Tag: Affordable housing

Categories
Blog Post

The Autumn Budget: What is in it for housing?

The Chancellor visits Liverpool by HM Treasury is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Today was a first in a number of ways. It marked the first Labour budget in fourteen years, and the first budget ever delivered by a female Chancellor.

But it is also the most ambitious set of measures for the housing sector in quite some time, with a number of policies contained designed to get Britain building, deliver the next generation of social housing, and address some of the stark inequalities in the housing system as a whole.

Investing in delivery

The past few years have seen a slump in affordable housebuilding, particularly in the areas of highest need, with the number of homes started by London-based housing associations down by 92% this year. This is due to a number of reasons, including the increased cost of building, and also a focus on the sector’s existing stock after the passage of much-needed regulation including Awaab’s Law and the Building Safety Act.

It was therefore pleasing to see that one of the headline announcements from the Budget was a £500m top-up to the Affordable Homes Programme (AHP). This was a programme started under the last Government to deliver £11.5bn of funding to the affordable housing sector from 2021 – 26.

The additional £500m represents a 10% per annum increase in the value of the fund from 2025-6, which will be particularly useful given the aforementioned pressures on registered providers, and should hopefully allow them to top-up existing project funding as well as starting new ventures.  This funding is also boosted by the confirmation of a five-year rent settlement for social housing providers, under which their rents will be able to increase by CPI +1%. This will provide much needed certainty to the sector after years of more haphazard policymaking.

What’s more, this budget saw additional funding dedicated towards more general housing delivery, including:

  • £3bn in support and guarantees to increase the supply of homes and support small housebuilders.
  • £128m to new housing projects to support the deliver of 33,000 homes
  • A £36m investment in the planning system to boost local authority skills provision, including recruiting the 300 new planners promised in Labour’s manifesto.
Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

Bringing existing homes up to date

The UK famously has among the oldest and leakiest housing stock in Europe. This is consequential for a number of reasons: consumers’ bills are higher, buildings emit more carbon, and homes are worse for residents’ health.

This budget saw a clear effort to address that, with a £3.4 billion investment into the government’s new Warm Homes Programme as part of the Government’s mission to bring all homes up to EPC C by 2030.

This programme will be transformational for consumers. It will significantly reduce bills and with it emissions from the built environment, and much of the retrofitting work entailed will have knock-on benefits for resident’s health.  

Particularly welcoming was the £1bn dedicated to cladding remediation – this has been called for by those trapped in unsafe blocks and will meaningfully accelerate the removal of dangerous cladding.

Severely restricting the Right to Buy

The Right to Buy, the policy which enables council tenants to buy their homes at a discounted rate, has often been criticised as an unhelpful drain on social housing at the time when lists of people applying for social housing are at their highest. Since discounts were increased by the coalition in 2012, this scheme has accelerated to seeing 10,000 – 12,000 homes lost per year, which are often difficult to replace.

After a review over the summer, this budget saw the government confirm their intention to heavily reduce discounts for the Right to Buy scheme, alongside increasing the time period for a which a tenant has had to live in, and providing additional exemptions for newly built council homes.

This not only undoes some of the worst reforms made under the Coalition Government but places brand new restrictions on the Right to Buy, and so there is hope that sales may dip even below the rates of 4,000 – 5,000 seen in the latter years of the Blair-Brown Governments.

It has also been confirmed that councils will keep 100% of the receipts from sales, making it easier for them to build new homes to supplement those lost from the scheme.

Fill in our reader survey

Taxing housing more fairly

Finally, the budget sought to change the perverse incentives which help to drive inequality in the housing market. At present, many landlords buy up property in the private rental sector as an investment, and happily admit to seeing themselves more as investors than as professional landlords. Similarly, those who are at the lucky enough to own their own homes are able to pass a substantial amount of the value of that home to their children upon death, dividing Britain starkly between those with family property and those without.

This budget saw moves to amend this inequality, with stamp duty rates for second home and capital gains tax increased, while income tax thresholds will be unfrozen from 2028. This marks a substantial change in the tax system to prioritise those seeking to get onto the housing ladder at the expense of those who earn more than property, either as a property owner or as a landlord, while supporting those who derive income from work.

Welcome progress, but more funding will be needed

All of the money delivered in this budget is welcome, and sorely needed. But more will still be needed to achieve the government’s housing goals.

The National Housing Federation has estimated that £4.6bn per year will be needed to deliver the step change in affordable housing needed to meet Labour’s manifesto goals, nearly double of the programme inherited from the Tories.

More investment is also always welcome in directly preventing and tackling homelessness, and in reviving the Supporting People Programme ended by the Tories, but which was estimated to generate £2 for every £1 spent in supporting social housing residents.

Ministers have indicated that this is only the start of Labour’s plans to drive investment in the economy, and we will have to look to the Spending Review taking place over the winter for signals of what departmental budgets will look like in the coming years. Key priorities will be ensuring that the Local Housing Allowance and housing benefit continue to be uprated so that those at the sharpest end of the housing crisis have the support they need.

But the sector must continue to call for these changes and the spending needed to support the government’s aim of ending the housing crisis.

Categories
Blog Post

Letter to the editor: Building the Affordable Homes we need

We are delighted to publish our first Letter to the editor, from Paul Brocklehurst! If you would like to get in touch with your thoughts, please write to us at [email protected]

Dear Red Brick editors and readers,

I am not going to spend any time in this letter on why we desperately need more affordable homes. We are all aware of the statistics on housing waiting lists, levels of homelessness, children sharing beds with siblings, and the impact of housing costs within the cost-of-living crisis. That is why Labour’s manifesto was clear, “Labour will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation”. So the simple question is how?

First, the Government needs to confirm a long term, 10-year, rent settlement for Registered Providers (social and affordable housing landlords).  Only then can they plan and borrow for investment. The immediate increase in borrowing capacity will free Registered Providers to bid on the heavily subsidised affordable housing provided by private developers through their s.106 planning obligations. At present, this is not happening. This limits not only the delivery of affordable housing, but that of private housing as well.  This is an urgent issue and needs to be resolved now.

Subscribe to Red Brick’s free newsletter today!

Second, as the Government is proposing, it needs to urgently reform the planning system to ensure that all local authorities in the country have a plan to deliver the homes they need. By 2025, 78% of Local Authorities in England will not have an up-to-date Local Plan, and 38% will have a Plan that is 10 years old or more.  What does this mean for affordable housing delivery? A few extreme illustrations of authorities with high percentages of green belt and their record of affordable home building might help. York has not had a Local Plan since 1954 and built a total of 3,329 homes in the 5 years to 31 March 2022. However, after accounting for Right to Buy loses, only a net 9% of those homes were ‘affordable’. Brentwood, over the same period, delivered a total of 1,394 new homes of which a net 8% were affordable. There are more examples that could be given, but let us be clear that in these areas, and many more, local authorities are not meeting their total housing requirements and certainly are not delivering the affordable homes we so desperately need.

