Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
Housing Emergency is holding a lobby of Parliament on 15 February. The meeting point is Central Hall Westminster (Storey’s Gate SW1H 9NH) from 12-4pm.
The group includes the House of Commons Council Housing Group chaired by Austin Mitchell MP, trades unions such as Unite, GMB, UNISON, and UCATT, councils, tenants’ federations, National Tenants Council members, and Defend Council Housing.
There will be a rally starting at noon with speakers including Caroline Lucas MP, Councillor Catherine West (Leader Islington Council), Labour Housing Group Executive member Jackie Peacock, Linda McNeil (Leeds Tenants Federation), Mark Serwotka (PCS General Secretary). There will be workshops including ‘what to say to your MP’ at 2pm and a closing rally at 3.30.
The themes of the rally are: *Hands Off Secure Tenancies – no means test *Cap Rents not Benefits *Oppose up to 80% market rents *No Evictions due to Housing Benefit cuts *Build Council and other housing for rent
Housing Emergency says
“Government proposals to cut housing benefit, force rents up to 80% of market levels, and remove security of tenure for new tenants will increase fear and insecurity, rent arrears, evictions and homelessness. These policies do nothing to reduce high rents, Nor do they build the secure, genuinely affordable homes for rent we need, with 5 million already on housing waiting lists.
Ministers want to drive people into insecure, expensive private renting and destroy the principles of public housing. We want secure and stable mixed communities – not poverty traps and transit camps.”
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
Last night’s launch of the London Labour Housing Group was an astonishing event. Getting on for 200 people packed the Grand Committee Room in Parliament, full to overflowing. Chaired by Nicky Gavron AM, guest speakers were Ken Livingstone, Karen Buck MP, and Linda Perks from Unison. Alison Seabeck MP, Labour’s shadow housing minister, popped in from the Committee on the Localism Bill to wish us well. The audience included MPs, councillors, unionists, tenants and Labour members from all over the capital, with outer London as well represented as inner.
Ken’s speech ranged over 4 decades of housing policy in London, the peaks when boroughs like Camden were producing 2,000 homes a year and the GLC had a target of producing 10,000 a year on top of the boroughs’ efforts, and the troughs when Thatcher was in power and the Tories held County Hall and all programmes were cut back. If Labour policies had continued through the 1980s, it can confidently be said that London’s post-war housing crisis would have been overcome and the city would be totally different today. Councils need to build again and we need to find ways of bringing private rents under control. But our policies must also meet the needs not just of the poorest but of the many Londoners, people earning up to £70K a year, who can no longer afford to buy and also have limited housing options. As London’s population continues to grow, genuinely radical policies are needed if the capital is not to resemble Paris, with the centre of the city occupied by the rich and the poor consigned to the outskirts.
Karen focused on the changes to housing benefit and the local housing allowance. She contrasted the number of people predicted to have to move from their local areas under this policy with the furore over Lady Porter in the 1980s; her attempts to remove the poor from Westminster were miniscule compared to what will happen now. The danger lies in the range of changes combining together to force people on low incomes to move, but increasingly it was being realised that there is nowhere for them to move to. If people attempt to move from expensive to cheaper areas the impact of the increased demand will be to raise rents at the lower end of the market – which would be catastrophic. Rising homelessness, growing unemployment, increasing rents, growing dependence on private rented accommodation, all of these pressures would increase the HB bill; the policy would be devastating in effect but counter-productive in saving money.
Linda emphasised the impact of the cuts on local government in London, and the fact that councils would be cutting back on front line services at just the time that people need them most. It was important to link what was happening in housing to other sectors, especially health, because it was all part of a single policy to roll back the state. She stressed the importance of getting maximum support for the TUC national demonstration against the cuts on Saturday 26 March in Hyde Park and pledged Unison’s support for housing campaigns in the coming months.
There were around 30 contributions from the floor, identifying weaknesses in previous Labour housing policies, the issues being faced in the boroughs, the links between housing, employment, health and education, and ideas for future campaigns. There was a strong focus on the need to win the Mayoralty in 2012 with a strong and radical housing policy. The new London LHG will help develop those policies but also support a range of housing campaigns because the issues will not be properly addressed until we have a Labour Mayor in 2012, more Labour boroughs in 2014, and a Labour government whenever the General Election comes.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
I’ve never been much of a fan of the House of Lords. But you have to doff your cap occasionally when they have a debate of real interest based on a real knowledge of an issue. So it was with the rather uninspiringly-titled debate Motion to Annul – Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010 held on 24 January. The debate, which resulted in government Minister Lord Freud promising to undertake a review of the housing benefit changes after a year or so, can be found in full here.
There were exceptional speeches from Richard Best, Victor Adebowale and Patricia Hollis, amongst others. It was notable that there were no speeches in favour of the government’s position, apart from the Minister – you could say there was a progressive majority. It’s worth a read, but here is a selection of a few quotable quotes.
Lord Best (Crossbench): The charities working in this field ……… all note the likelihood of several thousand tenants facing homelessness. Apart from this wrecking the life chances of the families concerned, the charities point out that the extra costs of homelessness could more than outweigh the housing benefit savings. Homeless Link notes that, on conservative estimates, if even one quarter of those identified as at severe risk were to become homeless, then all the gains from the housing benefit cuts would be lost.
Lord Adebowale (Crossbench): We have not thought through the impact on families and on the societies in which they live-on social services, on health, on mental health and on employment….. we know that the poor will suffer. We know where they will suffer, we know how they will suffer and we know what the impact on public services will be, but we do not have a clear plan B.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat): The $64,000 question remains…….. will these housing benefit regulations mean that landlords will reduce their rents, thus bringing the huge housing benefit bill down, to general rejoicing by taxpayers and the Government, or will it mean that not enough landlords will, or can afford to, reduce their rents low enough for LHA claimants, that the discretionary housing payments will be spread too thin to make much difference and that therefore thousands of people will face eviction, child poverty will increase and local authorities will eventually have to pick up a very large bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour): …… the DWP‘s own figures show that the increase in housing benefit has been caused not by increased rents but by increased demand for HB from more tenants in both the private and public sectors. Only 13 per cent of the increase in HB can be attributed to private sector rent increases. In other words, the increase in the HB bill has not come about because HB has driven up rents and, therefore, has sought to catch up with the rents that it has inflated. Instead, the HB bill has risen because more and poorer people are claiming HB, including those in low-paid work. That is a fact.
……. the Government do not control, as they believe they do, the rents of the private rented sector. It is a fallacy. Indeed, preliminary findings from current research suggest that, whether housing benefit claimants account for 20 per cent or 70 per cent of the private rental market, it makes no difference at all to local rent levels. HB levels, and therefore the Government, do not shape the market, full stop.
Why is that? It is because it is a landlords’ market and not a tenants’ market; it is, therefore, not a Government’s market and not a HB market. Surveyors, letting agents and estate agents are reporting gazumping, six to eight tenants after every property and sealed-bid rent offers. The British Property Federation tells us that 150,000 extra tenants will enter the private rental sector next year, pushing up rents even further. Even where landlords in the past might have accepted some limitation of their rents if they were gaining capital growth, this, too, is no longer the case. Those on current HB levels struggle to find a home. What will happen?
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat): The private rented sector is not a place for long-term, low-income households’ housing needs to be met. It is a device that should be for another segment of our society altogether. We have let it get out of control in a way that is difficult to justify.
Lord Freud (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Welfare Reform), Work and Pensions; Conservative): I make a firm commitment to the House that we intend to commission independent, external research to help us evaluate the impact of the reforms ……. (It will cover) homelessness and moves; the shared room rate and houses in multiple occupation; what is happening in Greater London; what is happening in rural communities; what is happening in black and minority ethnic households; large families; older people; people with disabilities and working claimants.
Many housing benefit recipients will not be affected by the changes until well into 2012. We will therefore make the findings available in early 2013, with initial findings available in the spring of 2012 and an interim report in the summer of 2012.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
I could try to make a link but it’s nothing to do with housing really. It is Burns night, and my friend Billy Rae sent me this that I thought I would share.
