targets produce homes fit for people to live in. If you build poor quality housing, not enough of it, fail to maintain it properly as a landlord or landlord regulator then you're asking for trouble. Get the bricks and mortar right, then the community, then the wider socially inclusive role you claim to seek.
Knee-jerk hypothetical reactions to the latest initiative, having to respond to the latest aspect of 'social housing' is simply closing the door after the horse has bolted. Get the basics right and then build on them. Have homes where people WANT to live and not are forced to accept.
Lobby for the third/ fourth/fifth option on level playing fields tocentral government first and ONLY when thats done talk about wishful intentions. Threaten to take away accreditation of those RSLs that cant meet the standards -even councils if necessary - radical!! - so what? If radical needed and it is stop playing games - games that will go on and on until realcrisi point reached and whole system of social housing fails. Then again if you shy away from such radical issues your just making the already soory state of social housing gradually worse by avoiding doing something.
Only, when social housing is fit to live in will people exercise choice and become a community to keep what they have.
The CIH is living in cloud cuckoo land here - and victimising 'tenants' - a nice easy target rather than using its weight to attack central govt or RSLs -much harder targets when they also fund you - naive sentiment and outrageous policy intentions cant deflect whatyou should be doing and have done for last decade or more
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
06/11/2008 1:39 pm
Has anyone done any provisional costings for this new Income Police? Are we expected to take on new staff or increase the workload of existing staff? What do we do with tenants who refuse to tell us their income; do we get court orders? Do we have the right to interrogate their tax and NI records? What happens if we discover that they withheld information, do we fine them? Do we claim back-payment? How do we enforce it, do we follow the arrears route? Could this go to eviction? Current arrears departments need to deal with 5%? 10%? of tenant numbers, an Income Enforcement Unit could be dealing with 80, 90, 100% of tenants, a huge staff cost and a huge administrative burden.
Or, here's a radical suggestion, take the money that all that would cost and use it to make a useable grant to the social tenant to springboard them into home ownership. Make it conditional on them having been a good tenant for two? years. No muss no fuss, we get the house back they get a bit of their 'sweat equity' back, their new neighbours get a good neighbour and housebuilders get a sale. Job done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
07/11/2008 9:25 pm
Ged Quayle, I assume you are working for a social landlord. If it's true you are the first housing worker I hear saying something sensible!... Have you made your ideas known to your co-workers and directors?... Why aren't they putting up a fight for the healthy sane things you say?... As a social tenant I wish you great things in your profession. I strongly hope you become a CEO - preferably mine - London and Quadrant - so you can put in practice your ideas. I would then be allowed to relax, at last....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
10/11/2008 8:58 am
Kass, just to play devil's advocate somewhat, you're horrified that the CIH question some people's financial situation, with a view to "encouraging" them (through a higher rent) to access market housing, or at least no longer receive a subsidy that their income may indicate they don't really need, and yet you think that Ged's idea to get people out of social housing and into home ownership, thus ending the "tenancy for life" is a great idea?? Not wishing to start a seperate argument, but I think ultimately the CIH are being beaten up over this a bit too much. I think most people are in agreement that some REAL incentives to get those considering a form of home ownership should be encouraged, but with the current situaton of massive demand and no sign of a massive amount of new social housing coming over the hill, is the CIH's challege to the status quo such a bad idea? At no pont have I heard the CIH say at any point they would forcibly end someones tenancy, just that they would get them to pay a more realistic rent. Bob Kerslakes recent comments about diffreent levels of rent in an estate echo this to a degree yet that's only got a very small reaction compared to the flak the CIH have received.......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
10/11/2008 2:36 pm
CIH deserve the flak as Harry calls it because of what they are advocating.
(a) a means test
(b) a means test that only works one way - if income goes up!
(c) a wholly impractical one in operation - see many points above about practicalities
(d) dont even say where extra money coming from for 'menu of options' - assume councils will fund
(e) most importantly they are inferring social housing to be option of last or even no choice
No-one is doubting - least of all me - that the current system isnt working. It is a case of its bust so fix it. Yet, unfortunate and unworkable and allegedly clarified proposals such as this nonsense are not the way to address those problems. This is ill-thought through headline-grabbing emotive claptrap that CIH knew would misfocus attention.
Because of the clarification letter, CIH has confirmed the inferences it made in the original response. The old saying that its better to let someone think you're incompetent than to open your mouth and confirm it tends to sum this up very accurately.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
11/11/2008 9:31 am
But Joe, the ideas have only been mooted to provoke further discussion, which in itself is no bad thing. The devil will be in the detail (as always) The points about whether means tests would be one way or the other haven't been clarified these were always only outline proposals - I can't really imagine that the change in circumstances wouldn't apply should someones position worsen. As for who would pay for it - presumably the income streams would grow considerably if certain residents are paying anything up to 50-75% more than they currently are. Personally I don't agree with the ending of the security of tenure for ANY resident, but I do believe those that are in a position to pay more, should do so as this should make the further provision of affordable housing easier to deliver.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
11/11/2008 10:51 am
I dont agree that the ideas have been mooted to promote furher discussion. This is because the ideas were clarified ones, that the CIH took time to explain its position. Its a highly unusual and untypical situation that the CIH takes time to clarify and then publish its position, a very rare occurence from any national agency or body.
Yes the devil is always in the detail and the detail is noticeably absent here. The intentions and aims are there which are all unworkable and impractical.
Subsidies? - Isnt this just another way of saying to tenants that you are very lucky to have a tenancy and so should back off with your expectations in terms of involvement or influence? It may well be the case that tenant are 'lucky' in this regard - even luckier if their home reaces the decency standard!!
Debate is very positive when its focusses upon real issues and not on emotive ones as in this case. Yes the model is brokenand needs drastic action. Unfortunately though the detail also goes there as well and we end up with 2 and 2 becoming 5 - as in yesterdays Times leader. This said there is no need for social housing at all. It conveniently missed the point on vulnerable groups such as those fleeing DV that it missed completely. It also highly conveniently omitted to say anything about right to buy and how million and more council houses were taken out of the model...and then went on to say two million on waiting list! In short the danger of the CIH position becoming mainstream has already happened.
Its the old strategy that CIH knew would happen - tell a lie often enough and people believe it - that will influence policy decisions. It reinforces false prejudices and false positions and will lead to false hope for changeand the outcomes wanted.
One other point on that. It was also mooted that council house be tied to a willingness to work. Strange how 'unemployment' was always a charge thrown at govt to do something about. Change its name to 'worklessness' - the latest buzzword and the psyche behind not working becomes a label and problem for the individual.
To wit - if your not working its your own fault: if you're a tenant its your own fault too!! CIH has knowingly, labelled tenants the lowest of the low here and create this perception of stigma that will never go away - It seems tenants are now to blame for poor housing stock as well as ALL anti-social activity and crime that goes on in their locale - a very easy target for CIH.
Im not a tenant and usually forthright that tenants have far too many expectations and dont realise how lucky they are in terms of cheap housing. Yet for CIH to label them in this way which then leads to front page articles in Times and influences the general public perception negatively an even influences govt policy is way, way too far. Its more a witchhunt than debate
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
11/11/2008 2:17 pm
the proposal is typical of a certain element in social housing that thinks in terms of units of accommodation rather than remembering that they are talking about people's homes and the community they are living in.
talk in commentary about "bad" tenants forgets/ignores that a lot of these in rent arrears are sad inadequates who need the support.
it is a pity that Malcolm overturned Novacold as these it had helped in mandatory were normally not completely beyonf=d help and we do not want to increase the potential for a revolving door
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Rate this topic
Post a Reply
You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post