Third, within the planning reforms, government needs to over-emphasise the importance of affordable housing delivery while ensuring that planning authorities bring forward the right mix of sites. We all agree that brownfield sites should be considered as a priority for development, but in many locations outside of London, the costs — such as for remediation, and construction — of developing brownfield sites means that they do not deliver the expected and necessary levels of affordable housing. Take Birmingham, in that 5-year period I referred to above, a total of 17,800 new homes were built. Yet after Right to Buy Registered Providers lost a net 994 affordable homes from their stock. You need to ensure that there are enough sites, effectively green field (not to be confused with Green Belt, but perhaps those as well, certainly Grey Belt!), being developed that can deliver the targeted level of affordable housing. There need to be checks and balances to ensure that local authorities are doing this.

Fourth, social rent needs greater emphasis among affordable housing requirements. Definitions and emphasis changed under the previous Conservative administration. In 2012, they changed the emphasis in grant funding and financial policy away from social rent (those homes with rents set at around 50% of market rents) to affordable rent (around 80% of market rent) in an austerity measure to lessen funding of affordable housing. While affordable rent might address part of the need for affordable housing, it should only be viewed as a piece of a larger jigsaw. We need to bring back social rent within the delivery mix.  This change has been further accentuated by Right to Buy losses as I have illustrated above. There needs to be greater flexibility in what defines affordable housing, but one thing is surely clear, that social rent should begin to once again play a greater part in delivery in many areas.  When I started in development over 20 years ago, the starting point was that social rent formed a large percentage of the affordable housing s.106 obligation on sites. We need to return to a point where planning policy sets a minimum percentage of social rent within the affordable mix. We should also be willing to accept other forms of affordable housing such as discounted market sales or rent to buy. The need is not uniform across the country, just as development viabilities are not, so there needs to be greater flexibility as to what is accepted.

Finally, I would like to challenge the Treasury. Affordable housing delivery should be considered as an investment in national infrastructure. We spend £31bn annually on housing benefit. Surely, a logical case can be made to commence a programme of government-led investment in affordable housing without viewing it as current account expenditure of the nation. We will have an asset, we may eventually reduce our housing benefit bill, it will lead to benefits for the wider economy – health outcomes, educational outcomes, social and labour market mobility – it would aid economic growth, improving fairness and creating opportunity.    

With Labour’s attention on immediate planning reform, its focus on economic growth and delivering more homes of all tenures, and with a willing development industry ready to deliver, bridging the gap in affordable housing delivery is achievable.

Categories
Blog Post

Delivering 1.5m homes:  Why we need a diverse and competitive housebuilding industry

The UK has a huge backlog of housing need, with the effects of this rippling across our society.  Studies in 2018-19 suggested that there where over 4.75m households in need of suitable housing, with recent updates outlining the need for an additional 60-70,000 social rented homes per year, rising to 80-90,000 by 2030.  Beyond this, many argue that we should be adding 300,000 homes in total to our housing stock each year. This is something Labour are committed to, in the delivery of 1.5m additional homes over the next parliament.

But we need to wake-up to the scale of this change. Over the last five years we have added under 16,000 social rented homes a year across England, Scotland and Wales. Net additional homes in England have been below 250,000 for well over 20 years and new housing completions across the UK have not exceeded 300,000 per year for over four decades[1].

In sum, we are miles off Labour’s supply targets, and to get there would take a radical long-term approach far beyond the proposals presented so far.  Assuming the proposals around planning reform, land compensation and compulsory purchase, and the creation of new towns, all deliver significantly more land for development within five years – something we are justified in being sceptical about – one fundamental issue would remain. Who will produce these homes?

At present, over 40 per cent of new homes are built by just eight housebuilding firms, as the market share of SME developers has shrunk over several decades.  In contrast to Germany, where over 50 per cent of homes are self-build, or directly commissioned by future residents, the equivalent supply here in the UK is just 7 per cent.

This matters for a number of reasons. Firstly, to create 300,000 new homes a year we will need to ramp-up of delivery by lots of different producers, in order to meet the varied housing needs that exist.  Secondly, as explained in the recent Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report on housebuilding, diversity of supply affects the speed at which homes are built-out, and therefore how fast you can add new supply. The greater the diversity of housing types, the quicker the market ‘absorbs’ them. Thirdly, as stated again by the CMA, the particular brand of speculative housebuilding we have in the UK is problematic, and not only in terms of the level of supply we get, but also in terms of its effect on prices and the extraction of value.  Value extraction through dividends and other shareholder returns represents lost investment, or more precisely, lost homes.  There are other factors that affect new supply, with the CMA at pains to stress the dysfunctions in our planning system, but far too often the nature of speculation in our housing system, and associated capital flows, are overlooked.

Over the past few decades, large UK housebuilders have changed markedly, particularly in terms of who owns them and how they are governed. The largest shareholdings in our big housebuilders are now largely held by global asset managers who, when studied, seem to extract more capital from these firms than they impart into the wider housing supply system. When we case studied one of the biggest shareholders in our PLC housebuilders we saw investments of £45m to support new housing production in a given year, but this was eclipsed by capital returns of £158m.

In our recent report, The Invisible Hand That Keeps On Taking, we showed that in 2005 the eight largest housebuilders paid out 16 per cent of pre-tax profits in dividends. This equated to just over £5,000 per home built. By 2022 their dividends were 47 per cent of profits, representing £22,000 per home. Dividends increased by 230 per cent in real terms, compared to new housing completions which rose just 23 per cent over the same time frame.  Dividends have been made possible by a long running period of ‘super-normal’ profitmaking, evidenced by the CMA’s analysis and our own research.  Whilst the claim is these super-normal profits are part of the ‘cyclical’ nature of housebuilding, and therefore just a feature of a boom period, we see that for twelve out of the last twenty years housebuilders have made super normal returns.  Only five of these years saw returns on capital below a ‘normal’ range.  We would argue that is a pretty favourable cycle, if indeed it is one. When we analyse changes in the costs per home built we see that this profitability has made possible, in part, by driving down land costs.

And herein lies the problem for Labour. Building 1.5m homes offers little time for slow market restructuring, to boost competition and production by different actors. And yet, reliance on the current market suggests completions will not rise at the rate required, largely because that would have a deflationary effect on the price of those homes, something which cannot be tolerated if your modus operandi is increasing margins rather than increasing volumes. 

So, what can be done?  Firstly, Labour should reorientate itself to targets on affordable homes, focusing its efforts on policy responses which boost affordable supply. If we cannot borrow more to increase funding for more affordable homes (as per the fiscal rules) then this should be achieved through targeted taxation or by capturing value elsewhere to reinvest.  Here it is instructive to note that between 2016-21, the UK government allocated £9bn in affordable housing grants in England, to create tens of thousands of new affordable homes. Over same period, the dividends of the eight biggest housebuilders equated to £11bn. And so just the dividend payments of a few companies exceeded government expenditure on affordable housing grants, and this does not factor in the other means of returning capital to shareholders that such companies engage in.

