Tag: renters rights

Categories
Blog Post

Will the Renters’ Rights Bill end the temporary accommodation crisis?

The number of people trapped living in temporary accommodation is a national scandal.

Temporary accommodation has contributed to the deaths of 74 children in the last five years, according to figures from the National Child Mortality Database. Nearly 170,000 children, akin to the population of Oxford, are currently growing up in homes characterised by issues like overcrowding, damp and mould. Meanwhile, it’s temporary in name only. The average time a household with children spends living in temporary accommodation is now more than five years.

At the same time, providing it is crippling local authority finances, with related council spending increasing by 97% in the past five years.

The Labour Government have been in power for over a year now, but the crisis shows no signs of abating. The latest Statutory Homelessness Statistics showed the number of households in temporary accommodation rose by 12% in January to March, when compared to the same period the previous year.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Politicians and renters alike will hope that the Renters’ Rights Bill could be one tool to bring down the number of people trapped in temporary accommodation. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner even said as much during the Second Reading debate for the Bill. The Bill passed through the House of Lords on 21st July and will likely receive Royal Assent in the Autumn.

There is some truth to this claim. According to analysis from Shelter, someone approaches a local authority as threatened with homelessness due to a ‘no fault’ Section 21 eviction every 21 minutes. The long-awaited outlawing of Section 21 will therefore help turn off the tap from private renting to temporary accommodation somewhat, as will the doubling of notice periods to four months when people are evicted.

However, the glaring gap in the Bill is the lack of any measures to reduce the soaring cost of renting. Landlords will still be able to use sudden rent hikes as an economic eviction to price their tenant out of the home.

Recent polling from the Renters’ Reform Coalition found more than a third of renters would be forced to move by a rent increase of £110 per month. But analysis by the campaign group suggests the average rent increase awarded to landlords at first-tier rent tribunals, the service through which renters challenge rent increases, is more than double this at over £240 per month.

The Government’s housebuilding targets are welcome, but, even with all the political will in the world, it will take years for people to see their impact. If we think of the temporary accommodation issue as an overflowing bath, the numbers of households are only going to significantly reduce if the Government finds a way to pull out the plug.

Right now, it is the soaring cost of private rents that is preventing people from moving on from temporary accommodation. According to Zoopla, the average monthly cost of private rents has risen by £221 in the last three years alone. Meanwhile, analysis from Crisis found just 2.5% of private rented properties are affordable for people claiming benefits.

Introducing a commonsense limit on how much landlords can raise the rent would help slam the brakes on the cost of renting, giving people on low incomes the breathing space needed to find a home.

Alongside this, the Government must unfreeze the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate, which governs how much housing benefit people can receive. The Work and Pensions Committee, a cross-party group of MPs scrutinising this area, recommended last year that “The Government should make a commitment to uprate annually Local Housing Allowance so that it retains its value at the 30th percentile of rents”.

This report and that recommendation was written and produced when Sir Stephen Timms was chairing the committee. Timms has since gone on to become Minister for Social Security. Giving evidence in Parliament last month, I suggested that the committee could ask the Minister what has changed.

Keeping LHA frozen only shifts the cost elsewhere. The cost of providing temporary accommodation was recently described by Labour MP and chair of the Housing Committee Florence Eshalomi as trapping councils in a “straight jacket”, preventing them from focusing on longer-term solutions. Meanwhile, landlords who provide temporary accommodation can be the worst of all, renting out awful properties and profiteering off the desperation of local councils.

Even with the Renters’ Rights Bill all but finished, there are other opportunities for the government to take action. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will start the parliamentary process in the Autumn. Within it, the government should include powers for Mayors to introduce a limit on rent rises in their areas. This is something Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has called for in the past and is similar to the approach the SNP is taking in Scotland. While the Treasury must unfreeze LHA in the upcoming Autumn Budget.

The Renters’ Rights Bill is a vital first step in addressing the power imbalance between tenants and landlords. But if the government doesn’t use that momentum to reduce the cost of renting, the temporary accommodation crisis will sadly be a permanent fixture in our society.

Categories
Blog Post

The Renters’ Rights Bill holds promise, but beware the tailless rats

Roupell St / SE1 by Images George Rex is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

“The best laid schemes of mice and men, go often askew”; a warning a century and a half ago by the poet Robert Burns, on how even our most well-intended ideas may fail or falter by virtue of unintended consequences.

It is a parable that perhaps should have been heeded 100 years later in Hanoi, French Indochina (now Vietnam). As rat populations in the city ballooned beyond control amid the construction of a new sewer system, the French colonial rulers devised a solution: a bounty programme. For every severed rat tail – proof of an eliminated rodent – the government would pay a small fee to the exterminator.

Colonial figures soon realised the oversight in their rush to quell the crisis, however. Criminal enterprises had shifted their focus to farming, as the city’s shadowy suburbs became the breeding ground of rats and a new source of income. The result was a city now overrun with more rats than ever – most of them tailless.

This analogy is not without cause. The case for reform in the private rented sector has been mounting for some time, and has been spurred after hundreds of seats went from blue to red over the summer. The new Labour Government has signalled its commitment to renters, armed with a strengthened Renters’ Rights Bill and a haste to act.

Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

But as the Bill passes to Committee Stage, Parliament must recognise the risk of unintended consequences.

The end of Section 21 has always been the centrepiece of this legislation. But even this – as detailed in a recent report we supported from our colleagues at the Renters’ Reform Coalition – runs the risk of a rise in illegal evictions by criminal landlords.

The speed of this Bill is commendable, but caution must persist. Those watching the Second Reading will have noted the Secretary of State’s refusal to commit to publishing an impact assessment. Given the wide-ranging impacts of the Bill, failure to produce one is unwise.

We are, however, greatly encouraged by the announcement of the Bill’s public consultation. Our contribution concerns one key issue: Ground 6A.

Ground 6A is a proposed mandatory ground for eviction that would see renters removed from their homes with no defence to the claim, in instances where a landlord has breached legislation.

The aim of Ground 6A is to provide landlords with a route to vacant possession in order to avoid a range of sanctions that could be imposed by local authority enforcement teams where a breach to housing law has been made and also, theoretically, to offer renters protections from the health and safety hazards or criminal landlord behaviour.

The Ground supposes that, should a local authority decide that a landlord’s leasing of a property is unlawful, that landlord will be subject to further fines or sanctions until the tenants are evicted, which under the new regime they cannot be without Ground 6A’s existence (unless the landlord decides to sell).

Take Red Brick’s short reader survey

However, in reality, it is Ground 6A itself which will force landlords to evict renters or face fines. If evicting renters was the only way to comply with enforcement action and such an eviction was impossible, the landlord would clearly have a ‘reasonable excuse’, which in the Housing Act 2004 provides a complete defence to all of the potential offences they might be charged with.

Once the option to evict tenants because of enforcement action exists, such a reasonable defence completely disappears and eviction becomes the only option, even when tenants have nowhere else to go or when the property is in good condition.

Thus, in effect the worst criminal landlord behaviour is paid for by the renter necessarily losing any tenancy rights whatsoever – a moral and logical contradiction to the intentions of the Bill.

This, therefore, will create an enormous incentive for the worst-offending landlords to evict at no fault of the renter: the very problem that the abolition of Section 21 – one of the core principles of the Bill – is seeking to remediate.

But while this potential policy outcome seems nonsensical and punitive, it is far from the only consequence.

From evidence we’ve gathered, we know it is commonplace for landlords in the shadow private rental sector to routinely warn renters that the council will evict them should they complain. This is spurious and arguably a form of coercion, and without an amendment to this Ground, encourages this kind of exploitation and fatally undermines the whole purpose of the Bill: to protect renters from criminal landlords.

Just when local authorities need their powers of enforcement enhanced, this would likely diminish the effectiveness of their enforcement strategies as the worst conditions are pushed underground.

Prior to the Government’s Amendment 1 to the Bill, Ground 6A would shift the burden and costs of providing appropriate housing away from the non-compliant landlord and onto either the renter or the local authority, with costly temporary accommodation the likely destination. The amendment will order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant where possession is obtained on Ground 6A.

An improvement certainly, but insufficient in real terms too. For one thing, the possession order is not conditional on the compensation payment being made, so many landlords will simply not pay the compensation in our view.

This would be an offence against natural justice: a landlord is in breach of the law but neither the renter, nor the local authority enforcement teams, are incentivised to pursue action because either, if not both, are faced with the social and financial consequences that should rightly fall to the landlord. Renters are thus faced with the question: do they seek action but face homelessness or continue to live under the criminal conditions of their landlord?  This is not the renters’ justice we expected.

Within the wider framework of the Bill – much of it enormously positive – it may feel finicky to focus all of our attention on the ‘small print’ of Ground 6A. But this, like Hanoi’s rat programme, could create far reaching and unintended consequences, with both renters and local authorities incentivised not to act. The criminal landlord, meanwhile – whose lies are now emboldened by law –  is free to act nefariously and with impunity.

Given the breadth of this Bill, and its public prominence, the new Government must heed the lessons of Hanoi. We do not wish for the Renters’ Rights Bill to leave the Government holding redundant rattails with only hindsight.

Categories
Blog Post

A King’s Speech with hope for housing

2023 State Opening of Parliament by Houses of the Oireachtas is licensed under CC BY 2.0

‘My government’s overriding priority is to ensure sustained growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses…’

2009

The last time a Labour Government set out its legislative agenda was in November 2009, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and the world was reeling from the global financial crash. This was a world before Brexit, when our aspirations included ‘peace in the Middle East’, ‘to improve management of water supplies’, ‘a reformed second chamber’ and to ‘abolish Child Poverty’. The 2010s were indeed a lost decade.

What did not get a mention was housing. The recognition of housing as a key determinant of the nation’s physical and economic health, had still not been effectively made. Arguably, this enabled the subsequent annihilation of social housing grant by Grant Shapps more politically acceptable than it should have been.

Fast forward fifteen years and we are living through a housing emergency the like of which we have not seen since the 1940s. Not one part of the housing system works effectively, be it renters’ rights, the lives blighted by years in temporary accommodation (not to mention the effect this has on local authority finances), the lack of social housing, the scandal of leasehold. Add to that building safety, the need to decarbonise our housing stock and the near impossibility for anyone getting on the housing ladder without substantial help from ‘the bank of Mum and Dad’ and it is a grim picture.

The last 15 years have seen the resurgence of housing campaigns not seen since the 1960s. Organisations like Shelter and Crisis have become the nation’s conscience and they have been joined by newer players such as Generation Rent, Priced Out and the National Leasehold Campaign. It would take a brave politician to say that housing is not one of the most salient issues.

So this morning we heard how our new Labour Government is going to spend its time, and the early political capital that comes with a massive majority. And, unlike 2009, housing was at the forefront of its agenda.

Central to this King’s Speech is a proposal to kickstart homebuilding by reforming the planning system, most notably shifting local input to an ‘how, not if’ basis in areas failing to build enough housing. Doing this marks a considerable shift in the housing debate on the ground, enabling discussions to go ahead on the basis that homes will go ahead, and making it easier for communities to discuss their priorities for new developments, whether these be social housing delivery, greener homes, or infrastructure enrichment.

Reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules will make it cheaper to build housing, and particularly the social housing which we so desperately need. And simplifying the consenting process for major infrastructure projects will make it easier to ensure that the homes we deliver are well-provisioned with high-quality green infrastructure.

Importantly, its labelling as a Planning and Infrastructure Bill is an encouraging sign that government will increasingly tie together planning for housing and infrastructure, something called for by both sectors for some time.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives’ failure to pass the Renters’ Reform Bill is being remedied with its revival as the Renters’ Rights Bill. Not only will this introduce the long-awaited ban on Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, but it will allow renters to challenge ‘unfair’ rent increases, apply the Decent Homes Standard and Awaab’s Law to the private rental sector, and create a digital private rented sector database. These measures will provide certainty to millions of private renters across the country who live in fear of eviction with no warning or reason.

Finally, the King’s Speech set out plans to reform the exploitative leasehold system. While the last Government passed some moderate changes to make it easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold, the Draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill will introduce the wide-ranging measures of the Law Commission, along with banning the sale of new leasehold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure. For the millions living in leasehold properties this will be a welcome relief.

Detail will follow in coming days on what exactly this legislation will look like, but it shows a strong commitment to both providing the homes we need, and ensuring that those living in them have security and dignity in their tenure. 

This King’s Speech is an encouraging start for what a Labour Government can do with a majority in the House of Commons. But key for many of the important measures to fix the crises in social housing delivery, decarbonising homes, and improving quality, require public spending. After clearing this hurdle, the upcoming spending review and Autumn Statement will both be opportunities to show how much money this Government is able to commit to solving these crises. 

Categories
Blog Post

A bold housing strategy means tackling more than building

The UK’s housing crisis is reaching a critical point. Rents are soaring, whilst homeownership remains out of reach for many after years of house price increases outpacing wage growth. In the late 1990s, the average house price was 3.5 times the average income in England – as of 2023, this had more than doubled to 8.2 times, with prices exceeding 12 times incomes in many areas of London. All of this means that homelessness is skyrocketing – with Britain having by far the highest rate of homelessness in the rich world when you include those in temporary accommodation, which is the largest form of homelessness. Combined with decades of declining social housing stock, demand for social homes now far outstrips supply, and local authorities are being forced to spend record amounts on high-cost, poor-quality temporary accommodation from the private sector, driving them into severe financial difficulty. In 2022/23, £1.8bn was spent by councils on temporary accommodation, over double that spent in 2018/19.

It’s in this context that this month, Positive Money and London Renters Union, a grassroots tenants union representing over 7,000 members, brought together parliamentarians, renters unions and policy experts for a discussion in parliament, Beyond Building: Fixing the UK Housing Crisis.

The discussion reflects a growing awareness that addressing the multiple crises that our housing system not only reflects but is exacerbating – from inequity that runs along racial, class and generational lines, to the climate impact of British homes – requires a fundamental shift away from homes from being treated as assets for accumulating wealth. Positive Money’s Banking on Property report sets out why approaching the crisis as a problem of housing supply alone will likely do little to solve it. Available academic evidence (plus UK Government modelling) also suggests that meeting the house building target of the current government is unlikely to bring house prices to an affordable level. As a problem driven by a toxic combination of the weakening of financial regulation and monetary policy, and wider housing policy choices including tax incentives, The Right To Buy and the deregulation of the private rental market, a housing policy agenda fit for the situation we’re in must address these drivers head-on.

Those at the sharpest end of the housing crisis, including private renters, intuitively understand the need to confront the distribution and price of housing. Yet despite an abundance of evidence and the vocal campaigning of those most impacted by the crisis, policy discussions often remain laser-focussed on how to increase the building of new homes. And despite Rachel Reeves’ welcome announcement that ‘a house should be a home not an asset’, Labour has so far announced little in the way of policies that truly reflect this ambition. Doing so undoubtedly requires a bold and multi-faceted policy programme, and a willingness to challenge the interests of those who benefit from our extractive housing system. But with housing costs making up one of the biggest items of expenditure for any household, there is a strong case that doing so would pay off for a future government.

The discussion brought together a range of voices to discuss the solutions needed, focussing on two key policy areas that, in our view, should form important components of a long-term vision for a more affordable, safer and healthier housing system: local authority acquisitions of privately-rented housing for use as council homes; and proper regulation of the private rented sector to provide security and affordability for tenants. As Beth Stratford, economist and co-founder of the London Renters Union, highlighted, the two ideas dovetail well. Since much of the pushback against regulation of the private rented sector cites concern that it could cause landlords to sell properties, acquisition programmes offer an out for those private landlords who may indeed choose to exit the sector, whilst providing the social housing we urgently need.

‘Buy back’ schemes are gaining momentum as a way to take advantage of the recent softening of house prices to rapidly increase the stock of council homes and support the sustainability of local government finances. As social housing expert and crossbench peer Richard Best reflected upon during the discussion, such programmes are not new – in the 1960s and 70s, tens of thousands of privately rented-properties, often ‘entire streets’ of houses in poor condition, were purchased and renovated by local councils. London’s buy-back schemes are key recent examples, but remain limited in scale in comparison, and do not match the ambition of similar programmes being pursued in cities like Barcelona.

Alex Diner, Senior Researcher at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), presented an analysis of how London’s buy-back scheme would more than pay for itself through both directly reducing council payments to private housing providers, as well as indirect benefits from health and earnings improvements. NEF’s proposed reforms, including establishing a national fund to support acquisitions at scale, could replicate such savings across the country whilst providing much-needed social housing. Similar programmes could be designed to support the acquisition of privately-rented homes for community-led housing, like cooperatives and community land trusts. But as speakers discussed, central to this will be a new government setting a goal to actively shift tenures away from the private rented sector’

Whilst acquisitions could offer a rapid route to expanding social housing stock, it’s unlikely that even the most ambitious agenda could alleviate the urgent situation faced by so many renters. As members of the renter unions in attendance highlighted, in the face of record price increases, insecurity, and poor quality of privately rented housing that disproportionately impacts Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, rent controls in some form are needed.

As representatives of Living Rent, Scotland’s largest tenants’ union, explained, Scotland’s experience – where a temporary in-tenancy rent freeze has led to landlords’ hiking rents for new tenancies – is something that the rest of the UK can learn from. Policymakers should take solace from the fact that far from being put off by such experiences, major unions like Living Rent and the London Renters Union, which organise thousands at the sharpest end of the housing crisis, are instead mobilising members to call for long-term and well-designed policies to get rents under control.

Perhaps the clearest message that emerged is that many of those involved in developing and campaigning for policy solutions to the housing crisis understand that building new homes, while useful, is not a silver bullet solution. We need a suite of measures, which must include reversing financial deregulation and tax changes that incentivised property speculation, which have been major drivers of house price inflation. But reclaiming privately rented homes, and protecting those in the private rented sector, must be key pillars of a progressive housing agenda.

Categories
Blog Post

The renters’ rights movement must look beyond ‘affordability’

As we enter the worst recession in 300 years, renters’ incomes will be squeezed with chances of meaningful wage-increases remote for most. As such, all concerned with safeguarding and improving renters’ quality of life should turn their attention to minimising the cost of living where possible.

Given housing costs are renters’ greatest expense, how rent is determined should be scrutinised closely with rent reduced as much as possible. In addition to benefiting renters as individuals, reductions in rent would serve to fortify aggregate demand during the recession1.

Competing definitions of affordability

In 2011, the coalition government introduced a definition of affordability which provided a rented property would be classified as ‘affordable’ if it cost no more than 80% of the local market rent.

The definition was absurd.

It is impossible to calculate whether something is affordable if the formula you use takes no account of the renter’s income and essential outgoings. In response, various well-intentioned actors, including the Labour Party came up with their own definitions² of affordability focusing on renters’ income and ability to pay.

The limitations of a focus on ‘affordability’

Any suggestion that market forces should not be the sole determinant of renters’ housing costs should be broadly welcomed. However, limiting demands around housing costs solely to those of ‘affordability’ has served to tacitly legitimate the landlord and renter relationship, a relationship that is, at its core, inherently exploitative.

The principle that landlords should profiteer from renters has become locked-in as ‘something that goes without saying’, all calls for affordability demand are that landlords’ profiteering should not be so great as to cause renters excessive hardship. Crucially, a focus on ‘affordability’ for the renter has meant the landlord’s side of the relationship has avoided scrutiny.

Scrutiny of how landlords justify the rent they charge exposes the inherent unfairness of the landlord and renter relationship

1) ‘Supply and demand’ might explain rent levels, but explanation does not equal justification!

Housing costs for renters should be based on the actual cost of supplying the home, not what the market can bear. Sometimes, because of the layout of the plumbing in certain properties, it is impossible for water companies to provide individual water bills for each household. When this is the case, the landlord of the building will receive one water bill for the entire property and then invoice each household for their portion of the bill.

It is unlawful for landlords to make a profit from the re-sale of water in such circumstances as it is recognised it would be morally abhorrent to profiteer from something so necessary to human survival when the water company has already done so.

Given shelter’s own importance to human survival and given that everyone involved in the construction of the home has already been paid for their work and materials, there is no compelling reason why re-sale of shelter should be treated differently.

2) Landlords’ costs of supplying a home, outside of initial acquisition, are negligible compared to the rent they charrge.

45% of landlords own their renters’ homes outright without a mortgage. For such landlords, the ongoing cost of supplying a property to a renter is limited to the costs incurred keeping the property in a good state of repair and fit for human habitation (£73.17 per month on average for a three bedroom home). In comparison, the average rent on a three-bedroom home in Manchester is £895.00 per month.

3) It is unfair for landlords to expect renters to cover the cost of initial acquisition of the home through their rent, unless ownership is transferred in exchange!

As an alternative to pointing to the free market price mechanism, landlords sometimes use their Mortgage CMIs as justification for the rent they charge. It is unfair for them to do so. If landlords want somebody else, i.e. renters, to cover their costs in acquiring ownership of the home, as a basic point of fairness, ownership of the home should be transferred to the ones doing the actual paying in exchange.

Currently, landlords have their cake and eat it, at the renter’s expense.

Moving beyond affordability

If challenges to housing costs focus solely on ‘affordability’ a systematic investigation of landlordism, and subsequent exploration of pathways that could lead to greatly reduced housing costs for renters, such as nationalisation of the private rented sector, become foreclosed.

It is unclear why, historically, supposedly progressive actors have been content only to ask for ‘affordability’ on behalf of renters. There may have been a lack of courage in challenging landlordism head on, or perhaps a latent ‘protestant work ethic’ type notion that it is virtuous for housing costs to be at least a bit of a burden for renters.

Whatever the historic reasons, we are now in extraordinary times, merely asking for affordability is not good enough.

<strong><span class="has-inline-color has-accent-color">Tom Lavin</span></strong>
Tom Lavin

Tom Lavin is on the organising committee of ACORN Liverpool and a Justice First Fellow working in housing law at Merseyside Law Centre. He previously worked for Shelter as a housing adviser.

TWITTER

1 This argument is made here in relation to rent suspensions but can equally be applied to reducing rent.

² Housing charity Shelter state a rented property should not be considered affordable if housing costs are greater than 35% of net household income: https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/08/what-is-affordable-housing/  Manchester City Council came up with a more convoluted formula based on the average income of residents in the city: https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/100007/homes_and_property/7638/manchester_housing_strategy/2