A fairer future for social housing
Liberal Democrat Communities Minister, Andrew Stunell today launches “Local Decisions: A Fairer Future for Social Housing”, the Coalition Government’s consultation document on reforms to social housing.
The proposals will give councils more flexibility to maximise the use of their social housing stock and drive down waiting lists. The plans will also allow for more flexibility to tackle the twin problems of under-occupation and overcrowding.
Housing Associations will be given the option of introducing fixed term tenure for new tenants. Lifetime security of tenure will be protected for existing tenants and will still be available as an option for new tenants. Housing Associations will also be able to offer new affordable rents and use this revenue to build more affordable homes.
Commenting, Andrew Stunell said:
“To have five million people stuck on social housing waiting lists is unacceptable – clearly this system is broken and needs a radical overhaul.
“Liberal Democrats have always said we need to have a much smarter system that protects lifetime tenancies, but also provides the flexibility to ensure that help is targeted at people who really need it, enabling us to get more for every pound of taxpayers’ money.
“In times of economic hardship, it is vital that social housing is effective in helping people get back on their feet.”
Volunteer
Help in election
Report a problem
Join Us
Your views
Register to vote
Postal vote
Email updates
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
There’s no question that the situation is currently a complete mess. Whilst, in general, I agree with most of what is proposed in the Consultation Paper, I am still firmly of the opinion that little improvement will be seen unless there is major investment in Social Housing building. Despite all the woes about “lack of money”, the decline in Social Housing stocks since 1979 is untenable, and must be addressed quickly.
The cause of the lack of stock? Firstly, the 1979-1997 Conservative administration, who introduced the “Right to Buy” scheme, ignoring the warnings of what would eventually happen. And secondly, the 1997-2010 Labour administration, who (possibly wary of a voter backlash), finally abandoned their outright opposition to the scheme, and merely tinkered with it in a totally unsatisfactory way.
The Consultation makes a point of stating that there will be a greater emphasis on working with Private Landlords, in the provision of Social Housing. Now, that’s good as a headline, but the realities of the current situation are extremely concerning, as the situation at present is quite absurd.
For example, I was outraged at the story Panorama focussed on a few weeks ago, where a “rogue” Landlord, with dozens of properties to his name, and all filled with tenants whose rent was being paid by the local Council, allowed those properties to fall into such a state of disrepair that the Council had to step in, and take action, as they just weren’t fit for human habitation.
What did the Council do? They stopped rent payments to the Landlord, and used that money to improve the state of the properties. Fair enough, except that… after completing the repairs, the residue of the withheld rent was paid back to the Landlord, and he continued thereafter to receive rent payments from the Council, whilst still owning the properties that the Council had put right for him!
In an email to Grant Shapps MP (Minister of State for Housing and Planning), I suggested that perhaps a better idea would have been for the Council to acquire those properties under a Compulsory Purchase Order, do the repairs, and thus increase their own stock of Social Housing. It seemed to be fairly simple common sense to me.
However, in an email on the subject, dated 11th November 2010, this was his response:
“Ministers are satisfied that the current legislation already provides the powers to address the type of problems you describe. They therefore do not propose to introduce any further regulation to the private rented sector or give local authorities additional powers.”
In other words, it seems that rogue Landlords and powerless Local Authorities are OK. Not to me, they ain’t!
After the Consultation period, it will be interesting to see what Legislation is put forward…
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I agree with most of what you say.
On the Grant Shapps rogue landlord issue, it may be that Councils do have the power to issue a CPO in those circumstances but just choose not to. It may end up costing them more in legal fees than carrying out the repairs, plus may potentially take a long time, all the while the tenants are in limbo.
I know what you mean and obviously would like it to work smoothly, but I know from local experience that CPOs are much much easier said than done.
November 24th, 2010 at 7:24 am
Maybe you’re right, and the CPO route is too long-winded and expensive for Councils to attempt. Meanwhile, despite good intentions, innocent tenants continue to live in misery.
If you are stopped by the Police and found to be uninsured, your car can be confiscated on the spot. No applications to a Court. No reams of paperwork before you lose the car. It can happen in literally 30 mins.
Which suggests to me that the “powers” of Local Councils, in the circumstances I’ve described, are not fit for purpose. And yet there is no intention by Government to do anything about it.
Sheer madness!!
November 24th, 2010 at 9:31 am
It suggests to me that the Police may have too many powers, rather than the Council too few (or the right amount too expensive to use)!
I think the reason that the Police can confiscate cars is that there is a database which can give an answer in seconds, and that answer is either yes or no. I still think that there’s a case that it might be a bit too much power for Police, but it’s very different to a subjective view of what is or isn’t an acceptable level of repair for a house to be kept in. Plus, compulsorily purchasing it costs £££££, which Councils probably don’t have lying about the place.