If there is surplus in this system, then it needs to be directed toward increased supply, or captured for the public purse to then be redirected.  Forms of taxation, and conditioning public funding and support for housebuilders, are just two means to do this.  If you are benefiting from public subsidy – for instance where a housebuilder is building homes funded with affordable housing grants – then you should adhere to certain requirements on the reinvestment of surpluses. If we can levy charges on housebuilders to remediate fire-safety issues, then perhaps we should be levying charges to help address critical housing need.

Beyond private housebuilding, there is much that can be done in policy terms to incentivise development by small and medium builders, self-builders, and community-led housing groups.  This could include incentives in the planning system, making better use of exception site policies, and creating presumptions in favour of these types of development.  Labour has had very little to say on this to-date, and it’s time to dedicate some proper policy attention to this issue, which can help us diversify the production system.

The hope is that in the rush to increase housing supply, we do not deepen the dysfunctions within our housebuilding system further, and instead we play the long game to radically shift who builds, and therefore who benefits.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building

Categories
Blog Post

Healthy Homes for Healthy Lives: How Specialist Housing Can Address the Ageing Population Challenge

The UK is getting older

The UK has a rapidly ageing population – a growing demographic that will only put further pressure on our already desperate housing crisis. It is projected that, by 2039, the number of people aged 75 and over will double from 5 million to nearly 10 million.

Over recent years, the Government has focused policymaking on specific reforms to help younger people get onto the housing ladder; or, in some cases, they have actively abandoned any progressive housing reform at all. Schemes such as the Help to Buy ISA and Help to Buy Equity Loan threw a lifeline at those first-time buyers looking to get their foot on the housing ladder amidst a backdrop of austerity and a squeeze on the public purse. However, in this focus, the Conservatives have failed to properly address the vulnerable, rapidly ageing population who are unable to pursue the specialised housing they need.

Recently we have seen the need for a better approach to older people’s housing championed within Parliament and the establishment of the Older People’s Housing Taskforce, a joint effort from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Department of Health and Social Care. However, with the change in Housing Minister once again and the looming General Election next year, the Taskforce is unlikely to make the necessary progress to address older people’s housing challenges. Research from the National Housing Federation (NHF) argues that we need 38,000 new homes for rent for older people each year; much more than the 8,000 we are currently achieving.

Specialised social housing for older people is an important and necessary way to ensure that older people can live in homes that suit their needs, and to address vital health concerns. To address this, the next Labour Government will need to implement a significant programme of building for older people, embedded across two key commitments made at the 2023 Labour Party Conference: Angela Rayner’s commitment to building 1.5 million new homes, and Wes Streeting and Andrew Gwynne’s 10-year plan for a National Care Service.

What can Labour do about it?

Labour have recognised the need for adapted housing and have included provisions for this within the National Policy Forum document. However, whilst this is useful, there remains a need for large-scale development that can provide the need for housing at scale and foster communities.

This is where a partnership in Birmingham may provide the outline to give Labour a big step up in achieving its ambitious home ownership target whilst pursuing a deeper social cause

An exceptional scheme

In 2004, when Birmingham City Council was looking at closing 29 care homes that had become unsustainable, they pursued an alternative programme that would address the shortage of care options whilst increasing provision for older people on middle incomes and those requiring social housing. The programme was not only aimed at meeting the needs of older people, but also those in Birmingham seeking family-sized homes, as the initiative sought to release these back into the market, including social housing underoccupied by older people.

The resulting partnership with the ExtraCare Charitable Trust saw a £200 million strategic programme to build five large scale Integrated Retirement Communities (IRCs) in Birmingham: New Oscott Village in Erdington , Pannel Croft Village in Newtown, Hagley Road Village and Bournville Gardens Village in Edgbaston (pictured) and finally Longbridge Village, completed in 2017. Homes became available for outright purchase, shared ownership purchase and affordable/social rent.

In total, the partnership resulted in a total of 1,168 units being built in five retirement villages.

Of these, 30% were for affordable/social rent, freeing up 342 units of social housing that were previously underoccupied for families requiring accommodation, providing a solution to both meet the needs of the ageing population and address the housing crisis facing younger generations.

The partnership also supported Birmingham’s diverse population. 70% of Pannel Croft’s residents are from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, helping to facilitate a community for the older Afro-Caribbean population in Birmingham.

The subsequent health and social care benefits of the partnership, confirmed by a longitudinal study conducted by Aston University, resulted in savings for Birmingham City Council in social care costs, savings for the local NHS in Birmingham and savings for older people living in these IRCs – highlighting how increasing such partnerships can address both the housing and care challenges of an ageing population. The partnership also helped the Council to reach its own Health and Well-Being Board targets, with a 38% overall reduction in NHS costs and a 46% reduction in routine and regular GP visits for those living in the IRCs. Replicating this partnership across councils nationwide would tie in perfectly with Labour’s aims for both large-scale housebuilding and a National Care Service.

What next?

This example also demonstrates the wide-ranging socio-economic benefits that the building of social and affordable housing brings. By rolling out this partnership on a larger scale, Labour can facilitate a cyclical housing market where all older people who wish to downsize and move into accommodation such as IRCs can do so, and younger people and families can access family-sized homes. The role of IRCs in Labour’s National Care Service was noted in the Fabian Society’s recent report on this topic, which noted that “a major expansion of housing-with-care and supported living schemes” should be a “high priority”, recognising that “the UK has far less specialist housing for older people than many comparable countries, and what is available often does not provide sufficient support to prevent care home admissions when people’s needs grow more complex”. To remedy this, Labour should mandate that all local authorities have an older people’s housing plan which specifically mandates for provision of specialist housing and care for elderly.

Going further, Labour have recognised the urgent need to release parts of our greenbelt for development. Labour should aim to strategically release large parcels of land in conjunction with local councils, specialist housing providers and developers to develop these sites. In areas around cities, this could involve greenbelt land, allowing residents within cities to downsize and release valuable housing stock within urban centres.  By pursuing this, Labour would be bringing more homes back into the market, helping a vulnerable demographic and providing solutions to both councils’ rising social care costs and our ever-growing housing crisis.

Joshua Lee works as a Senior Researcher for Henham Strategy where he specialises in housing and planning policy.

Sarina Kiayani is Policy and External Affairs Manager at ARCO and sits on the Fabian Society Executive Committee.

Categories
Blog Post

Rent to buy: the home ownership model with untapped potential?

The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities select committee is mid-way through an inquiry into shared ownership, which includes looking at the barriers to achieving full home ownership under the model and whether it is genuinely an affordable route to owning a home. Delve deeper into the terms of reference and it asks an interesting question: “are alternative schemes such as ‘Rent to Buy’ viable and do they offer more value for money?”

Rent to buy is not a new concept – the Coalition Government launched a £400m Rent to Buy scheme back in 2014 – but it has never really taken off in the way that other schemes to support first-time buyers have. From our experience on the ground, however, it feels like the tide is finally turning in favour of the tenure as more providers enter the market and an increasing number of local authorities adopt it as part of their housing mix. 

This is perhaps a result of increasing recognition that the model has the benefit of tackling two key problems at once: in the vast majority of cases it provides new affordable homes to rent, whilst also providing a realistic route to ownership.

The Government describes Rent to Buy as helping tenants to save for a deposit to buy a home by offering properties at a discounted rent, normally 20% less than market rent.

Historically, it has been seen as a ‘niche’ product and there has been limited availability of it across the country, perpetuating the lack of awareness of the offer. 

Now, with new entrants to the market, the sector is growing, but the challenge is that it is not homogenous. There are rent to buy products delivered by housing associations as part of their affordable rent provision; privately funded models that are included in local authorities’ affordable home ownership offer; and then rent to buy products that aren’t badged as affordable housing at all but are instead delivered as market homes. Muddying the waters further, the length of the rental period varies depending on the scheme – the 2014 scheme had a minimum of seven years renting, whilst the government website now states an initial rental agreement of just two. Some, like ours, offer a gifted deposit to add to renters’ savings, whereas others use the rental payments to count towards buying the property. This makes the sector hard to define in planning policy and confusing to navigate for local authorities, who are understandably wary of new providers in the market. Often, it is easier to stick to doing what they know. 

However, as the cost-of-living crisis continues to bite, it is an attractive offer for renters who are struggling to save for a deposit and meets a major need in the market. Importantly, we have seen that it can successfully turn renters into homeowners.

As Keir Starmer looks for tangible ways to deliver Labour’s commitment to becoming the party of home ownership, he would be wise to look at how he can support growth of the rent to buy sector. 

First and foremost, we know that saving for a deposit is one of the main challenges to getting on the housing ladder. In June, Zoopla found that the average deposit paid by a first-time buyer was £34,500, rising to £72,000 in the South East and over £144,000 in London.   

For those who can’t rely on the ‘bank of mum and dad’, the difficulty is that often there is very little money left to put aside after paying rent and other monthly bills. The English Housing Survey notes that half of renters – some 2 million households – don’t have any savings at all. This rises to three quarters of those in the social rented sector. 

This leads to a situation whereby the majority of first-time buyers come from the top two highest income groups, pricing out our nurses, teachers, retail and hospitality workers. This should not be the case. Workers across all income brackets should have a realistic prospect of being able to buy a home where they live. And we know that this is what they want; the aspiration to own has been constant at around 9 in 10 people for many years.   

Labour will not be able to increase levels of home ownership and social mobility unless it addresses the deposit barrier. Rent to buy models do this in a way that Shared Ownership does not, by enabling tenants to move into the home that they will one day own without having to pay a deposit upfront, and instead being given the time and support to save for this. 

The latest figures show that the average deposit for an initial equity stake under Shared Ownership was £20,800, putting it out of reach of the half of renters without savings. There is then the challenge of having to ‘staircase’ to full ownership, and the costs associated with this. Currently, comprehensive data on how many people reach full ownership and the time taken to do so does not exist, however, the House of Commons Library notes that the number of households staircasing to 100% in 2020-21 was equivalent to just 2.3% of all shared-equity homes owned by housing associations.

Homes England similarly does not collect post-sales information on grant-funded rent to buy homes; however under our model, 95% of renters have successfully become homeowners with a high street mortgage at the planned point. 

On the question of whether rent to buy offers good value for money, we and other privately funded providers have proven that it is possible to deliver affordable home ownership products entirely without grant. We are fully funded by institutional investment such as major UK pension funds, meaning that there is no cost to the public purse whatsoever. As well as bringing more funding to the sector overall, using private investment to deliver affordable home ownership products enables local authorities to direct their grant funding to deliver more social housing; a win-win. This is an avenue that the Party seems interested to pursue, as the NPF document outlines that Labour will “encourage more private investment, properly regulated, in new supply”. 

Rent to buy’s challenge is not that it is unviable, but that it has been small-scale and is not well known. With Help to Buy having ended, now is the time for it to be brought into the limelight and promoted as a major route to home ownership. Such a campaign from a future government would help boost local authority confidence and acceptance, encouraging more providers to the market and in turn increasing home ownership. 

In addition, whilst privately funded providers do not require government grant through the Affordable Homes Programme, one of the main challenges is that local authorities are often reluctant to accept providers that are not government funded due to uncertainty over their standing. A Homes England equity programme for the rent to buy market would help to provide local authorities with confidence that the models had government support and had been assessed for quality and viability.   

Following the G15 landlord Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing entering the rent to buy sector for the first time earlier this year, Inside Housing wrote: “Rent to Buy has been touted as a model that could replace shared ownership as the dominant affordable-ownership tenure.”

We believe that it can and that the Labour Party should be looking at how to make the most of its untapped potential. 

Steve Collins

Steve is the Chief Executive at Rentplus, and has worked for more than 25 years in both public & private housing and development sectors

Twitter
Categories
Blog Post

Forgotten Generation

“We are on our knees in terms of the housing crisis. I have worked in this sector for 35 years and this is the worst I have ever seen it”

 Fiona Fletcher-Smith, chair of the G15 group

To remedy what is already a catastrophe, we need to activate a national housebuilding programme to deliver the housing that the country needs now and into the future. It is only at this scale and by targeting the housing shortfall and needs of the country that we will stand a chance of providing the housing solutions this and future generations deserve.

Simply put, we need a lot of every type of housing, but mostly housing that is affordable, sustainable and secure. The housing we need is not being delivered due to a constrained planning environment, market conditions and funding complications. This is exacerbated by poor governmental leadership – 16 Housing Ministers in 13 years is not helpful. Institutes are unable to enact the measures needed due to being too risk averse and unable to support the affordable housing sector as they should.

Homeownership rates among 19-29 years olds fell by two-thirds over the period 1989 to 2013, from 23% to 8%. The housing shortage is also leading to an increased number of concealed households, with the number of adults living with their parents rising to 4.7 million in 2021, an increase of 700,000 compared with a decade earlier.

For younger people this is yet another setback in a long line of measures that are holding them back – lower relative incomes, rising housing costs and student loans. Not only is this having a significant impact on their short- and long-term life options, it also directly impacts on national productivity as younger people are held back in their careers due to their immobility.

In many areas of England, younger working people are often not eligible for, or are unable to secure, social rented homes. Due to a lack of affordable supply, home ownership or rental is beyond their financial reach too. 

Set against median incomes, we can see that most forms of affordable (intermediate) homes are out of reach to people under the age of 35. This pushes more and more people into living in overcrowded or inadequate homes.

Chart 1 – The chart above shows what households should be spending on housing costs (green bars) based on the latest ONS data for median incomes against what is charged (blue bars). The affordable threshold for housing cost is calculated at 40% of net income (London Plan), which is the criterion set for affordability. It is 30% of gross income (Manchester housing strategy). The housing costs above are taken from actual housing offers around London and represent typical costs. It clearly shows that for people on median or lower incomes, they must exceed allowances to afford a home.

The Government states that you can buy a home through shared ownership if both of the following are true:

  • your household income is £80,000 a year or less (£90,000 a year or less in London)
  • you cannot afford all of the deposit and mortgage payments for a home that meets your needs

Yet, there is a huge gap between incomes and housing costs. The median incomes for all people aged between 30 to 39 (2020 ONS), in England was £32,259 – dropping to £27,087 for women, who make up the nearly two thirds of people buying shared ownership homes. Even with London weighting, this is a far cry from what is needed to buy a Shared Ownership or Discounted Market home in London which require incomes above £48-63,000 as shown below. A report from UCL illustrates that over the last 7 years, the value of the staircased share has increased by 60% implying that shared ownership is becoming less affordable.

Chart 2 – Example of typical incomes required for Shared Ownership Homes in London.
Chart 3 – Example of typical incomes required for Discounted Market Sales Homes in London.

The result is that well over 50% of younger working people, regardless of their jobs, do not have access to any independent housing options – this is a terrible situation and it is only getting worse. We are not building enough homes and not the right types of homes either.

To overcome the disparity between income and cost, we need to greatly increase housebuilding. We need to look beyond housing types and focus more on whether they are actually affordable to people. Too many people are getting further into debt and spending far too much of their income on housing and energy rather than wellbeing and their prospects.

There are a number of housing models (discounted rents or fixed shared equity) that can ensure affordability, but we are not providing anywhere near enough of these homes. Affordable housing providers and Local Authorities, if given the right levels of support, funding and expertise, can make significant inroads into delivering the homes we need. All suppliers of affordable homes should be supported with access to appropriately priced land and funding.

With the right housing policies and structures in place we can deliver the homes we need that are affordable, safe and protect us from the climate. We need stability and a determination to resolve the housing crisis. We can then aim to make housing a human right and begin to address the shortcomings set in front of younger people.

Pieter Zitman is an affordable housing provider and champion. He recently founded a Bursary to support disadvantaged architecture students in South Africa.

Categories
Blog Post

Shared Ownership: The Consumer Perspective

Shared ownership sharply divides opinion. Is it a “great product” as claimed in a Shared Ownership Market Review 2020? Is it a ‘scam’ – an accusation that at least one housing association apparently feels obliged to counter on their website: “Rumour has it though… Shared Ownership must be a scam – it seems too good to be true!” Or does the truth lie somewhere in-between?


It’s undeniable that many shared owners are extremely happy with their home purchase. And yet… In December 2021 Housemark published analysis revealing that only 57% of shared owners were satisfied with their landlords.

My report – Shared Ownership: The Consumer Perspective – explores gaps between aspirations and outcomes. It does so by assessing claims made for the scheme: that it is affordable, a pathway to full ownership, fair, user-friendly and a good product for the market to deliver. The report concludes that, despite the benefits of the scheme, there are also hazards arising from the characteristics of targeted homebuyers, the complexity of the model and of ownership structures, a lack of standardisation and consistency, inadequate information provision and weak regulation of marketing and delivery.

Here I touch briefly on three key underlying themes: long-term outcomes, consumer protection and value for money.

Long-term outcomes

Somewhat surprisingly for an affordable housing scheme launched over four decades ago, there are significant gaps in national data. How many shared owners staircase to 100%? (Excluding ‘back to back’ sales where a homebuyer purchases 100% by purchasing the shared owner’s share and the landlord’s share at the same time.) How many transition to full home ownership via a gain on sale? Is shared ownership financially sustainable over the long-term? What are the whole-life costs, and what are the opportunity costs if shared ownership turns out to be significantly more expensive than buying on the open market?

And without this information how can we possibly evaluate whether shared ownership is delivering for entrants to the scheme? Consequently the report recommends that Government and the Regulator of Social Housing undertake robust data collection, evaluation and reporting on the outcomes that matter to shared owners themselves: ongoing affordability and/or transition to full home ownership.

Consumer protection

Shared ownership can be tricky to get to grips with. The costs aren’t ‘shared’ and it’s not exactly ‘ownership’ either. Moreover, the ubiquitous marketing slogan – ‘part buy, part rent’ – was recently deemed to be misleading by the advertising watchdog, the ASA.

The ASA also found that adverts that do not “include material information relating to the costs of extending a lease” are likely to mislead. How many shared owners didn’t receive the facts they needed at the point of sale in order to make informed purchase decisions, taking into account likely future lease extension costs?

Of course, it’s impossible to turn the clock back. But many shared owners now face a double whammy. If they can’t afford to extend their lease, even selling may not provide the panacea they hoped for. The new model for shared ownership, quite rightly, requires a significantly longer 990-year lease term. But this could create a two-tier market further disadvantaging existing shared owners. Surely it’s only right to level the playing field by funding lease extension at a nominal flat fee for all those shared owners persuaded to buy a short lease and not informed, at the time, of the implications.

The complexity of shared ownership means that sometimes even the experts get it wrong. It’s an open secret that many shared owners have overpaid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) on simultaneous sale and staircasing. Unfortunately, HMRC currently imposes a 12-month deadline for refunds of SDLT overpayments meaning shared owners could unknowingly be left out of pocket as a result of incorrect professional advice. It’s a situation that clearly shouldn’t be allowed to drag on.

Value for money (VfM)

Value for money for shared owners

The Government’s annual rent review policy ensures that shared ownership rent rises faster than inflation, on an ‘upwards only’ basis. Hence Savills’ assessment that – although shared ownership provides the cheapest entry point into home ownership – ‘monthly costs will rise faster than for full ownership’ which ‘ultimately leads to shared ownership becoming more expensive than full home ownership by the end of the mortgage term’. Many shared owners also report rapidly rising service charges.

As one shared owner explains in Shared Ownership: The Consumer Perspective: “I had to pass an affordability test with the housing association initially to see if I could afford to pay for the share of the flat and its associated costs. But now, nobody cares whether I still can afford it. If I could sell, I would… but I cannot. Absolute and utter madness.” 

Staircasing can also represent poor value for money. Unlike other instalment payment schemes where the initial cost is spread over a number of payments, shared ownership requires the prevailing market rate to be paid for each and every share. If property prices have increased since they bought their initial share, shared owners could pay considerably more in total than had they been able to afford to buy that home on the open market in the first place.

