My friend is a home owner, the house next door is run by an ALMO who have put a tenant in who has trashed two social houses previously belonging to the same ALMO, this tenants behaviour has not changed, she and her children are causing mayhem and the language is foul.

My friend has approached the ALMO several times and asked them to control or move this person because they were aware of her attitude when they gave her the house, the patch manager has spoken to the bad nieghbour several times to no avail.  The patch manager says nothing further can be done, is not the landlord at fault here for putting this trublesome person who they had full knowledge of into what was a peaceful and quiet area.

This is a very hard question and difficult situation.  I don’t think my previous situation will apply here, as there the Local Authority was directly recommending a tenant to a landlord who then suffered physical damage to the house.  Here the person suffering is a neighbour and there does not appear to be any actual damage to property.

It is quite true that landlords are not responsible for the actions of their tenants.  This follows on from the general rule that one person cannot be held liable for the actions of another person.

But does this mean that social landlords can with impunity make the lives of neighbours into a misery by knowingly placing known nightmare tenants into properties in respectable neighbourhoods which they would never otherwise be able to live in?  Do they not have some sort of obligation to act in a responsible manner when placing tenants, and to have some consideration for the neighbours?

But then what are they to do with these people?  There is a temptation to say that tenants who act in a grossly anti social manner should be disqualified from having further help from social service organisations.  But they have to live SOMEWHERE – where are they to go?  I can’t see any real answer – certainly not in these straightened times when there are not the resources to give them proper support.

What do you think?

To help potential buyers, tenants of social housing are likely to get the right to buy their home – a hallmark of the Thatcher government in the 1980s – for as little as half the market price.

This is the issue discussed in the government report on page 26 onwards (you can read a summary of all the points on Nearly Legal here).

The words ‘social landlords’ presumably means housing associations.  Which worries me.  As does the intention to revive Mrs Thatchers right to buy.  This resulted in a massive reduction in social housing stock which was never replaced.

I don’t know what the housing associations think about the prospect of being forced to sell off their housing stock at up to 70% discount (in some cases).  How will this affect their general viability?

And even if the sale money IS going to be used to build new houses (and can we be sure of that?), why does the property need to be sold off at such a huge discount?  Is it fair on the rest of us to give social tenants such a big windfall?  No doubt many of them will then flog it on at a profit (when the rules allow).

From a brief reading of the government report it looks as if a large chunk of the sale price will still go to the treasury, which makes me wonder if this is not just a disguised selling off of the national assets to raise money.

What do you think?

DJ madness

I was in Cardiff this week, training a group of housing officers for the Chartered Institute of Housing on how to successfully obtain possession orders.

I’ve been delivering the course for 10 years now and every single time the delegates complain that their county court judges are entirely mad and inconsistent with their decisions, I reassure them that every housing officer up and down the land has the same complaint about district and circuit judges but it isn’t just DJs who are mad. in fact madness is my theme this week.

Madness in the kitchen

Whenever I am at Cardiff I always shoot into their fantastic covered market to fishmongers, E.Ashtons to buy a tub of laver bread, which I adore in bacon sandwiches, or more precisely, bacon and scallop sandwiches. I can never find it in London.

I brought it into work today to dip some crackers in it and get looks of abject horror when I offered some to my colleagues who think I am barking mad. Frazzy says it looks like something I have just scraped off of my shoe and refuses to even look at it. I am going to sneak it into a sauce for dinner and then surprise her with the news afterwards.

Bedroom window madness

Nearly Legal flagged up a hilarious – if it wasn’t depressing- article in the Guardian  about an exchange of ideas going on in government about the ministerial definition of a bedroom for the purposes of universal benefit when it comes in.

The idea being that if a person has a room that they aren’t using they will have money knocked off their payments. Lord Freud conceded that a box room with a window that doesn’t open wouldn’t count.

Lord Foulkes suggested that this may lead to social housing tenants boarding up their windows to avoid benefit cuts to which Lord Freud said mysteriously that the government would work to prevent such action.

Lord Foulkes told the observer “The response was almost as if they had some window police or authorities to check up with people to stop them blocking up windows to avoid moving”.

Now maybe the laver bread is affecting my sanity but I am starting to see a solution that might help bring down unemployment through the creation of an army of fake window cleaners who would be silently Squidgying-away surreptitiously checking if the window opens or not. Sending a signal back to the spotter in the back of the van, 2 brisk slaps of the chamois leather for yes, 3 slaps for no.

House price madness

And more madness was revealed this week by 24 Dash in an article that showed house prices in the south west of England are currently 12-13 times the average salary for the area.

I lived down there for a few years and local wages were appalling. There has always been the idea voiced that it is cheaper to live in the country which is not what I found at all. Food and clothing were the same price as anywhere. The only things cheaper were rents and house prices but wages were so low it balanced out. Now if housing costs are coming up and wages are stuck where they were when I lived there people are going to seriously suffer.

Most people I knew down there were doing 2 or even sometimes 3 jobs just to get by. I wonder what they think of all this?

The article reports that despite homelessness applications in the region rising by 10% local authorities have axed plans to build 106,000 new homes. Madness.

Spooky madness

It was also reported this week by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors that murders and hauntings can drive house prices down. However they also said that having an ex celebrity occupant can drive house prices up.

They didn’t say anything about the effect on house prices of celebrity ghosts though. I’d buy a house that was haunted by Errol Flynn, wouldn’t you?

Demolition disaster

And finally, the maddest of mad ideas doing the rounds at the moment. This takes us into social housing territory folks, bear with me as it is situation that should have been a sub plot in Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’.

Everyone knows that we have a housing crisis, largely because we don’t have enough homes for people to rent or buy. Forget affordable or PRS rents and mortgage deposits for a moment and just concentrate on house numbers.

The country is screaming for new homes to be built. Government say they are pushing as fast as they can to get this done. Some people are claiming that major developers have around 250,000 plots with planning permission already granted but are sitting on it to boost prices. Whatever angle you take, we need more homes, nobody disagrees on this.

Now there is a thing called the Housing Revenue Account, HRA, on which a national debt of £21 billion (yes that’s not a misprint) has been spread over the country’s stock owning councils based on the amount of houses that they have.

The less houses you own come 2017 the less debt you have to take on. So in order to reduce their debt several councils are planning to demolish homes. Reported in Inside Housing  Nottingham and Birmingham city councils plan to knock down 2,000 homes between them. The former estimating that if they knock down 973 properties they will lose £10.2 million debt.

Eastbourne council are planning to demolish retirement blocks to reduce their debt, at a time when there is much brouhaha about the elderly downsizing to free up stock for others.

Is that mad or what?

And as the men with butterfly nets chase me around the office in an attempt to prevent me from invading Russia on a small white horse spare a thought for Frazzy and her dinner tonight. I have found a recipe for a sauce of laver bread mixed with cream, chicken stock and the juice of an orange to serve over a lamb chop. Evil genius or just mad?

Ben Reeve Lewis

Ben has started Home Saving Expert, to share his secrets to defending people’s homes from mortgage repossession Visit his blog and get some help and advice on mortgage difficulties and catch up with him on Twitter and check out his free report “An Encouraging note on Dealing with your Mortgage Lender” and have it sent right to your inbox.

Laverbread picture by Sarah and Ian, attic room picture by David Barrie

This series is mainly about the private rented sector, as that is the focus of this blog (and my services). However I think we should take a quick look at the social sector if only to see how this differs from the private rented sector (PRS).

A quick history

The social rented sector has its roots in those almshouses and charitable housing trusts which have been set up by monied persons from the Middle Ages onwards, together with various kinds of philanthropic commercial housing organisations and housing co-operatives.

You know the sort of thing, housing provided for certain classes of people, such as the destitute of Xborough, retired employees of RedWidgets Ltd, or reformed harlots.

At the start of the last century this was about all there was. Then between about 1920 and 1980 Local Authorities were encouraged to provide housing for low income residents. This eventually grew to be an important part of their service and a significant sector of rented housing overall.

Sadly since then they have been encouraged to divest themselves of their housing stock, and transfer this function to local housing associations.

So how does it all work and what sort of tenancies do they have?

Well in the social sector, the tenancy type will depend mainly on whether your landlord is a Local Authority or not, and if not, when the tenancy started.

Local Authority housing

Initially there was not much regulation of Local Authorities as they were considered (naively perhaps) to be ‘model landlords’ and were rather left to run things as they wished.

However this all changed in 1985 when the Housing Act 1985 was passed, and this is the act which now regulates local authority housing, as amended in various ways subsequently.

Under this act, tenancies let by a local authority will in most cases be a ‘secure’ tenancy. It is also possible for these types of tenancies to exist with landlords who are housing actions trusts and some housing co-operatives and types of urban corporation. But they are mostly local authorities.

These tenancies are generally let at a lower rent than tenancies in the PRS and have long term security of tenure. There are two exceptions to this:

• Introductory tenancies – these are a probationary period where a tenant has to prove himself, during which he has limited security of tenure. They generally last for a year after which the tenant will have a normal secure tenancy.
• Demoted tenancies – this is where a tenants rights are reduced by the landlord getting a demotion order from the court. During the time the tenancy is demoted the tenant will have no security of tenure. However if they behave themselves the tenancy will go back to being secure again.

As with private sector housing, the Thatcher government had a big influence on local authority housing. First they introduced the right to buy, during which probably the best of the local authority housing stock was sold off at an undervalue. As local authorities were not able to use the sale money to build new housing, this had the effect of massively reducing the amount of social housing available to needy tenants. We still feel the effect of this today.

The other factor was the encouragement given to local authorities to sell off their housing stock (such as remained) to separate housing associations. This is why many local authorities no longer have any housing of their own any more.

Other social housing

This generally means housing owned by ‘registered social landlords’. The phrase Registered Social Landlords used to mean landlords regulated by the Housing Corporation. Then the changes started.

In 2008 the Housing Corporation was replaced under the Housing and Regeneration Act, with the Tenant Services Authority. Then in 2010 the Tenant Services Authority extended their remit to all social housing providers including (from what I can make out) local authorities.