It reflects the mood of the times, from the Burns’ poem ‘Why Should We Idly Waste Our Prime’.
Why should we idly waste our prime Repeating our oppressions? Come rouse to arms! ‘Tis now the time To punish past transgressions. ‘Tis said that Kings can do no wrong — Their murderous deeds deny it, And, since from us their power is sprung, We have a right to try it. Now each true patriot’s song shall be: – ‘Welcome Death or Libertie!’
The Golden Age we’ll then revive: Each man will be a brother; In harmony we all shall live, And share the earth together; In Virtue train’d, enlighten’d Youth Will love each fellow-creature; And future years shall prove the truth That Man is good by nature: Then let us toast with three times three The reign of Peace and Libertie!
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
A lot more is said than done about the issue of under-occupation of social rented homes.
Grant Shapps has allocated a piddling sum of £13m amongst the 50 councils with the largest numbers of under-occupiers. Of course it is a move in the right direction, if a small one, and the linked announcement that a central unit will be set up in the Chartered Institute of Housing should be a valuable resource supporting local initiatives.
Ministers say there are 430,000 under-occupied social homes in England – where tenants have two or more bedrooms more than they require (against the ‘bedroom standard’). I support the focus on tenants with 2+ additional bedrooms because tenants with one spare room over the rather ancient ‘bedroom standard’ do not regard themselves as under-occupiers.
With an estimated 258,000 social renters living in overcrowded conditions, simplistic arguments are sometimes made that the problem could be ‘solved’ if selfish older tenants were stopped from blocking social homes needed for larger families. Calls for draconian action of some kind to require under-occupiers to move to smaller accommodation seem to have been rejected – the government says it has “accepted the basic right of older tenants to stay in their homes, and that policies of encouragement are better than those of coercion….. Ministers are clear that they will not force people to move – but want to provide a helping hand to those wanting to do so.”
Just like older home owners, older tenants have often raised their families in these homes and are emotionally attached to them, still have many family visitors, are part of the local community, have neighbourhood support networks, and now have time to enjoy the garden if they have one. They have probably paid for the property a few times over in rent, and now contribute through rent pooling to the cost of homes elsewhere.
Bespoke solutions are needed, with landlords who know their tenants talking with them individually and devising a solution that meets their needs and preferences. It might involve financial incentives, a choice of suitable alternatives in preferred locations, and practical support with moving and other arrangements. We need far more schemes like the London Seaside and Country Homes scheme, offering tenants genuine retirement opportunities if that is their choice. It is regrettable that financial incentives to downsize have been cut back in many places – I suspect by an amount many times greater than Mr Shapps’ new fund.
Mr Shapps says that he wants to “make it easier for those tenants wanting to move from larger family homes to smaller, more manageable homes, to do so.” But where, exactly, are these homes? Like people who are being decanted for development, older tenants realise that they have a little bit of negotiating strength for once. They will only accept somewhere smaller if it is in some way better or suits their needs more than their current home. The right to buy and the failure to reinvest mean that there are many fewer smaller dwellings on the ground floor in good locations with access to outside space. Many top class sheltered housing schemes have had their onsite wardens removed due to changes in the Supporting People regime. There is little new development. As in so many other areas, supply and short-sighted funding regimes are the barriers to a sensible policy.
Now for the warning. Everything is not always what it seems with this government. We should not forget the analysis of Mr Shapps’ friends at Localis. In their report on social housing reform, which pointed the way to many of this government’s policies, they argued for a market approach not a change in powers:
“There has been a number of calls for Landlords to gain more power to require tenants to move to more appropriately sized accommodation to deal with under-occupation. Whilst such powers would assist with this problem, the move to market rents and personal subsidy would, in our view, address this in a more fundamental way as under-occupancy will become more expensive for tenants as their rents, but not their housing benefit, rise.”
We have had a number of policy shifts in this direction already, both through rents policy and housing benefit. Call me cynical but, despite the warm words, I think this is the real agenda.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
It became a catchphrase during the Election TV debates and I haven’t found a lot to agree with Nick Clegg about since the coalition took over. But, just as Red Brick agreed with Grant Shapps when he made sensible remarks about the need for a period of stable and not inflationary house prices, now it is time to agree with Nick in his comments about the extension of the Freedom of Information legislation.
Labour had plans to extend the FoI to cover some additional agencies (such as University admissions services and the Association of Chief Police Officers) which the current government is also going to pursue, but Clegg spoke about going much further and my ears pricked up when ‘housing associations’ got a mention. Since FoI came in, we have had the strange position where the regulators (Housing Corporation then Tenant Services Authority) were covered by FoI but the organisations they regulated were not.
Clegg said that “Free citizens must be able to hold big institutions and powerful individuals to account…… There are a whole range of organisations who benefit from public money and whose activities have a profound impact on the public good….. citizens must first know what goes on in these institutions. ”
It is Clegg’s suggestion that private bodies performing ‘functions of a public nature’ should be covered by FoI that catches housing associations – although careful definition will be required to avoid any suggestion that the change might trigger the re-classification of housing associations as public bodies (thereby running the risk that their loans – around £40bn – might transfer to the public sector balance sheet). The FoI Campaign has argued for years that private providers of health and social care and other public services should be subject to the Act – which contains safeguards around information that might be commercially sensitive. As Clegg says, there should be a simple rule that organisations that benefit from public money should be subject to public scrutiny.
I suspect that housing associations are probably no better and no worse than most bodies that are subject to the FoI already. But non-disclosure and a lack of public scrutiny can make organisations too cosy in their internal procedures, and then it is easy to fall into bad habits. Public scrutiny (especially through Inside Housing’s annual survey and league table) has made a difference to housing associations that had a penchant for paying over the odds for their senior staff. But I think they are often unnecessarily secretive, for example many do not publish routine information like non-confidential Board papers. Tenants often complain that they cannot get hold of financial and other information that council tenants get routinely from their landlords. And you hear the occasional story about Chief Executives’ expenses, posh dinners and trips abroad….. all of which should see the light of day.
I argued unsuccessfully to the TSA that the principles of FoI should be part of the new regulatory code, thereby avoiding the need for an extension of the legislation. That didn’t happen, and now regulation itself will be severely restricted (Clegg got that one wrong), so the only way forward is to extend the Act. The principle has to be right, the risks can be avoided, and I don’t accept the line that it will involve ‘too much work’. If it also helps change the culture of some HAs, it might have the added benefit of making the government’s plans for tenant scrutiny more effective.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
Attracting virtually no comment at the time it was passed, an obscure clause in Labour’s 2008 Housing and Regeneration Act could offer council tenants a unique but controversial way of owning and running their own homes.
Section 34A, as it is known, requires a local authority to co-operate with a formal notice from a tenant group to transfer ownership of council homes and estates to them. The government has decided to press forward with making regulations under the section and has branded it the right to transfer. A draft is expected in February.
As a policy, S34A is a direct descendant of the Tenants Choice legislation that was introduced by the Conservatives in 1988. The political belief at the time was that tenants would rise up to take control of their housing from Labour councils who ran their housing badly. In practice, and famously, it was used by Walterton & Elgin Community Homes (WECH) to take over their estates when Westminster Council, led by Shirley Porter, tried to sell them to developers. As it didn’t lead to the hoped-for tenants’ revolt in Labour areas, and caused embarrassment in Westminster, it was repealed in the mid 1990s.
WECH is still going strong, a leading example of tenant control working in practice. Based on its experiences, the organisation has become a strong advocate of the principle that genuine empowerment through community ownership and control can lead to measureable improvements in happiness and wellbeing.
The right to transfer is seen by the ConDems as furthering both Localism and the Big Society. So we have Labour legislation and ConDem implementation, does this mean there is a consensus that the right to transfer is a good thing? The left has often been divided on the issues of tenant control and, in particular, tenant ownership. The co-operative and mutual traditions run deep, but there has often been hostility to moving ownership out of the public sector and away from traditional democratic control. Is transfer from a council to collective tenant ownership and control ‘privatisation’ or a different form of socialised ownership? I go for the latter as long as the model does not allow for private gain (as some earlier co-ownership models did) and the homes are properly used to meet housing need.
There are of course dangers to negotiate. If tenants wish to transfer part of a local authority’s stock to their ownership, coming out of the housing revenue account is hugely complex and has risks for both sides. Other major issues to deal with include the viability of the new tenant organisation and the long-term relationship with the parent authority over issues like allocations and future development.
The right to transfer will also cause bigger political divisions in the Conservative Party. In Hammersmith and Fulham, normally the incubator of Tory housing policy, tenants on estates threatened by demolition as part of the huge Earls Court redevelopment have already served notice that they want to take over their estates, potentially scuppering the council’s plans to reduce the amount of social housing in the borough. Will the government be willing to effectively overrule the Prime Minister’s favourite council to pursue its policy?
Given the need for the Labour Party to develop a new stance on housing, my own view is that Ed Miliband and the housing front bench should support tenants interested in using this new power.
PS – In legislative technicalities, S296 of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008 introduced a new Section 34A to the 1985 Housing Act.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
Yet another attempt at populism by Mr Shapps with his announcement that ‘neighbours from hell’ will face faster eviction under ‘radical plans’ to introduce a new additional mandatory ground for possession against social tenants, under which tenants with a track record of anti-social behaviour can be evicted from their council or housing association property much more quickly. At its core, the proposal means that being found guilty of housing related anti-social behaviour in one court will provide automatic grounds for eviction in the county court, removing the need to prove the incidents of anti-social behaviour for a second time.
So far so good, it would be hard to find a stronger consensus on any issue than the one in support of tackling anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively.
However, m’learned friends at the consistently excellent Nearly Legal website take a different view. And, as NL says, it is housing lawyers who will have to make sense of this when court cases follow.
So what are their key points?
First, NL say that a criminal conviction would already be incontestable as a fact in civil possession proceedings – there is no need for something to be ‘proved again’ on a possession claim at all.
Secondly, they see definitional problems. Mr Shapps says the new mandatory ground will follow a tenant being found guilty of ‘housing related anti-social behaviour’ – but, say NL, that “covers a lot of ground, from the minor but annoying to the very serious indeed. And ‘found guilty’ – does this mean a conviction in the Magistrates or Crown Court? Or the Magistrates making an ASBO or ASBI?”
Thirdly, they see problems in the word ‘mandatory’, which due to a case called Pinnock, is a bit more of a tricky concept than it used to be and not as certain as Mr Shapps would like.
Fourthly, they say there is little if any evidence that non-mandatory possession proceedings are what is getting in the way of dealing with the problem, even in the dreadful ASB cases quoted in Mr Shapps’ press release.
NL places the problem closer to home, and in particular the failure of some landlords and the police to take more effective and joined up action against perpetrators or to support victims, and the lack of dedicated funding. So, they conclude, “Unless existing powers are actually used (and the dedicated joined-up ASB teams funded), the fact that there may be a kind of mandatory possession proceeding .. is going to make no practical difference to the situation at all, as there will be as few ‘housing related ASB’ prosecutions as there are now, or even fewer.”
Mr Shapps announcement is therefore, they say, “a chocolate teapot”.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
An early glimpse into the new edition of the UK Housing Review, to be published at the start of February, reveals that investment in social housing has reached its highest level for 20 years but is due to plummet again when the cuts take effect in April 2011.
The review describes how overall gross social housing investment in Great Britain rose again in 2009/10, to the highest level in real terms for almost 20 years – up by over 80 per cent since the previous decade. The strongest annualised growth was seen in Scotland. Taking account of all private finance investment, the Review concludes that “the last two years have seen overall investment in social housing at its highest sustained level (in real terms) for three decades”.
“Going right back to the 1970s, in only in one earlier year – 1989/90 – was expenditure higher. This resulted from a coincidence of exceptional factors – peaking right to buy receipts in the late 1980s housing market boom, together with landlord action to pre-empt government spending restrictions that were announced before they took effect.”
