Kate Webb
 
I am a senior policy officer at Shelter. Since joining Shelter in 2010 I have worked mainly on housing benefit and welfare reform and now suffer from the misapprehension that tapers and income disregards are acceptable topics of conversation.

View all posts by Kate Webb

By Kate Webb

Hiding in plain sight – the loss of secure tenancies

Why isn’t there more debate about the impending loss of security of tenure in the social housing sector? David Cameron first floated the idea back in 2010 and predicted “not everyone will support this and there will be a big argument”. It’s a move so controversial that even the prime minister’s own housing adviser then said that ending security of tenure would be a mistake.

Minded to avoid that, the coalition government first legislated to allow social landlords to grant flexible tenancies at their discretion. Ever since the Localism Act of 2011, landlords have been able to offer new tenants terms of 2-5 years. But most landlords have decided this isn’t appropriate and have continued to allow families to stay in their home as long as they like, as long as they pay the rent and play by the rules.

Frustrated by this, the government is using the housing and planning bill to ban secure tenancies. In the vast majority of cases councils will be forced to offer terms of 2-5 years only. At the end of this they will be expected to evict households who no longer “need” social housing.

Our fear is that trying to turn social housing into an ambulance service for those with the highest needs will relegate a section of the population to perpetual insecurity in the private rented sector; pushed out before they can exercise the right to buy, told they’re no longer eligible for social housing  – yet still unable to afford homeownership.

So why hasn’t this yet erupted into the “big argument” the prime minister foresaw? The House of Lords will debate the proposal in detail over the coming weeks and hopefully this will give it the scrutiny such a momentous change in housing policy deserves.

But in the meantime, it’s the perfect blueprint for anyone who wants to sneak a nefarious reform under the radar:

  1. Harness the element of surprise

Eagle eyed readers would have spotted an opaque reference in the summer Budget to reviewing tenancies to make best use of stock. Then – nothing. Not a word on the proposals until the government snuck the landmark reform into the housing and planning bill. On the last day of Commons committee.

  1. Remember the importance of distraction

The ban on secure tenancies is jostling for attention alongside Pay to Stay, the Right to Buy, forced sale of council homes, the redefinition of affordable housing… Trying to find the worst policy in the housing bill is like a depressing Where’s Wally for housing campaigners.

  1. Depersonalise the impacts

The loss of security of tenure is a sea change for social housing, yet it’s not burst onto the front pages in the same way tax credit cuts did. It will mainly be new tenants affected by the loss of secure tenancies – although some existing households will lose their security if they move home. This makes it harder for people to come forward and talk about the impact it will have on their lives – which people have increasingly done to speak out against Pay to Stay. Similar effects can be seen elsewhere: the bedroom tax has provided vivid stories of heartbreak, while the comparable forthcoming LHA caps on social housing for new tenants have proved difficult to describe.

  1. Start with a grain of common sense….

The government’s rationale for the move is to make the best use of social housing stock. With 1.4 million households on the waiting list it’s a compelling ambition. But introducing constant and burdensome review and churn is not the answer either. And if the government is really worried about the efficient use of the social housing stock, the rest of the bill makes little sense.

  1. …and then distort it.

Of the little debate there has been, one of the most surprising claims was the Minister’s assertion that abolishing security will help social mobility. The government has framed the move as promoting homeownership, when in fact it risks moving tenants on before they’re eligible for Right to Buy discounts. It’s a particularly troubling move when you consider that Margaret Thatcher first guaranteed council tenants security as a way to bolster the rights of those who didn’t want to do Right to Buy. Such aspiration also ignores the simple mismatch of incomes and house prices, which means most social tenants do not expect to be able to buy.

The Lords will have a chance to scrutinise these arguments when the proposal reaches committee next month. It’s time for the “big argument” the move warrants.

2 Responses to Hiding in plain sight – the loss of secure tenancies

  1. Joe Halewood HSM says:

    Q) Why isn’t there more debate about the impending loss of security of tenure in the social housing sector?

    A) Because loss of security of tenure suits social (ahem) landlords.

    Any analysis that starts from a premise that Private Registered Providers (HA’s correct name) and they have a social mission / ethos / purpose (delete whichever superficial tag is used) is a fundamentally flawed one.

    Any notion that tenants have any say in the matter and that any MPs actually give a flying fig abut this issue is the same flawed premise.

  2. A Landlord says:

    “Our fear is that trying to turn social housing into an ambulance service for those with the highest needs will relegate a section of the population to perpetual insecurity in the private rented sector”

    Will the Private Rental Sector be around in 2-4 years?

    In 2-4 years, many “small” private landlord will be out of business due to the mortgage tax relief. Even thoughbank interest is a genuine expense in EVERY business.

    Some landlord (depending on their circumstances) could end up paying £1.20 in tax for every £1 in rent. It is an attack on good landlord who pay tax.

    I am providing cheap housing to my tenants, I have not increased the rent in years. I could increase the rent to cover the tax, but why should I be increase rents for it to go to the treasury? It does not benefit my tenant.

    It would have been better for George Osborne to ban ALL NEW BUY-TO-LETS rather then oppressively tax existing landlords. The tax change does not apply to big pension funds or big landlords who own in Limited companies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *