Amazing. You wait years for a programme about council housing to be shown on TV, and then two come along at once. Following last month's excellent history of council housing on BBC 4, this week we had Panorama on the acute shortage of social housing and the way that some people with homes cheat by sub-letting them at a hefty profit.
The difficulties facing families looking for a reasonably-sized council or housing association property is not exactly news. However, it clearly demonstrates how Labour failed miserably to ensure that sufficient new council homes were built during the 13 years it was in power.
What was illuminating is how councils such as Portsmouth actively dissuade families and individuals with little chance of getting a home from remaining on the waiting list, so reducing the figures by thousands. If other authorities are doing the same thing (and why wouldn't they?), the estimate of how many people are waiting for social housing may in fact be an underestimate.
The unlawful subletting of council and housing association properties is, of course, a major issue that most social landlords are addressing and probably requires even greater scrutiny. But of greater concern at present is how the shortage of social or affordable housing is going to be tackled when so little government money is being spent on new homes.
Earlier this week, the deadline passed for housing associations to bid for grants from the Homes and Communities Agency to help them fund new homes that will be let at up to 80% of market rents. So-called 'affordable renting' is now the only game in town so far as government-funded house building is concerned. This means people that can only afford cheaper, social, rents will have to make do with existing homes that are re-let, assuming landlords are not tempted to increase rents on these properties as well.
At the same time, some councils have told housing associations they will not support bids to build homes for affordable renting in their area, especially if the people moving into them are offered fixed-term tenancies lasting as little as two years.
It is not an encouraging picture. In some ways, it might seem reasonable that families who can afford higher rents (and only require state-subsidised housing for a few years) pay more and accept a fixed-term tenancy. But there is no indication of where the next generation of social housing is going to come from, or who is going to house the most needy as the supply of existing homes slowly dwindles.
Programmes such as Panorama can help by bringing the issue to public attention, but whether anyone from the coalition government or the Department for Communities and Local Goverment was watching and is willing to take action remains doubtful.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Monday, 11 April 2011
Why tenants should not bank on making money from cashback scheme
It was a story guaranteed to give social housing a rare bit of publicity in the mainstream media. Council and housing association tenants that carry out repairs to their homes (or pay someone else to do it) are to be entitled to compensation under a new scheme known as 'tenant cashback'.
According to housing minister Grant Shapps, households could even make money out of the scheme by pocketing any savings and putting it towards a deposit on a home. Landlords might also save money, he added, while local contractors would enjoy a bonanza from all the extra business.
'Tenant cashback' is, of course, part of the government's drive for localism and community empowerment. It also allows ministers to give social landlords a gentle slap on the wrist by suggesting they don't keep homes in proper condition or, when they do, they spend too much money.
All of which slightly ignores the fact that councils and housing associations normally strive to negotiate the most economical price for repairs, sometimes by working as part of consortia. Quite how an individual tenant is going to get a better deal on their own, or by joining forces with a few neighbours, is hard to see.
Furthermore, if a tenant carries work themselves that turns out to be substandard, who is going to shoulder responsibility? It will be cold comfort for tenants waiting to move into a home to be told that major repairs are needed because the former occupant did not employ reputable contractors while at the same time claiming money from the council or housing association.
No, the fact is that, in the vast majority of instances, tenants would prefer to call their landlord and get them to carry out any repairs as quickly as possible. If they are not satisfied with their landlord's response, or the standard of work carried out, they should of course complain until the work is done properly.
It was left to the Chartered Institute of Housing to point out that council tenants have had the right since 1985 to call in their own contractors if a local authority does not repair their home fast enough. By 1989, 71 claims had been agreed, after which the government stopped collecting data. It wouldn't be a surprise if interest in 'tenant cashback' wanes even faster.
According to housing minister Grant Shapps, households could even make money out of the scheme by pocketing any savings and putting it towards a deposit on a home. Landlords might also save money, he added, while local contractors would enjoy a bonanza from all the extra business.
'Tenant cashback' is, of course, part of the government's drive for localism and community empowerment. It also allows ministers to give social landlords a gentle slap on the wrist by suggesting they don't keep homes in proper condition or, when they do, they spend too much money.
All of which slightly ignores the fact that councils and housing associations normally strive to negotiate the most economical price for repairs, sometimes by working as part of consortia. Quite how an individual tenant is going to get a better deal on their own, or by joining forces with a few neighbours, is hard to see.
Furthermore, if a tenant carries work themselves that turns out to be substandard, who is going to shoulder responsibility? It will be cold comfort for tenants waiting to move into a home to be told that major repairs are needed because the former occupant did not employ reputable contractors while at the same time claiming money from the council or housing association.
No, the fact is that, in the vast majority of instances, tenants would prefer to call their landlord and get them to carry out any repairs as quickly as possible. If they are not satisfied with their landlord's response, or the standard of work carried out, they should of course complain until the work is done properly.
It was left to the Chartered Institute of Housing to point out that council tenants have had the right since 1985 to call in their own contractors if a local authority does not repair their home fast enough. By 1989, 71 claims had been agreed, after which the government stopped collecting data. It wouldn't be a surprise if interest in 'tenant cashback' wanes even faster.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Can housing associations save public services?
First the good news: housing associations are making more money. Nobody in social housing talks about recording a profit, of course, because that is not what social landlords were put on earth to do. But the bald facts show that associations' total surplus in 2010 after tax was £609m - up £406m on the previous year. Even associations set up following the transfer of ex-council homes chipped in for the first time, reporting a modest surplus of £56m. Normally they record deficits.
There was some criticism in 2009, when the sector's overall surplus fell from £319m to £203m. Associations should be capable of better, said finance directors, especially as turnover was rising. Last year's more impressive result came in spite of the fact that sales of homes (either outright or part-sales through shared ownership schemes) have not recovered to pre-credit crunch levels.
The Tenant Services Authority's analysis of housing association accounts, published on the same day as the Budget, shows surpluses from the sales of 'fixed assets' down 40% on 2008. But the TSA praised associations for controlling management and repair costs better, while the sums paid in impairment charges where associations have to write down the value of land they own fell by £20m.
But why, you might say, is all of this important? Historically, associations have ploughed surpluses back into not just housing but into other activities that benefit communities, including health and training. With councils reeling from government cuts, associations might be the best bet we have to ensure community services are not completely decimated over the next few years.
Liverpool Mutual Homes, the largest housing association in the city, has set up a £700,000 social dividend fund that offers grants to community groups for social enterprises and other projects. It would be surprising if other associations did not do the same thing, so proving that social landlords were part of the 'big society' long before anyone at Conservative Central Office came up with the idea.
Whatever happens, there will be far more money flowing through associations' balance sheets in the years to come as they raise rents for new, and some existing, homes to as much as 80% of market rates. While they will be expected to use much of the extra proceeds to fund borrowing for further development, there is no reason why some money could not be set aside to fund community services.
With the future of associations' charitable status being questioned in some quarters, what better way to show that they have not lost touch with their local communities and vulnerable people in particular?
There was some criticism in 2009, when the sector's overall surplus fell from £319m to £203m. Associations should be capable of better, said finance directors, especially as turnover was rising. Last year's more impressive result came in spite of the fact that sales of homes (either outright or part-sales through shared ownership schemes) have not recovered to pre-credit crunch levels.
The Tenant Services Authority's analysis of housing association accounts, published on the same day as the Budget, shows surpluses from the sales of 'fixed assets' down 40% on 2008. But the TSA praised associations for controlling management and repair costs better, while the sums paid in impairment charges where associations have to write down the value of land they own fell by £20m.
But why, you might say, is all of this important? Historically, associations have ploughed surpluses back into not just housing but into other activities that benefit communities, including health and training. With councils reeling from government cuts, associations might be the best bet we have to ensure community services are not completely decimated over the next few years.
Liverpool Mutual Homes, the largest housing association in the city, has set up a £700,000 social dividend fund that offers grants to community groups for social enterprises and other projects. It would be surprising if other associations did not do the same thing, so proving that social landlords were part of the 'big society' long before anyone at Conservative Central Office came up with the idea.
Whatever happens, there will be far more money flowing through associations' balance sheets in the years to come as they raise rents for new, and some existing, homes to as much as 80% of market rates. While they will be expected to use much of the extra proceeds to fund borrowing for further development, there is no reason why some money could not be set aside to fund community services.
With the future of associations' charitable status being questioned in some quarters, what better way to show that they have not lost touch with their local communities and vulnerable people in particular?