For the Chartered Institute of Housing, which trailed the Review this week, Director of Policy and Practice Richard Capie said: “The last two years have seen record investment in social housing across Britain, both from central government and importantly through private finance. This allowed the provision of more homes, essential community regeneration and important improvements in existing homes. We have now entered a very different era, with 50 per cent cuts in cash terms to housing budgets in England and around 19 per cent in Scotland. We are in the midst of a housing crisis with fewer than half the homes we need being built. This latest research shows the sheer scale of the dramatic cuts we are now seeing in new housing. These are a body blow to first time buyers, low income households and the construction sector.”
Figures on cuts to housing investment for 2011-14 for England are taken from the National Affordable Housing Programme which was £8.4bn in 2008-11 and will be £4.5bn in the three years from 2011/12. Accounting for the inclusion of mortgage rescue and the recovery of empty homes this represents a cash terms cut of 50 per cent. In Scotland the draft budget prefigures a cut in housing and regeneration spending from £488m to £393m, a cash cut of 19 per cent. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations estimates that allowance for spending brought forward in 2010/11 means that the real reduction in 2011/12 will be over 30 per cent.
The starkness of the figures adds strength to the points made by Tony in his post on how the anti-recession stimulus is running out with potentially dire consequences for the construction sector of the economy.
The website of the UK Housing Review is http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/index.htm 2010-11 and contains a wealth of statistical and financial information about housing in the UK. It is edited by Professors Steve Wilcox and Hal Pawson.
Founder of Red Brick. Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone. Steve sits on the Editorial Panel of Red Brick.
In previous posts we highlighted the bizarre examples used in the government’s advice on how to deal with squatters, especially what to do if your home is squatted whilst out walking the dog. Bernard Crofton recalled that the dog example originated as an ironic comment made at a meeting many years ago. From his Freedom of Information request, it seems no such examples actually exist and, even if they did, the government wouldn’t know because it keeps no data on such cases.
It was with this in mind that I read the 7 January announcement by Secretary of State Eric Pickles that he planned to heavily restrict the use of Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMO), introduced by Labour to take action on properties that have been empty for 6 months or more.
Once again the justification for the policy is punctuated by colourful and extreme examples. Pickles said it was wrong that a bereaved family could face having their loved one’s home seized under an EDMO, and quoted examples of councils attempting to use the powers against someone caring for an injured daughter abroad and a 96 year old who had passed away in a nursing home.
These examples would indeed be extraordinary if true, and CLG will shortly receive an FoI request seeking more information about them. What is known is that only 44 EDMOs have been made since the law came into effect in 2006. Councils would indeed have to be out to lunch to have focused on such cases given how many empty homes there are to choose from.
Let me be clear: just as I disapprove of people squatting properties when homeowners are walking their dogs, I also disapprove of councils making EDMOs against ‘people in vulnerable situations’ as Mr Pickles calls them, or when a property is empty for good reason.
Having compulsorily purchased quite a lot of empty homes in a previous life (indeed under the Thatcher government) I know that owners get into complex positions especially if a relative has died intestate. Back then the owners would be given lots of opportunities to bring their properties back into use, and the same is true today with EDMOs. But the very fact that the council intervened and was willing to take strong action meant that many properties were brought back into use without any formal action being taken. The threat was taken seriously. Owners will see Pickles’ soft soap policy and laugh when the council comes calling.
The real reason for Pickles’ change is ideological: “The Coalition Government is standing up for the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. Fundamental human rights include the right to property” he said. More important, it seems than the human rights of the homeless.
Pickles clearly has little understanding of the damage empty properties can do to neighbourhoods in a very short space of time. In future he will only allow EDMOs to be used where there has been vandalism or squatters and other forms of anti-social behaviour, and action can only be taken after the property has been empty for two years. So an owner will be able to keep a property empty in a vandalised state, a blight on the neighbourhood, for 2 years before the council can take EDMO enforcement action.
I hope councils will object strongly, both to the stupidity of the new policy and to the demeaning nature of the argument for introducing it.