Value for money for taxpayers

Only around half  the shared ownership homes built to date remain categorized as shared ownership. Staircasing to 100% is, in some respects, a measure of success. It was, after all, the original intention that homebuyers purchase their home in full.  But 100% staircasing could be argued to be counterproductive in transitioning scarce social housing stock to the open market. As one senior housing professional pointed out on BBC Radio 4’s Money Box in 2020. “How high would you want those figures to be because what you’re doing is you’re losing affordable stock if people staircase out to 100% all the time.”

There appears to be even less justification for transfer of social housing stock to the open market via ‘back to back’ sales. What’s the likelihood of those homes ending up in the private rental sector, possibly subject to the unaffordable rents that drive many households to shared ownership in the first place?

The Shared Ownership: The Consumer Perspective report is aimed at decision makers in government, its agencies, regulators and housing providers, and makes a total of 18 recommendations. The Executive Summary and full report are available here.  A suggested donation of £8.50 helps support the Shared Ownership Resources project.

Sue Phillips (FCCA) is a writer, retired charity finance manager and former shared owner. She launched Shared Ownership Resources in 2021.

Categories
Blog Post

Setting the right housing targets will be critical for Scotland

Unlike in England, where the new Government has denounced housing targets as Stalinist in another sign of an uneasy relationship with its own 2019 manifesto (300,000 a year were pledged), the question of how many homes Scotland needs and where to put them is a live policy debate. The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), expected to be laid before Parliament this year, will set out for each local authority a minimum requirement of the number of homes for which land should be made available. 

This important decision has taken on added salience because of the cost of living crisis. High rents and massive mortgages have left us little capacity to absorb economic shocks, whether external such as energy costs or the self-inflicted hike in mortgage rates following the budget announcements. Ensuring sufficient land is available for housing is crucial to bringing housing supply and demand into better balance and thereby improving affordability. It is also critical in ensuring there are enough shovel-ready sites to realise the Scottish Government’s commendably ambitious target of 110,000 new affordable homes between 2022-2032.  

Housing targets are partly a practical necessity (aligning housebuilding with infrastructure) and partly a democratic middle ground which balances competing interests. These attributes may not endear them to those seeking ideological purity, but they chart a course through undesirable alternatives. Targets are a compromise between a libertarian free-for-all, where people can build wherever they choose, and an exclusive, communitarian beggar-thy-neighbour approach, where those fortunate to live near undeveloped land in and around cities and towns are able to exercise an absolute veto over its use. The former fails to recognise people’s desire to shape, debate and influence what happens in their local area. The latter fails to give voice to families seeking a home of their own, which meets their needs and aspirations, and most of the population who consider we are facing a housing crisis.  

The housing crisis, while national in nature, must be solved on individual sites across the country. Without a clear target which local authorities are required to meet there will be a high risk of vocal local objectors successfully lobbying Councillors to prevent housebuilding. While those in need of a home make their voices known at a national level (evidenced by the prominence of housing issues in political debate) they do not, and cannot be expected to, lobby in favour of specific developments. Objectors and those commenting on planning applications play a valuable role in the process but without housing targets representing those in need of a home there would be a clear democratic deficit in planning for housing. 

Because land for housing is rationed in this way, unlike the inputs for the other of life’s essentials, it is critical that targets are as accurate as possible with sufficient tolerance for changes over time. The risks of setting targets which are too low are profound – placing upward pressure on affordability and leaving local authorities chasing scarce land at high prices to deliver their affordable housing. 

The Scottish Government is right to set out targets in NPF4. However, the figures in the 2021 draft are based on a flawed default methodology. The defaults have been changed in response to evidence submitted by some local authorities. However, these changes are haphazard; some local authorities put forward detailed, considered evidence such as households surveys, others submitted limited information probably due to pressures on resources. Remarkably, two of the least affordable local authorities in the country, East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire (where house prices are 10 times average earnings) successfully lobbied for targets below the already low defaults.  

There are two components to the Scottish Government’s methodology. Household projections are added to an estimate of households in existing need to give a target. Uncritical reliance on household projections leads to unsatisfactory housing outcomes being projected forward as Professor Glen Bramley has observed “If household growth has been artificially suppressed by the undersupply of new housing, then basing future need calculations on those lower growth figures will by necessity under-estimate that need”. This is acknowledged by the National Records for Scotland who produce the projections. The past decade or more has seen worsening affordability and housing outcomes we should be planning to improve upon, not perpetuate. No attempt has been made in draft NPF4 to quantify the additional homes needed in areas where houses are less affordable and have become less so over the last decade (below).

Image: Average house price multiples of workplace full-time earnings in 2021 (left) and change since 2011 (right). Using Registers of Scotland Average House Price data and ASHE full-time earnings by workplace location

The definition of existing need only recognises it in its most acute form; those in temporary accommodation and households which are both overcrowded and concealed. Concealed and overcrowded households are where two or more families live in one home without sufficient rooms. This is an exceptionally high bar missing many other forms of urgent need such as overcrowded households, adults and adult couples living with their parents, on waiting lists, in unsuitable or physically unfit homes and those in unaffordable homes. It is not fit for purpose and will underestimate the extent of housing need. Household surveys are needed to better understand existing unmet need.

The Scottish Government has been less bombastic than the UK Government in its growth ambitions, but its Strategy for Economic Transformation is clear and aims “to deliver economic growth that significantly outperforms the last decade, so that the Scottish economy is more prosperous, more productive and more internationally competitive”. Draft NPF4 should be changed to provide targets which are fit for purpose, fully understand existing need and address affordability challenges. These will be essential in providing the homes Scotland needs to deliver housing outcomes which significantly outperform those of the last decade and take pressure off household budgets. 

Joe Larner is an Associate Director at Holder Planning based in Edinburgh, with around 8 years of experience focused on housing projects of all tenures in Scotland and England.

Categories
Blog Post

The elephant in the room: to broaden home ownership access, governments must tackle housing affordability head-on 

Boosting home ownership: an overriding housing policy objective for many decades, not only in Britain but the world over. And yet, as also seen in many countries, the past 10-20 years have witnessed owner occupancy rates static or falling – see graph. 

Figure: Changing home-ownership rates (owner occupiers as a percentage of all households) in selected countries indexed to 2003 (2003=100) – for sources see Figure 19 in our report

Home ownership levels among young adults have widely plunged in much more dramatic fashion. In the UK, for example, the 25-34 age group owner occupancy rate declined from 51% in 1989 to only 28% in 2019. And, in another concerning dimension, both in the UK and Australia, within each age cohort, ownership rates have declined disproportionately among lower income households. Given the range of inherent benefits believed associated with home ownership, these trends present a major housing policy challenge.

It is not as though official endorsement for home ownership can be dismissed as purely rhetorical. Quite the contrary. As demonstrated by our recent research comparing approaches across eight countries including the UK, a highly diverse array of first-time buyer assistance interventions have been, and are being, pursued around the world. 

Demand-side and supply-side interventions

In Britain this has lately involved schemes such as the Help to Buy shared equity model, where government effectively takes an equity stake in the value of an acquired home via a (time limited) interest-free loan, thus reducing the size of a purchaser’s necessary mortgage. Significant stamp duty concessions and government-backed low deposit mortgages have also been recently offered for first time property acquisition.

Since these types of help effectively enhance consumers’ ability to pay for housing, they can be classed as ‘demand-side’ instruments. Supply-side measures, by contrast, involve government support for home ownership targeted through housing suppliers (developers) or through the below-market-value disposal of publicly owned assets. 

UK examples include grant funding for housing association shared ownership dwellings and the effective subsidy offered to council tenants exercising the Right to Buy, as well as developer contributions to affordable home ownership mandated through land use planning. 

In Australia, while supply-side interventions are nowadays virtually absent, government-commissioned build-for-sale schemes formed an important instrument for boosting home ownership in the early post-war period. Direct state involvement in land and housing development to generate ‘entry level’ homes for sale meanwhile remains significant in both Germany and the Netherlands, and extensive in Singapore. 

All demand-side and supply-side models identified in our research feature among seven distinct forms of first-time buyer assistance identified in our generic policy typology – see Table 1 in our published report.

Political potency

Generally speaking, anglophone countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK) have in the past 10-20 years tended to see growing deployment of demand-side first-time buyer assistance measures. 

Approaches of this kind chime with the neo-liberal preference for governments to act as ‘market enablers’ rather than to play a more direct role in provision. They also tend to be politically attractive because of their media appeal and electoral resonance. 

However, especially where they take the form of cash grants or tax concessions, demand-side measures are widely criticised by economists and public policy experts as inequitable (because the beneficiaries tend to be moderate income rather than low income households) and ultimately counter-productive since, by boosting purchasing power for a commodity with inelastic supply, they contribute to house price inflation. 

Those losing out under this type of approach – because of the higher prices consequently faced – include all aspirant first-time buyers failing to qualify for such assistance. The main beneficiaries, on the other hand, are existing home owners, whose properties consequently appreciate in value without any effort by property holders themselves. 

Nonetheless, the political potency of home ownership affordability was notably highlighted in recent national elections in both Australia and Canada where rival demand-side first time buyer assistance measures were pushed high among contested issues by the leading rival parties.

Broadening access to home ownership?

How far do first-time buyer assistance schemes in fact broaden home ownership across the income spectrum, as sometimes claimed? From our own work we would largely endorse the conclusion of UK researchers who concluded in 2017 that:

‘[Low cost home ownership] schemes are not expanding … social mobility by opening up home ownership to new groups of lower income households. Rather they are being used by households who would most likely buy anyway’.

Instead, the main effect of models such as shared equity (e.g. Help to Buy) or low deposit mortgages is to bring forward home purchase for moderate income earners otherwise destined to buy some time later. Alternatively, beneficiaries are enabled to buy a home somewhat bigger, or better located, than in the absence of assistance.

Arguably, regarding the scope for broadening access to home ownership, the discounted sale of council housing to sitting tenants could be something of an exception to the rule, since many scheme participants have indeed been relatively low-income households. Nevertheless, considering the eye-watering value of the effective subsidy receivable via discount entitlement (currently up to £100,000 per buyer), the true program cost to government is, and has been, colossal.

Because such costs have been historically incurred without direct government expenditure (but, rather, by accepting a below-market price for a state-owned asset), they have had low political visibility. However, if the Conservative government was serious about its recently declared intention to promote housing association Right to Buy sales, this would change because the associations concerned would expect Treasury compensation for the value of discounts approved. 

Some more recommendable first-time buyer assistance measures include:

  • Mandating developers to include below-market price housing for sale (as well as affordable rental) in residential developments is recommendable on the grounds that the discount is effectively financed by taxing land value
  • A strength of the shared equity model (e.g. Help to Buy) is its potential for lowering both the income and wealth threshold for home ownership access, to the benefit of lower income households.
  • Enabling development of for-sale housing by state agencies or housing associations offers a means of providing dwellings that can be sold to qualifying applicants at cost price (i.e. no need to factor-in profit), while also expanding overall housing supply to the benefit of the wider market.

Housing unaffordability – the elephant in the room 

Well-chosen measures to assist first-time buyers are a desirable element of a wider housing strategy. But their potential for expanding access down the income spectrum remains very limited if other key policy settings remain sacrosanct. Overall home ownership growth demands systemic change to tackle the much tougher challenge of easing broader housing affordability. 

Yet this objective calls for the dampening of property values, an objective in tension with the dominant theme of home ownership policy: to facilitate wealth accumulation through asset ownership. 

Some will argue that this demands land-use planning de-regulation to ‘free up supply’. In our view, however, the volume of new housing output is primarily influenced by developer response to market conditions, not by the planning system. Rather, the key problem lies in the taboo status of key tax and/or social security policy settings that in many countries encourage people with spare money – or credit capacity – to plough it into housing. In the UK context this could refer to the unlimited exemption from capital gains tax for the principal home, the weakness of the inheritance tax regime and the absence of a broad-based land tax.

A serious commitment to expanded home ownership demands consideration of phased reforms in areas like these. 

<strong>Hal Pawson</strong>
Hal Pawson

Hal Pawson is Professor of Housing Research and Policy at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. He is also well known in the UK for his many years of work at Heriott-Watt University, where he worked up until 2011, and where he is still an Honorary Professor. Hal’s latest co-authored books are: ‘Housing Policy in Australia: A case for system reform’, and ‘The Private Rental Sector in Australia: Living with uncertainty’, published in 2020 and 2021 respectively.

Categories
Blog Post

Terrors of Temporary Accommodation

‘I can say it is cold, very cold in my room. I have got no access to the kitchen, no fridge, no basic things that I need.’

Many complex social challenges have not received much focus over the last 18 months while we have been grappling with the pandemic. But they have continued to bubble away out of sight and, as we are now (hopefully) moving towards the end of the pandemic, some of them are reaching boiling point.  This is true of hidden homelessness and the stark lack of truly affordable housing which causes people to be stuck in Temporary Accommodation for far too long. 

I work for Justlife Foundation, an organisation that works to ensure stays in Temporary Accommodation (TA) are as short, safe and healthy as possible. TA is a broad term that describes short-term housing used for people who are homeless while waiting for something more permanent that satisfies the main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. Residents of TA might have a short-term agreement, nightly licenses or non-secure tenancies, offering little or no tenancy rights, and they may or may not receive support from services.

We would call everyone living in TA ‘hidden homeless,’ however, some are arguably even more hidden than others – with tens of thousands single homeless households living in insecure housing, not placed by local authorities under homelessness legislation and not included in the official statistics that tell us how many individuals and families are living in local authority-placed TA. All those who are ‘hidden homeless’ are not visible to the public and wider society in the way those who sleep rough.


Life in Temporary Accommodation

Experiences for hidden homeless households in TA is anything but short, safe and healthy. Research conducted between 2014-2016 with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) North uncovered a bleak reality, where individuals with limited access to local authority support ended up staying in TA for anywhere from six months to 38 years.  

‘When I first moved in, I had no running water for over a week. I kept complaining about it. So I couldn’t shower, I couldn’t even use the loo, and literally no one would do anything. They kept saying that someone would do something, and every day I’d come back and it would still not work. It was just so frustrating. And also I think I’d want to know that there’s no cooking facilities at all.’

Our research revealed that approximately half the TA residents do not have a working lock on their door. Most share filthy squalid bathroom facilities that are regularly out of order, many have windows that do not close, and most were not provided with bedding. Illegal money lending and drug dealing are commonplace, and the prognosis for those entering TA is likely to involve deteriorating mental and physical health, increased anxiety, higher drug and alcohol use, increased social isolation, and an increased risk of premature death.  

This picture is true for single homeless households and families alike (see Gold Standard Report, Shared Health Foundation). Children are often placed alongside single adults with complex mental health and substance misuse problems. 

“It’s hell. You can’t sleep, you got your ears, playing the music loud. You report it to [the landlord] and he just gets really nasty with you, and if you challenge him he attacks you against the wall. He’s had me pinned against the wall at least four times, and I’ve just had enough of it.” 

Even before the pandemic, TA residents were disadvantaged, with many facing multiple and complex issues. This has worsened in the last year according to our most recent research into the impact of COVID-19 on those we support. Interviewees spoke of horrible conditions, perfect for the spread of COVID-19, in which they felt forced to ‘self-isolate’. The closure of many support services and the decrease in available move-on accommodation, has left many residents feeling more trapped than ever and experiencing deteriorating physical and mental health. 

‘When he [the landlord] comes around he doesn’t knock on the door he just walks in. So if you’re getting dressed, it’s tough…. he can get in with his key, yes. Because there is no inner lock, so you can’t lock him out, unless you barricade the door. And there’s even females there as well.’ 


Numbers continue to rise 

The use of TA has significantly increased during the pandemic. Under ‘Everyone In’, 15,000 rough sleepers were housed, mainly in hotels. Now that has ended, the shortage of appropriate housing means many are being moved either into TA or back onto the streets. Shelter’s report “Homeless in a Pandemic” showed over 250,000 people were living in TA across England in June 2020, an increase of 83% since 2010. This figure does not include those who were placed inside under ‘Everyone In’ and does not account for those who are yet to lose their home as the evictions ban is lifted.

In addition, national statistics show only those placed by local authorities in TA, and not those homeless individuals who have found some other way into different kinds of Temporary Accommodation. Our 2017 report, ‘Lifting the Lid on Hidden Homelessness: A New Analysis’ estimated the number of households living in Bed & Breakfasts (B&B) across England to be close to 51,500, almost 10 times the official figure of 5,870.

The picture becomes even more murky when we take Exempt Accommodation into account. Exempt accommodation is a type of housing where landlords receive the higher housing benefit rate due to the provision of additional services for residents. It technically sits in the social housing—rather than private housing—sector and has existed for many years. However, changes to Universal Credit, and the rising cost of housing, have created a wave of new Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Many previously used as Bed & Breakfasts or private hostels are changing, as landlords move into the more lucrative exempt accommodation sector as landlords seek higher returns.

For people stuck there, Exempt Accommodation can be difficult to distinguish from TA. As Councillor Sharon Thompson’s blog about Exempt Accommodation in Birmingham (10th May) shows, there is a distinct lack of regulation and standards across both TA and Exempt Accommodation, as well as limited enforcement powers for those in local authorities who want to ensure standards are being kept. Standards in both types of accommodation are often very poor.

For people stuck there, Exempt Accommodation can be difficult to distinguish from TA. As Councillor Sharon Thompson’s blog about Exempt Accommodation in Birmingham (10th May) shows, there is a distinct lack of regulation and standards across both TA and Exempt Accommodation, as well as limited enforcement powers for those in local authorities who want to ensure standards are being kept. Standards in both types of accommodation are often very poor.


What can be done 

We agree with the five areas outlined in the petition to end the scandal of Exempt Accommodation that collectively call on the national government to create more regulation within the sector, to increase funding to local authorities to enable greater resource and effective enforcement and, finally, to create safeguards around community and resident impact.  Each of these would have a positive impact on those living in all forms of temporary housing, but we also feel there are further ways to address additional problems with TA both locally and nationally:

Setting up local ‘Temporary Accommodation Action Groups’

  • First recommended in Nowhere Fast 2016, these are local groups that include all stakeholders of the accommodation, including residents and landlords, that come together with a common agenda to develop locally-relevant improvements to experiences in the accommodation. Currently there are four as part of our National TA Network: Brighton, East Sussex, Hackney and Manchester.

Joining, and encouraging MPs to join, the newly formed APPG on Households in TA

  • Justlife and Shared Health Foundation have pushed for the development of the APPG, focusing both on quick immediate aims/objectives as well as longer-term inquiries into the impact Temporary Accommodation has on the health and wellbeing of children, families and individuals, in order to better inform parliamentarians of the issues/challenges facing those in TA across England.

We believe that both these groups, alongside targeted action to meet people’s individual needs, will be vital in bringing about positive change for the hundreds of thousands of people who are hidden away in Temporary as well as Exempt Accommodation.

References

Gossman, S; Procter, A; Paylor, D and Maciver, C. (2020) Hidden Homelessness Exposed: The impact of COVID-19 on single homeless households living in temporary accommodation. Justlife Foundation. https://www.justlife.org.uk/assets/documents/JL_Report-HiddenHomelessness-The-impact-of-COVID-19_v3.pdf

Maciver, C. (2017) Lifting the Lid on Hidden Homelessness: A new analysis. Justlife Foundation. https://www.justlife.org.uk/assets/documents/JL_UTA-Report-2017_HR_Web-Ready.pdf

Rose, A and Davies, B. (2014) Not Home: the lives of hidden homeless households in unsupported temporary accommodation in England. IPPR North. https://www.justlife.org.uk/assets/documents/not-home_dec2014.pdf

Shared Health Foundation (2019). Homeless Families: The Gold Standard: A proposal. https://1b9dd56c-a72a-4a23-82a6-2eeb4eed747d.filesusr.com/ugd/ba5732_f620bf7c1e2d45af809d9c406f253bd3.pdf

<strong><span class="has-inline-color has-accent-color">Christa Maciver</span></strong>
Christa Maciver

Christa is Head of Research, Policy and Communications at Just Life UK.

Twitter