Categories
Blog Post

Why the growing consensus on rent controls shows us now is the time to act

Rents are too high. Since the turn of the millennium, private renters in the UK have been paying around a third of their income on rent, and much more in higher cost cities. Recent, above inflation rent increases have worsened this situation, pushing the rents even higher.  

Behind these figures are stories of people struggling under the weight of high rents. Families are cutting back on spending, going without the essentials or losing their home altogether when they’re hit with a rent rise they cannot afford.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

At the same time, this affordability crisis is placing significant cost on the public purse, through a growing housing benefit bill and spiralling temporary accommodation costs which are pushing councils to breaking point. 

The current government has been right to place a significant focus on new housing supply, repeatedly stating its intent to build 1.5 million homes over the Parliament with a view to lowering house prices and rents. This target, and their efforts to deliver if through planning reform and funding, are welcome. But these efforts – as important as they are – will take time and on their own will be insufficient. OBR analysis shows that were this target to be met, rent and house prices will still not fall through this Parliament.

Furthermore, hitting this target looks increasingly unlikely (and exceeding it unlikelier still). Market housebuilding has slumped – a function of low effective demand driven in large part by higher interest rates – and this will take time to recover. While the finances and strained capacity of councils and housing associations make it harder to build more social homes to counter any fall in private output.  

Why action is needed now

Action on rents is needed now and, given the pressures on renters and the challenges Government faces acting on them with the tools currently available to them, intervening more directly on rents looks increasingly appealing. This is why an increasing number of organisations – JRF included – have recently called for caps on rent increases.

As our research has found, capping rent increases would have significant and immediate impacts for renters. Implementing a cap on rents which limited them to rising by CPI within tenancy and CPI + 2% between tenancies would save renters around £400 a year. Government finances also benefit from rent controls.  If rent controls had been in place since 2025/26, they would create £600 million in net savings to the Housing Benefit bill by 2030. Rent controls offer a practical, fiscally sensible strategy for driving down rents – with further benefits in giving renters certainty that their rents won’t suddenly jump, allowing them to plan and preventing them being forced out of their homes by unaffordable rent hikes.

Some argue that intervening on rents in this way would present challenges, first to investment in the existing stock of homes and second to construction of new ones. It is therefore worth setting out why we feel it is possible to confront these challenges.

Understanding profit in the Private Rented Sector

On the first, it is often argued that reducing landlords’ ability to hike rents would either lead them to invest less in the homes they rent out, reducing their quality, or to exit the market completely. Landlords exiting is not in itself a problem, as once sold the homes are either bought by someone to live in or by another landlord, social or private. Studies of rent controls even show a positive impact on homeownership rates, which may be a desirable consequence. But too rapid a sell off could cause problems for renters unable to move quickly into home ownership, if fewer homes are available to rent where there’s high demand.

To understand this risk further we commissioned the Autonomy Institute to look at landlord returns. Their work found that landlords have historically been making returns far in exceedance of those from other investments or ‘normal’ benchmarks. Even in the most recent period they studied (2024), after interest rates have risen and inflation has pushed costs up, most landlords were found to be making above average returns.

This tells us that it is possible to push down these returns while keeping most landlords in profit.

Our research has also found that the minority of landlords whose returns are particularly exposed to higher costs (principally borrowing costs) can be protected from the impacts of a rent control.  Were the Government to bring back landlords’ ability to offset their mortgage interest costs against their tax liability, while applying employer and employee NICs to rental income (to offset the lost revenue) we find that the share of landlords making a loss, even in a scenario with rent controls, would fall. In fact, applying these tax changes and a rent control would see fewer landlords making a loss by the end of the Parliament than if the Government does nothing.

Protecting future housing supply

On the second challenge, it is important that action on rents doesn’t stop homes being built, but we believe it is possible to introduce a rent control and protect housebuilding. While international evidence is clear that rent controls can worsen construction rates, the same research finds that well designed rent controls, with for example exemptions for newly constructed homes, have no impact on housebuilding.

Moreover, there is no reason to think a rent control should have this impact in the UK. The typical UK landlord does not build homes. Rather, as the research on landlords’ returns above shows, the growth in the Buy-to-Let sector was marked by landlords buying up existing homes. It is perfectly possible for a rent control to be designed in such a way, and sit as part of a broader package of reforms, which could reorient our housing market away from this model of an unproductive and extractive rental market, towards a rental model more focussed on the creation of new, high-quality homes.

Renters need action now, and capping rents can and should be part of the solution.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

Can England afford (not) to build council homes?

Before the 2024 General Election, I had the privilege to work with England’s largest council landlords on Securing the Future of Council Housing. The report set out five key recommendations to allow councils to once again play a major role in housing supply, and to refurbish and improve existing homes and neighbourhoods after decades of under-investment.

It is an ambitious vision for a new, better relationship between central government and council landlords. Over 100 councils led by different parties across the country backed the report, laying the ground for a powerful coalition which has successfully influenced Government policy since. Every council involved has been essential in raising the volume of council housing’s voice, but particular credit should go to the London Borough of Southwark under Kieron Williams’ leadership for kickstarting the campaign, and to Sheffield City Council and Leeds City Council for helping it spread.

On Monday, Andy Burnham pledged the ‘biggest council housebuilding programme since the post-war period’ – a period when councils delivered over 4 million homes in 36 years. Since that time, more council homes have been sold than new ones delivered. It’s been a long wait, but it may finally be time for a renaissance in council housing.

But can we afford it?

Yet serious questions are being asked about whether we can afford it. This is not just because it costs money to build low-cost social homes. It is because councils are public bodies, and their borrowing is ‘on balance sheet’. Most social homes in England today are owned and delivered by non-profit Housing Associations, whose borrowing is ‘off balance sheet’. It doesn’t count towards public debt. That difference has shaped housing policy for decades.

In this blog, I’m going to try to demystify the impact of council housing on public debt, and how the UK’s fiscal rules change things.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

How council housing came under financial attack

Council housing is treated differently from all other council-owned assets in accounting terms. Council landlords keep rental income in a Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is kept separate from other council income. This is to protect social tenants’ money, so it doesn’t get used to fund general council services.

In 2012, the Government and councils agreed a ‘self-financing settlement’ aiming to make HRAs more independent and more sustainable. The settlement was supposed to give councils the financial certainty to invest in their homes, but it was quickly ripped up. Social rents were cut and capped with little notice, borrowing rates for councils were increased overnight, and councils had to sell more homes with bigger discounts following Right to Buy reforms. Top it all off with a pandemic, geopolitical turmoil and rising inflation and interest rates, and the unsurprising result is that most HRAs are in poor financial health. A 2024 report from Savills and the Chartered Institute for Housing suggested that debt cancellation of £17bn would be needed to make HRA borrowing sustainable across the board. This means many council landlords cannot invest in homes in the ways communities need.

Accounting for council housing

In the UK’s national accounts, all HRAs are consolidated and treated as a single ‘non-financial public corporation’. This means they count towards public debt for the purposes of the UK’s fiscal rules. Fiscal rules are the Government’s self-imposed limits on how much it can borrow, spend and accumulate debt. They are designed to reassure financial markets that the public finances will remain sustainable and so keep the Government’s borrowing costs lower.

Before the 2024 autumn budget, the UK used Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) for our fiscal rules. Council housing performed particularly poorly under this measure. Borrowing to finance public investment – including in council housing – increased the headline debt figure, even if the Government acquired valuable assets in return.

The current Government switched from PSND to Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL). The new rules still count debt the Government owns, but they also count financial assets the Government owns – though not physical assets like homes.

This is where things get interesting for council housing.

By far the largest source of borrowing for council housing is from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB): effectively, councils borrow money from the Treasury, which raises the money by selling gilts on the international markets. When the Treasury lends to council landlords in this way, under PSNFL it actually creates an asset for the public sector: the money councils owe to HMT.

The result is that investing in council housing is a lot easier than it used to be. Let’s say the Treasury agrees to ‘forgive’ £100 million of unsustainable HRA debt to give councils some breathing room, and councils then take out £100 million of new PWLB loans.

Under the old debt rules, this would have looked like the Government simply taking on more debt. Under the new PSNFL rules, it is treated more like cancelling an old loan and then making a new one. The council owes the Treasury £100 million, but the Treasury also owns a £100 million loan. That new loan is recognised as a public financial asset and is largely netted off public debt.

So there’s no reason not to invest in council housing?

Not quite.

New PWLB borrowing for council housing still increases the size of the Government’s balance sheet and the amount of money the Treasury has to raise from investors to finance the new PWLB loans: HMT has to borrow to on-lend to councils. It is unclear how markets would react to a large-scale increase in investment for council housing using the current model. That depends partly on the scale of new PWLB lending, but above all on investor expectations of the UK’s wider fiscal position.

There’s another problem for council housing. While PSNFL makes investing in council homes easier, it also makes other models of delivering social housing even more fiscally attractive. In February 2026, the Government announced a £2.5 billion scheme to provide loans to Housing Associations at 0.1% for 25 years. Incidentally, that’s a much better deal than councils are getting from the Public Works Loan Board at the moment!

Under PSNFL, these loans to HAs are ‘financial transactions’ because the Government acquires a financial asset (a loan) in exchange for cash. But unlike councils, when HAs take out loans from the Government it does not create a liability for the public sector, because their borrowing is ‘off balance sheet’.

If you can deliver the same kinds of homes using private borrowing via HAs, you may get the same policy results with less public sector borrowing and less gross balance sheet expansion. That should make it easier to maintain investor confidence and help keep the Government’s borrowing costs lower. And that may actually be key to increasing investment in social housing: if the UK can borrow more cheaply, we have more space to increase the size of funds like the Social and Affordable Homes Programme. That’s essential to unlocking more social housing supply.

Can we afford not to invest in council housing?

It’s complicated and there are no easy answers. But alongside asking if we can afford to build council homes, we also need to ask if we can afford not to. The clearest fiscal argument here concerns the high costs managing homelessness.

Councils in England now spend £7.7 million every day to put people up in expensive – often sub-standard – Temporary Accommodation. HAs play a vital role in tackling homelessness, but the buck for homelessness ultimately stops with councils. No one else is incentivised to act the way councils are. Getting councils off the bench and delivering homes may be the only way England stops managing homelessness and starts preventing it.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post Renters' Rights Act

Designing rent controls for England

Today, 2.4 million households in the UK private rented sector are struggling to pay their rent. With the war in Iran pushing up mortgage rates again, affordability will worsen unless government intervenes.

The Renters’ Rights Act is a major step towards a fairer rental sector, but it does not address the cost of renting. IPPR is calling for a national rent stabilisation scheme as the logical next step.

Other levers to lower costs matter but they are either too expensive or cannot ease the pressure quickly enough. New supply takes years to build and longer still to lower rents. Social housing is vital, but delivery is slow and only reaches a fraction of private renters. Increasing welfare provision for renters would be extortionate – 70 per cent of struggling renters currently claim no support for their housing.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Government has been uneasy about rent controls because their history is littered with cases – New York, Berlin, Massachusetts, Stockholm – where poorly designed systems have had negative consequences. But these examples obscure milder rent controls adopted across Europe, some of which have been in place for decades. France, Spain, Ireland, and Scotland’s revised scheme show that risks can be managed.

We recommend that rents should be ‘double-locked’, linked to wages and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), applied nationally, both within and between tenancies. This must be accompanied by exemptions for new-builds, expansion of support to meet new quality standards, and regulation on short-term lets. 

Not any rent control scheme will do, and our proposal tackles the key concerns that critics point to head-on: reduced supply; property quality; new housebuilding; inequality; and mobility.

Supply

The most common criticism of rent controls is that by limiting landlord profits, they reduce the supply of rental properties. At a time when vacancy rates are already low, a sudden contraction in supply would place even greater pressure on renters. 

This risk can be mitigated through a system that allows rents to rise broadly in line with prices. The aim is not to freeze rents, but to create a more stable and predictable path over time. The double-lock mechanism recognises that indexing to inflation alone leaves renters exposed to inflationary shocks, like Iran. Equally, a system linked only to wages does not allow a gradual closing of the gap between income and rents.

International examples also highlight the importance of preventing landlords from converting their properties. We therefore recommend a licensing scheme, like in Scotland or Wales, and a hard cap on the number of nights a property can be rented out short-term each year, like London.

Even under a mild rent stabilisation scheme some landlords will see lower returns, but recent analysis from JRF shows that most landlords still make substantial profits alongside long-term capital gains. When landlords do sell up, the government must strengthen the wider housing safety net.

Property quality

Controlling rents can remove the incentive for landlords to invest in their properties, but the government’s Decent Homes Standard and Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards will still safeguard quality. In fact, rent stabilisation directly addresses the risk of “renovictions” where landlords pass unaffordable renovation costs to tenants. There is not a single international example of energy efficiency standards being implemented without some form of rent control.

The Warm Homes Plan already includes some support for landlords struggling with compliance, but there is potential to expand this provision. Beyond minimum standards, limited exemptions for significant renovations – such as those in place in Paris – can help support high-quality housing stock.

New housebuilding

Only 8 per cent of new homes are built for rent but perception matters: even limited regulation can raise concerns about investor confidence.

Exempting new-build properties for a limited-time can help reduce this risk and doesn’t disadvantage struggling renters, as new-builds tend to serve the higher end of the market. Compared to other markets the UK rental market remains lightly regulated, and countries such as France and Spain demonstrate that strong housebuilding pipelines are possible with robust rent controls in place.

Finally, policymakers shouldn’t stick their heads in the sand about the already faltering housebuilding pipeline. A more active role for government is already needed to deliver housebuilding at the scale required.

Inequality and mobility

Rent controls have been known to create divisions between tenants benefitting from rent controls and those who don’t, which in turn can create disincentives to move. While London faces the most acute pressures, unaffordability is a problem for renters across the country. In the North East – where rental unaffordability is the lowest – 18 per cent of people are still facing high housing costs.

Implementing controls nationally prevents rent increases outside the controlled area as well as protecting from local government volatility. Applying controls for both sitting and new tenants reduces the disincentive to move out of a rent-controlled property.

Rebalancing power in the rental market

The cost of living is the public’s number one concern, and housing is people’s number one expenditure. Rent controls – if designed well – have the potential to directly tackle affordability and should be firmly on the table for any government making a serious offer for renters.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

Housing-led regeneration has untapped potential to tackle the housing crisis and to build a thriving North

Housing-led regeneration can unlock at least 500,000 good quality homes across the North of England and this is an opportunity that cannot be missed by Government.

As part of our Renew inquiry into housing-led regeneration for northern growth, supported by Homes for the North and Muse, we issued a Call for Evidence. The response was fantastic: we received submissions from organisations responsible for around 1 million of the North’s 1.4 million social homes, including insights from more than 160 regeneration schemes.

The message was clear – housing-led regeneration is essential to increase the supply of new homes, attract private investment, and boost economic growth in the North. It helps create great places to live; improves housing quality and residents’ health and wellbeing; generates jobs and skills opportunities; and promotes sustainability by providing greener, more energy-efficient homes that lower household bills.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Housing-led regeneration in the North is not one single activity. It encompasses a wide range of interventions, from refurbishing individual homes to transforming neighbourhoods, reclaiming derelict land, and redeveloping urban centres. While these interventions differ in scale and approach, they share a common logic: that investment in homes and places can act as a catalyst for wider social and economic renewal. The scale of the opportunity is striking. Already, there are 100,000 homes planned in major city centre regeneration schemes, and our policy proposals aim to accelerate their delivery. Most of these homes are set to be built in our larger cities, so more support is needed to extend this to smaller towns and declining high streets to make sure no-one and nowhere is left behind.

A further 320,000 homes could be built on brownfield land; sites that are often derelict or underused but rich with potential to attract more investment and drive local growth.

Added to that, there are around 100,000 social homes which will be in need of regeneration over the next ten years. These homes tend to be concentrated in areas of deprivation and include older, colder terraced housing and tower blocks no longer fit for purpose. They do not meet the needs of residents, and weigh heavily on social housing providers’ balance sheets, preventing investment in new homes. For providers to play the fullest role in the delivery of new homes, and to prevent loss of social housing, ageing homes that require continual repair and investment must be renewed.

Despite its huge potential, a stubborn set of structural barriers continue to hold back housing-led regeneration in the North. Lower land values in many northern areas mean that developments are often less financially viable than in the South. At the same time, the high cost of remediating brownfield land, often contaminated or complex to develop, creates a funding gap that many projects cannot bridge without Government support.

The challenge is compounded for social housing providers. In the North, rental incomes tend to be lower, yet the costs of construction and refurbishment remain comparable to other regions. This creates a stark trade-off: invest in upgrading existing homes or inbuilding new ones.

The Renew inquiry’s recommendations set out how the Government can act to address these challenges and kickstart growth and opportunities in the North. Building on the very welcome £39bn, decade-long Social and Affordable Homes Programme for new build social homes, a £500 million per year, decade-long Place Based Regeneration Fund would provide the certainty and continuity needed to address ageing homes in need of replacement or refurbishment. Extending the National Housing Delivery Fund to a similar timeframe would unlock the most complex sites and help address the high upfront costs that currently deter development. Meanwhile, appointing a dedicated Minister for Regeneration could ensure cross-government coordination.

Equally important is building local capacity and trust. Establishing a National Centre for Regeneration in the North would help rebuild expertise, share best practice, and drive innovation. And placing residents at the heart of regeneration, through clear standards and rights, can ensure that development is done with communities, not to them.

The timing is critical. With increased devolution giving northern leaders greater control over housing, transport, and skills, there is a real opportunity to align policy and delivery in ways that were not possible before. Combined with significant government focus and investment in housing, the conditions are right to make a real difference.

Now is the time to put the final pieces of the jigsaw in place to tackle the housing crisis, build thriving places and healthier homes, and deliver northern growth. At the launch event for the Renew inquiry report in Parliament on Wednesday there was a real buzz in the room – I feel confident we can work together to deliver for the North, so that no-one and nowhere is left behind.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

Regeneration means delivering for northern communities

Poor housing touches every part of a person’s life, and the consequences can be profound. Families crammed into overcrowded homes, and the strain this places on children’s ability to learn and thrive. People living with damp and mould, and the damage this does to their physical and mental health. Households in draughty, poorly insulated properties struggling to heat their homes and keep up with rising energy bills.

Housing is a policy area where getting it right can truly transform lives, not only by ensuring people have a safe and secure place to live, but by improving educational outcomes, strengthening health, and helping families make ends meet. That is why this agenda matters so deeply; because a good, safe, affordable home is the foundation on which a good life is built.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

The Government understands this and its transformational investment in social and affordable housing marks a pivotal moment in national policy.  It does more than allocate funding; it signals a shift in purpose. After years of fragmented initiatives, we are beginning to see the emergence of a more ambitious, more place sensitive approach to tackling the housing crisis. It is an approach that recognises the diverse realities of our towns, cities, and rural communities, and the different tools required to support them.

Crucially, the Government has acknowledged that delivering on both housing and regeneration is central to its future mission. Tackling housing poverty, expanding the supply of social and affordable homes, and revitalising neighbourhoods are not marginal add‑ons, they are fundamental to economic growth, social stability, and national renewal. The Pride in Place programme, with its focus on reviving high streets and improving public spaces, underlines this commitment, linking physical transformation with wider social outcomes across education, health, and community safety.

What makes this moment especially significant is that ambition is now backed by serious investment. The Social and Affordable Homes Programme, the introduction of new low interest loans for social housing providers, and the launch of a decade-long Plan for Neighbourhoods show a willingness to think long-term. Many of the communities that stand to benefit from this investment are in the North. For them, these announcements are not abstract policy concepts, they represent the building blocks of a better future.

Many funding programmes under Conservative-led governments neglected communities in the North, but important changes to the Treasury’s Green Book have altered how public funds are assessed and allocated. By placing greater weight on social value, wellbeing, and local need, the system now opens the door to investment in places that have too often been overlooked. For those working at the intersection of housing and regeneration, this shift is more than a technical reform. It creates a policy environment where long-term, community-led renewal is more achievable, more defensible, and more likely to be sustained.

Regeneration is not simply about bricks and mortar. It is about restoring pride, creating opportunity, and building resilience. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that people not only have a decent home, but a meaningful stake in the place they live. That is why housing-led regeneration must be central to the national housing agenda. New homes are essential, but they are not enough. We must also invest in the homes that already shape people’s everyday lives and the neighbourhoods that define their sense of belonging. Regeneration cannot be treated as an optional extra. It is a core component of building a fairer, greener, more prosperous North.

The Northern Housing Consortium’s Renew inquiry is a key component of this. By bringing together housing providers, local leaders, developers, policymakers, and regeneration specialists, the inquiry demonstrates that collaboration is the key foundation for success. If we want to deliver regeneration that lasts, we need to work across boundaries, share knowledge openly, and build partnerships rooted in trust and shared ambition.

This is precisely why the Renew inquiry is so important. It embodies the collaborative, evidence-driven approach that this moment demands. Findings from the Renew Call for Evidence are launching tomorrow (9th June) in parliament. The inquiry received submissions from housing associations and local authorities who own or manage nearly one million homes,over 70% of the North’s social housing.  This report will help shape a deeper understanding of how regeneration can drive growth, reduce inequality, and strengthen the social fabric of Northern communities.

Housing-led regeneration is uniquely positioned to act as a bridge between policy areas and to help articulate a coherent national narrative. It demonstrates, in a tangible way, what investment in neighbourhoods looks like in practice. From the home to the high street, regeneration joins up the physical and social aspects of placemaking. It helps counter feelings of mistrust and division by showing that change is being delivered with communities, not imposed upon them. In this way, it provides a powerful exemplar of the Government’s ambition: visible, local, and rooted in everyday life.

But to deliver on this promise, the work cannot be left to central government alone. Everyone must be involved. Local authorities, housing associations, developers, investors, community organisations, and residents all have a role to play. We must create the conditions where collaboration is the norm, where barriers are reduced, and where every partner is empowered to contribute. The most successful regeneration is grounded in local insight. It listens to communities, respects their knowledge, and builds solutions that reflect their aspirations.

Parliament also has a crucial role. The Renew inquiry offers MPs a direct line to the people and organisations shaping regeneration on the ground. By visiting projects, hearing from residents, and staying close to the evidence, parliamentarians can ensure policy reflects lived experience rather than abstract models.

As we look ahead, the message is clear: this is a moment we cannot afford to waste. The frameworks are improving. The investment is growing. The partnerships are emerging. What we need now is the resolve to turn ambition into action.

Housing-led regeneration gives us a way to do just that. It provides a practical route to deliver better homes, stronger neighbourhoods, and more confident communities. It allows us to connect national objectives – growth, opportunity, and fairness – with the everyday places where people live their lives.

If we seize this moment, we can deliver something truly transformative. Not piecemeal change, but lasting renewal. Not short-term fixes, but long-term investment in the future of the North. The tools are now on the table. It is up to all of us – government, local leaders, the housing sector, and communities themselves – to use them well.

Renew is an inquiry led by the Northern Housing Consortium and supported by Homes for the North and Muse, to explore housing-led regeneration’s role in delivering growth, tackling the housing crisis, and strengthening communities across the North.  

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

What should a national tenant body for England do?

It feels like it’s past time to set up a national tenant body for England. Parts of the Government have been talking with various groups about doing just that – predominantly Baroness Taylor, the Government’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary for housing in the House of Lords, but some other representatives from both houses too.

Why England needs a national tenant body

Beyond asking how to get it off the ground, we should ask what such a body should be for, and what, if anything, national and local government should be doing to drive progress. A properly resourced national tenant body would make the work of politicians, staff at departments involved in the regulation of the social housing sector, and ultimately landlords, easier.

England has been here before. The 2007 Cave Review into social housing regulation argued that tenants needed a far stronger role within the regulatory system, helping pave the way for the National Tenant Voice programme established by the last Labour government in 2009. National Tenant Voice was intended to provide an independent national platform for social tenants to influence policy and regulation, and was set up remarkably quickly once political momentum existed. But the Coalition government abolished it in 2010 before it had fully embedded itself institutionally or built a strong national profile. One lesson from this experience is that any new tenant body will need not only meaningful independence, but also deep roots in local communities and broad public legitimacy if it is to survive changes of government and become a lasting part of England’s housing system.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

In Wales, the National Independent Tenant Voice Cymru is already taking part in national policy debates with both landlords and the Senedd. The political landscape is different in Wales than in England, but there are certainly lessons to be learned from Wales about embedding  tenants’ priorities within policymaking and creating an effective national tenant voice.

Coincidentally, just after I was asked if I’d like to contribute my thoughts about a national tenant group to Red Brick, I attended a pair of workshops hosted by the National Tenant Alliance – one of the groups setting out the case for a tenant voice in England. These events explored what tenants want from a national body, how it could operate in practice, and what resources would be needed to sustain it.

Having facilitated some of the discussions at these workshops, I have heard first-hand what tenants want a national body to achieve.

Rebalancing power in social housing

One of the core essential features that keeps cropping up is the need to rebalance power between tenants, landlords and government. Much has been made of the changes introduced through the Regulation of Social Housing Act 2023, but many tenants rightly feel it has not met the promises made in the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper.

Rebalancing power means redistributing it.  Parts of the social housing sector seem resistant to the changing regulatory environment, but many tenants feel the promises of the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper still have not been fulfilled. From tenants’ perspective, expectations around professionalism, competence and respectful treatment can still feel secondary within the regulatory system. While organisational culture is difficult to legislate for, many other professions manage to uphold clear standards without resistance or lobbying.

Giving tenants a voice locally, regionally and nationally

Tenants also place a lot of value in ensuring that any national body actually operates at the regional and local level. Tenants need an ‘unmediated voice’ in national policymaking, but the issues shaping those discussions are usually rooted in communities and everyday local experience.

A tenant network could be a much better way of spreading what works and what is best practice. The current methods are landlords trying are apparently failing to get better outcomes. Lacklustre tenant satisfaction measures, unambitious Consumer Gradings and warnings from the Ombudsman that the scale of complaints is only getting wider and deeper suggest that the absence of a tenant body treated as equals is creating more work for everyone else, not least Members of Parliament who face a deluge of housing-related casework due to a lack of ambition or progress. Some recent housing policies have not only failed to resolve the many quality issues in social housing, but have been worsening the cost of living crisis for tenants for many years.

Independence, funding and legitimacy

One of the more innovative ideas about the purpose of a national tenant body I heard recently was as a starting point for mediation. Currently tenants have only two mediation routes: formal court-directed mediation once legal proceedings have begun, or ‘alternative dispute resolution’ processes aimed at resolving issues before they escalate to disrepair claims or other legal action. Such processes can still feel heavily weighted towards landlords. I found it fascinating to ponder a situation where a national tenant body could offer not just signposting to other resources, but real advocacy in these situations to rebalance power between tenants and landlords.

So, what should the Government and local authorities and landlords do to support a national tenant body? There are surely going to be a lot of different views among tenants about this, but for my part I think they should largely agree to recognise its validity and then get out of the way.

This doesn’t mean their involvement in funding solutions isn’t important. One of the more popular suggestions for funding is a small annual payment from rents, perhaps taken out of the significant sums paid per home for services from the Ombudsman and Regulator. Although this could take the form of a voluntary membership fee paid per tenancy (as in Wales) no doubt there will be some wrangling over the amounts needed to run a tenant body – and over what implications this funding could have on the independence a tenant body so desperately needs.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

New regulation means social housing tenants should be heard and respected – the reality is different for many tenants

When Maria first reported the mould spreading across her children’s bedroom walls, she believed help would come quickly. She had done everything tenants are told to do. She filled in the forms. She called repeatedly. She sent photographs. Weeks turned into months. The smell worsened. Her youngest son’s asthma became harder to manage. Eventually, she stopped believing anyone was really listening.

On another estate, a housing officer leaves a community meeting shaken after being subjected to racist abuse while trying to explain local housing allocation rules. Online rumours had spread through the neighbourhood claiming migrant families were being “given homes first.” Facts no longer mattered. Frustration had already found a target.

These stories are uncomfortable because they are not unusual.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Across the UK housing sector, conversations about race, equality and inclusion are no longer optional extras.

They are becoming central to regulation, tenant trust and the future legitimacy of housing providers themselves.

Yet for many ethnic minority tenants and staff, everyday experiences still feel disconnected from the promises organisations make publicly.

Housing has always been deeply personal. It shapes health, safety, identity and opportunity. When people feel ignored, excluded or stereotyped within housing systems, the impact reaches far beyond bricks and mortar.

Economic pressure, housing shortages and political division are creating increasingly tense conditions in many communities. Public conversations around immigration and social housing have become heavily politicised, often fuelled by misinformation online.

Housing associations and councils now find themselves operating at the centre of wider debates about fairness, belonging and social cohesion.

At the same time, the inequalities experienced by many ethnic minority households remain stark. Research from Shelter continues to show that Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are significantly more likely to experience overcrowding, poor housing conditions and homelessness than white British households.

Government data has repeatedly shown overcrowding rates are substantially higher among Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black households.

But statistics alone do not fully capture the emotional reality behind these experiences.

Feeling consulted, not heard

My report, Is There a Seat at the Table? Ethnic Minority Voices in Tenant Engagement, explored these issues through surveys involving hundreds of tenants and staff across 25 housing providers.

What emerged was not simply frustration, but exhaustion. Many respondents described engagement structures that appeared inclusive on paper but failed to create genuine influence in practice. An overwhelming 94% believed their organisations could do more to attract ethnic minority tenants into decision-making roles. Nearly every tenant agreed that current engagement systems failed to reflect the diversity of their communities.

Again and again, people described feeling consulted rather than heard. That distinction matters.

For many residents, trust in institutions is already fragile. The legacy of the Windrush scandal still shapes how some ethnic minority communities view public services, including housing providers. When organisations fail to communicate clearly, respond fairly or acknowledge lived experiences, mistrust grows quickly.

This places the housing sector at an important crossroads. Providers are no longer judged solely on repairs, rent collection or development targets. Increasingly, they are judged on fairness, transparency and cultural competence.

But regulation alone will not rebuild trust. Engagement itself must evolve.

Too often, tenant involvement becomes performative. Residents are invited into consultations, focus groups and advisory panels, yet key decisions remain unchanged. People quickly recognise when participation is symbolic rather than meaningful. In many cases, tokenistic engagement damages trust more than no engagement at all.

True inclusion requires intentional effort.

It means holding meetings at times working families can actually attend, providing interpreters and translated materials, and recognising barriers such as digital exclusion, childcare responsibilities and cultural needs. It also means working alongside trusted faith groups and community organisations rather than expecting residents to adapt entirely to institutional systems.

Most importantly, it means sharing power rather than simply collecting opinions.

Misinformation and division

One of the most damaging challenges facing the sector today is the spread of misinformation around housing allocations. The myth that migrants or ethnic minority households unfairly “jump the queue” for social housing has become increasingly common online and in community conversations.

In reality, housing allocations are governed by legal frameworks based on need, vulnerability and local connection – not race or ethnicity. But misinformation spreads faster than policy explanations, particularly on social media platforms designed to reward outrage and division.

The consequences are very real.

Frontline staff experience increased hostility. Tenants become suspicious of one another. Communities already struggling with economic hardship become even more divided. And organisations often find themselves reacting defensively rather than building trust proactively.

Housing providers can no longer afford to remain passive observers in these conversations. Clear communication matters. Explaining allocation systems in plain language matters. Sharing real tenant stories matters. Community-led conversations are often far more effective than corporate statements because people are more likely to trust lived experience than institutional messaging.

Accountability after Awaab Ishak

The sector also faces a growing accountability challenge. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak in 2020 fundamentally changed the national conversation about housing conditions and tenant safety. The introduction of Awaab’s Law has placed new legal responsibilities on landlords to respond to hazards such as damp and mould within strict timeframes.

This matters enormously because ethnic minority households are statistically more likely to experience overcrowded and poor-quality housing conditions.

Yet many tenants still do not fully understand their rights or feel confident using complaints systems. Language barriers, fear of repercussions and previous negative experiences often discourage people from escalating concerns. For some residents, particularly those from communities with low trust in public institutions, silence can feel safer than complaint.

That silence can become dangerous.

Housing providers therefore have responsibilities that extend beyond legal compliance. They must ensure tenants understand their rights clearly, accessibly and in ways that feel culturally competent. Accountability only works when residents genuinely believe their voices will lead to action.

The next five years could become a defining period for the housing sector. Stronger consumer regulation, greater scrutiny of equality outcomes and increasing expectations around tenant voice are already reshaping organisational priorities. Conversations around ethnicity pay gaps, workforce diversity and representation at leadership level are becoming harder to avoid.

There are also emerging risks around technology and AI-driven decision-making within housing services. While automation may improve efficiency, poorly designed systems can unintentionally reproduce existing inequalities if bias is not actively monitored and challenged.

Ultimately, however, this conversation comes back to something deeply human.

Housing is about dignity.

It is about whether people feel safe in their homes. Whether they feel respected when they raise concerns. Whether they believe their experiences matter. Whether they feel they truly belong in the communities they live in.

The organisations that succeed over the next decade will not simply be those with the strongest financial performance or largest development pipelines. They will be the organisations that communities trust.

And trust is not built through slogans or strategy documents alone.

It is built slowly, consistently and visibly – when tenants feel heard, protected, respected and represented every single day.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post Renters' Rights Act

People Power for Rent Controls and Council Homes 

The Renters’ Rights Act’s passage at the beginning of May 2026 signals the possibility of a shift in how we approach the private rental sector in this country. No longer will landlords be able to evict tenants at whim through Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, alongside a host of other protections for tenants including guaranteed rent renewals, periodic tenancies, and more. These changes are the direct result of tireless organising by tenant unions, housing justice organisations, community groups, trade unions, and NGOs – the product of organised people coming together to create organised power. 

But many of these changes are not radical transformations to the housing crisis, but processes that bring the UK in line with most other similar countries. And while there is cause for celebration of the renter power that went into the Act, the RRA does not allay the cost of living crisis that imperils renters. Renters can now challenge unreasonable rent rises by filing with the rent tribunals – and legally do not have to pay the increases during the process of the tribunal. This is a huge step, and at the LRU, our members have been putting together resources to support all renters to challenge rent rises and push for a fairer housing system, collectively. 

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

However, on paper, the tribunal can only rule against rent rises that exceed market rent for the units in question – which provides meagre protection to working-class tenants and families in gentrifying neighbourhoods where rents are increasing rapidly and out of line with the incomes of longtime residents of the neighbourhood. One need only look at Hackney, Brixton, and Walthamstow to see who sets the market rent – landlords – and witness that this too can function as a form of violent social cleansing. Should tribunals get to determine who stays, based on who can pay at a market rate set largely by developers and speculation? 

Already, we have seen members of the London Renters Union and their neighbours receive massive rent rises at the end of their contracts. Others face evictions under grounds still allowed under the RRA, such as if the landlord decides to sell up. It is our members who are the hardest-working, and the most vulnerable, who are facing the shortest end of the stick. What makes London a global city is its ability to create community for those at all income levels, from diverse backgrounds and cultures – we only lose if the city continues becoming a playground for the rich. 

I witnessed this first-hand from 2019 till the current day. During the pandemic, I lived in Dalston with a group of friends, lucky to be able to pay for a room at a price that would now be unthinkable. The eviction moratorium at that time protected renters further. I had to leave that space for various reasons, and re-entered the housing market in London earlier this year. When house hunting recently, we were lucky to find a room for almost double the price from 2019. This is not a material increase in the quality of housing, or the immoveable whims of the market – this is profit. This experience is shared by tenants across LRU and beyond.

Other countries handle this differently. Across Europe, North America, and even Scotland, governments apply regulations to the amount that landlords can charge in rent across the board – not just to tenants who are able to offer the time, and fee, to challenge their increases. While fears abound about rent regulations decreasing supply or dissuading landlords from making repairs, recently-released research from IPPR, NEF, and JRF debunks this myth. And support for rent controls is massive across England – a recent housing demonstration for rent controls and safe, affordable council housing showed over 5000 people taking to the streets, making it the largest demonstration for housing justice in over a decade, and a massive show of unity in the housing movement. Tenant unions from across the country were joined by NGOs, trade unions, community groups, and everyday neighbours. Over 80 organisations endorsed this march, and continue to support rent controls across the board. A recent statement from Andrea Egan, the General Secretary of UNISON, emphasises that only rent regulations can protect the majority of workers represented by UNISON in their homes – workers without whom, huge swaths of the country and the city of London would cease to function.  Renters across England want, and deserve, real affordable rents now – and rent controls can achieve this. This would alleviate stressors on the majority of renters who spend more than one third of their income on rent, fearing an upcoming rent rise and cutting back on essentials. And the recent rumour concerning Rachel Reeves’ support for a rent freeze shows that there is political will to push a real system of rent controls through. That’s why, at the London Renters Union, and with dozens of tenant organisations and community organisations across the country with Homes for Us and Homes for All, we’re fighting for a visionary system of rent control for all tenants, coupled with a demand for safe, affordable, accessible council homes. We believe that we should all fight for rent control – that it protects migrants, people of colour, trans and queer people, youth, the elderly, the disabled, and all those pushed to the fringes of society. This is a natural extension of our fight for housing justice through the Renters Rights Act; a normal and fairly uncontroversial system of protection in most countries; and a politically feasible – and winning – system here. The cost of living crisis, global wars and genocide, many voters’ loss of faith in Labour, alongside the rise of Reform, show that everyday people need real change. This is the moment for renters to contact their MPs and join a tenant union in their area to fight for the system change we need – starting with rent controls and measures for real affordability, long term.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post Renters' Rights Act

Renters can fight back against unfair rent hikes – and win

It is becoming increasingly difficult for policymakers to ignore the affordability crisis in the private rented sector. In recent weeks, the media was awash with speculation that the Government was considering an emergency 12‑month rent freeze. While these reports were decisively shot down by the Government, the moment exposed both the severity of the crisis facing renters and the political urgency now attached to rising rents, as the cost‑of‑living squeeze is set to tighten further as a result of the war in Iran.

This speculation coincided with a concrete shift in how rents are regulated in England. Just days later, the Renters’ Rights Act came into force on 1st May. Behind the headline abolition of section 21 ‘no‑fault’ evictions, the Act also quietly reshapes how renters can challenge rent increases in the private rented sector.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

An existing legal process allows renters to challenge unfair rent hikes by applying to the First-tier tribunal for a market rent determination. An independent panel assesses whether the landlord’s proposed rent reflects what the property could reasonably achieve on the open market. If the increase overshoots that benchmark, the tribunal will reduce the rent accordingly.

Before the Act, this process was fraught with risks. Renters challenging a rent increase could be hit with a retaliatory section 21 eviction, face a large backdated bill following a tribunal decision, or end up with the tribunal setting an even higher rent than the landlord had originally proposed. The Act removes these dangers, making the process far less risky for tenants and strengthening the tribunal as a safeguard against unfair rent increases.

At Z2K, we see first‑hand the difference that being able to exercise legal rights can make to someone’s financial security through our frontline advice and representation work. We also know that high housing costs sit at the heart of the UK’s poverty crisis. Our previous research with low-income renters in inner London showed that unaffordable rents are one of the strongest drivers of insecurity in the private rented sector.

That’s why, as the Renters’ Rights Act came into force, we wanted to understand how the rent tribunal system was working in practice before the reforms take effect at scale. The result was our new research report, No More Back Doors: Delivering New Renters’ Rights to Challenge Unfair Rent Increases, launched to coincide with the Act’s implementation.

What we found was striking. When renters challenge rent increases, the system delivers significant financial protection. On average, renters who take their case to the First‑tier Tribunal are £1,140 a year better off than if they had accepted their landlord’s proposed increase. That is a meaningful sum for any household, and a vital safeguard for those already struggling to make ends meet.

Success rates are high, too. Renters win in 71% of cases, suggesting that landlords – often assumed to have a firm grip on market values – are routinely over‑pricing their properties. In a small but significant number of cases (around 5%), the tribunal goes beyond blocking the increase and actually reduces the rent below the original level.

The tribunal also builds housing quality directly into the price renters are expected to pay. Market rent determinations don’t just look at local rents – they also look at the home in question, reducing rents where landlords have let standards slide. This isn’t a marginal feature of the system. Our research shows that property quality was considered in 77% of decisions, underlining how central this safeguard is, and how widespread poor standards are.

But while the system can be effective, it is barely being used at all. Just over 1,000 market rent determinations were made over a two‑year period, despite the private rented sector being home to 4.7 million households in England. The Act is unlikely to decisively change this: evidence from Scotland shows that relying on renters to bring individual cases allows many unreasonable rent increases to slip through unchecked.

Even when used, the tribunal does not always prevent hardship. In the average decision we reviewed, the tribunal granted a rent rise of £144 a month, an increase that many renters simply cannot afford. The system offers little protection against the risk of financial crisis or homelessness.

In the longer term, the Government has committed to creating a more modern and efficient new body to handle rent challenges. Done well, this could fix key tribunal weaknesses – shifting towards proactive enforcement, reducing reliance on renter‑led applications, and strengthening protections against hardship and homelessness. It could also improve on what works now by embedding clearer, more streamlined assessments of property conditions.

These reforms won’t solve the private renting affordability crisis on their own, with private renters still handing over an average 34% of their income in rent. But they are a meaningful step towards tackling the worst excesses of unreasonable rent hikes, and will be vital in ensuring that the abolition of section 21 and the Renters’ Rights Act as a whole are not fatally undermined. Turning these new protections into reality will require all of us to play our part in encouraging renters to make use of their new rights. Renters cannot afford for this opportunity to be missed.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

How to increase housing supply: Use every tool in the box

Norwich city by pam fray, CC BY-SA 2.0

Britain needs more homes. We should use policy to get empty homes back into use and to encourage people with extra space to downsize – but that won’t change the fact that the UK has been under-delivering homes for decades compared to other Western countries.

Yet our housing crisis is not just a crisis of low supply. It is a crisis of overdependence on a single model of supply. For decades, we have relied overwhelmingly on speculative private development. Developers buy land assuming they will build market sale homes for the highest prices possible in a given local market. They then wait as long as necessary to sell at the prices they assumed when buying land. When prices fall or build costs increase, as they have done recently, supply slows. That is not a moral failing: it is how the speculative development model is designed to work.

The planning system bakes in this housing model, taking for granted that this is how the majority of homes will be delivered, and seeking to cream off some of its profits to build social housing and infrastructure (via Section 106 agreements in England and Wales, and Section 75 agreements in Scotland). No resilient country should rely so heavily on one delivery model for something as fundamental as housing.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

There are two basic theories at play in the debate about how to increase housing supply in the UK:

  1. Make this speculative development model as easy, smooth and profitable as possible
  2. Diversify the UK’s housing supply away from this one over-dominant model of housing supply

I would argue it is self-evident that the gains from the first strategy are bound to be too limited to make a difference to most people’s lives. Reforms to planning and regulation matter. Britain does need a faster, more predictable planning system. But planning reform alone cannot solve a housing crisis rooted in overdependence on a single speculative delivery model that relies on maintaining prices where they are. Since current prices are far too high for most people to afford, this supply model will only ever be able to cater to a minority. Increasingly, it sells homes to first time buyers with support from the so-called ‘Bank of mum and dad’. For the rest of us, our only possible hope of buying an average priced home in England is to be in the top 10% of earners in the country.

Now let’s explore the second strategy: free the UK from over-dependence on the speculative model. Healthy housing systems use many delivery models at once: private sale, social housing, community-led housing, Build to Rent, co-operatives and specialist housing for older people.

The most direct way to diversify how we build homes is to use the tried and tested model of mass social housebuilding – as discussed in Labour Housing Group’s 2020 report, The Missing Solution. Policy and funding support must enable councils and housing associations to ramp up supply. To scale up social housebuilding anywhere close to the levels needed, we need two things.

  1. Sources of land protected from speculative housebuilding. If social landlords are competing with speculative housebuilders for the same land, they will either lose or buy land at an extortionate and unsustainable price.
  2. Public grant and affordable finance to cover the costs of building homes, so that rents can be kept low and affordable for social renters and homes can be managed and maintained to decent, safe standards.

It is a moral and economic imperative for governments across the UK to scale up this model as much as humanly possible, as fast as humanly possible. We can and must do more – for example on affordable land supply, front-loading grant, extending low-cost loans, building capacity in councils and community-led housing groups, and supporting acquisitions from the market.

But after 14 years of Conservative misrule of our economy, aggravated by war and international turmoil, it is difficult to see how the UK can scale up social housebuilding as quickly as we need to confront our housing crisis in the way that people deserve. It is going to take time to rebuild social housebuilding after decades of hostile policies.

I don’t want to ask people to wait. I want us to use every tool in the box to get every person in this country in a safe, affordable, decent place to call home. That means using policy to support as much diversification of housing supply as possible:

None of these alternative private development models alone will solve the housing crisis – but done right, they can all help. All have untapped potential to provide more ‘Affordable Housing’ through planning agreements.

I understand why many on the Left are sceptical of new profit-driven development models. But there is no doubt they are playing an important role in diversifying housing supply in other countries with similar housing problems to our own. Britain’s housing crisis is too deep, and too urgent, for ideological purity or single-solution thinking.

We must build far more social housing. We should reform planning. We should support community-led housing. We should use Build to Rent, specialist housing and student housing where they help free up supply elsewhere.

The goal is not to defend one development model against another. The goal is to create space in our housebuilding system for every model that can contribute to ending the housing crisis.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)