However the coalition government is NOW going to do away with the Tenant Services Authority and its regulatory functions will apparently be taken over by a committee in the Homes and Communities Agency.

Got that? No, I’m not sure I understand it all either. But I am pretty sure that during the changeover period vast sums will have been expended in an orgy of rebranding exercises, new headed stationary, and new websites. Why can’t they just leave things as they are?

Lets leave the regulatory side and take a look at tenancy types.

Tenancy types

Non local authority social housing is a mix of the Housing Associations, trusts, co-operatives and companies.

Most of the tenancies are let out on assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988, although older tenancies will be protected tenancies under the Rent Act 1977. Before 25 January 1989 Housing Associations could also grant secure tenancies under the 1985 Housing Act so some of these will still remain. But mostly they will be assured tenancies.

Social landlords granting tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 cannot give introductory tenancies but they can instead give assured shorthold tenancies and then convert these to assured by serving a notice on the tenant to that effect. However they can, if the tenant proves unsatisfactory, apply to the Court for an assured tenancy to be demoted for a period of time, as local authorities can.

Differences between the private and the social rented sectors

• Social housing is owned by either a registered charity or an organisation which is set up to provide housing as a social service, or a local authority
• It will usually be cheaper than housing in the private sector, the cheapest tending to be local authority housing
• Generally tenants will have long term security of tenure, unless the tenancy is an introductory or a demoted tenancy.
• Social housing providers will generally have waiting lists which people desiring accommodation with them can apply to join. However they will usually have rather a long wait!

I think thats about as deep as I want to delve in the murky depths of social housing law. Next time I will be looking at some additional regulations.

(See the index to the whole series here)

Almshouse picture  by Maxwell Hamilton

The report considers what seems to be a permanent trend – the decline in home ownership in this country.  Together with the worrying fact that this does not appear to be relected in government policy, which is still based on the idea of increasing home ownership.

Decline in home ownership

The peak of home ownership it seems was in 2003 with 70.9%. It has now slid down to 67.4% in 2009/10.

There are a number of reasons for this:

• property prices are high meaning that it is beyond the reach of most people
• Greater personal debt, in particular
• young people leaving full time education having to pay off loans taken out to pay for tuition and other expenses
• Since the financial crises mortgages have been harder to obtain, and
• Changing work patterns and increased mobility make renting more attractive

Problems for government

Heywood states that the English population is set to increase by about 30% in the next 25 years which equates to some 250,000 households per year. With house building at an all time low, this is worrying.

However government seems to be turning a blind eye. The coalition has affirmed its commitment to extending home ownership, for example  Grant Shapps ‘Age of Aspiration’ speech. To quote from the paper

Much government policy and activity is predicated on high and rising levels of home ownership. This includes economic policy, asset-based welfare policies such as elderly care in the community, revenue from taxation including stamp duty land tax, and a range of other services.

Asset based welfare policies are those which provide service on the basis that they will be paid back by the recipients from their assets – in most cases the family home.  However if people are living in rented accommodation this will not be possible – meaning in most cases that government will not get repaid.

Pluses and minuses

However it is not all bad news. Here are some positive points on a declining home ownership:

• the private rented sector is more suitable for a more mobile work force which may be needed in future.

• a contracting housing market may be less prone to ‘bubbles’ and if less volatile this may  help improve economic performance

• if less personal wealth is locked up in housing this may result in a different pattern of saving which could benefit other parts of the economy such as manufacturing

On the other hand:

• would the fact that fewer people will have access to the equity in their properties to fund purchases result in a lower level of consumption, and

• would a lower consumption in owner occupier related expenditure such as DIY products have a negative effect?

Social housing

Turning to social housing providers, Heywood makes the point that falling home ownership levels (and an increasing population) will only exacerbate the current problems of finding affordable housing for those unable to buy.

If the government wants housing to be available at ‘affordable’ sub market rates, then government is going to have to get involved.  It is not reasonable or realistic to expect the private sector to provide this. However the current government does not seem poised to take any significant action.

Conclusions

I have only been able to skim through the report and it really needs a more careful analysis than I am able to provide. However some of the main concluding points are:

• Government must come to terms with the fact that its current policy of extending home ownership is unrealistic unless it is able to provide substantial investment – which we all know is not going to happen

• It must also look at how to bring in institutional investment and expand the corporate landlord sector. Bearing in mind that a large proportion of current landlords in the private rented sector are private individuals with only few properties.

• There is also the huge problem of how to increase housing supply from its current catastrophic levels.

• Plus there are also implications for other government activities as the assumption of high and rising levels of owner occupation are embedded in policies.

The report concludes as follows

In considering a strategic response to what could prove a continuing shift in the balance of tenures, the issue of an alternative social vision will therefore inevitably be raised. Such a vision will have to encompass the role of the state, the funding of welfare, and the relationship between housing tenure and the culture of citizenship. It will involve developing new concepts, but it will also involve a clear-sighted application of those new concepts across the full breadth of public policy formation.

You will find the report online here.  What do you think about this?  Do you think Heywood is right?  What action do you think government  should take in view of falling home ownership levels?