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Homelessness falls, or is it going up?
Every three months, the government reveals how many people in England are classed as homeless. Publication of the quarterly statistics is largely ignored by the media, which is generally only interested in how much houses cost rather than how many people can't afford to buy, or rent, one.
The latest figures, for the period to December 2010, make slightly confused reading. On one hand, the number of households living in temporary accommodation fell to 48,010 and is 10% lower than during the same period in 2009
At the same time, local authorities are dealing with more cases of homelessness and, in nearly half of them, accepting they must do something about it. Just over 26,000 households made applications to local authorities between October and December - 42% of which were accepted as priority cases where the council must provide assistance. The total number of applications was up 23% on the corresponding quarter in 2009.
The number of homelessness cases where local authorities are under a legal duty to provide assistance had been declining since 2003, before starting to rise early last year. The government says it has now stabilised at about 11,300 cases per quarter, but it is too early to say whether the number will rise again, or start falling.
All of which begs the question, has the credit crunch and recession resulted in more homelessness or not? Given that the economic crisis was largely caused by reckless bank lending for mortgages and had a major knock-on effect on housing, one might easily expect the situation to be worse than it is.
According to the government figures, most people become homeless because of breakdowns in family relationships, with just 3% of current cases caused by mortgage arrears. During the recession of the early 1990s, the number of cases involving households with mortgage problems peaked at 12%.
More worrying at present is what happens to people requiring temporary housing. Under Labour, the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children fell dramatically. Yet during the final quarter of last year, 660 families with children were in B&B compared with 400 at the end of 2009.
While this is just 2% of the 36,230 families with children in all types of temporary accommodation, it is a worrying trend that needs to be reversed immediately to avoid the problem of homelessness becoming far more visible to society as a whole.
The latest figures, for the period to December 2010, make slightly confused reading. On one hand, the number of households living in temporary accommodation fell to 48,010 and is 10% lower than during the same period in 2009
At the same time, local authorities are dealing with more cases of homelessness and, in nearly half of them, accepting they must do something about it. Just over 26,000 households made applications to local authorities between October and December - 42% of which were accepted as priority cases where the council must provide assistance. The total number of applications was up 23% on the corresponding quarter in 2009.
The number of homelessness cases where local authorities are under a legal duty to provide assistance had been declining since 2003, before starting to rise early last year. The government says it has now stabilised at about 11,300 cases per quarter, but it is too early to say whether the number will rise again, or start falling.
All of which begs the question, has the credit crunch and recession resulted in more homelessness or not? Given that the economic crisis was largely caused by reckless bank lending for mortgages and had a major knock-on effect on housing, one might easily expect the situation to be worse than it is.
According to the government figures, most people become homeless because of breakdowns in family relationships, with just 3% of current cases caused by mortgage arrears. During the recession of the early 1990s, the number of cases involving households with mortgage problems peaked at 12%.
More worrying at present is what happens to people requiring temporary housing. Under Labour, the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children fell dramatically. Yet during the final quarter of last year, 660 families with children were in B&B compared with 400 at the end of 2009.
While this is just 2% of the 36,230 families with children in all types of temporary accommodation, it is a worrying trend that needs to be reversed immediately to avoid the problem of homelessness becoming far more visible to society as a whole.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Why housing has to keep the right company
These are difficult times for companies set up by local authorities to manage and, in theory, improve their council housing.
Arm's length management organisations (almos) first appeared on the scene nearly 10 years ago, primarily to attract government money for bringing homes up to the decent homes standard. An admirable aim and one for which Labour probably isn't given proper credit, the standard usually involved installing new kitchens and bathrooms in what were often rundown flats and houses.
Almos were the main alternative to councils transferring their homes to a housing association (which could then raise money for the work via private borrowing). However, they would not have been necessary in the first place if Labour had stubbornly refused to give money directly to local authority housing departments.
A decade or so later, many of the 60 councils with almos have started to question whether they are really necessary, especially where decent homes work is complete. A few councils have gone so far as to abolish their almos and take management work in-house again.
In the meantime, the coalition government has annoyed councils that went to the lengths of creating an almo by suggesting that, when it comes to claiming grants for outstanding decent homes work, an almo is no longer necessary. Last month, the Homes and Communities Agency gave £379m of the £1.6bn it was handing out in grants to non-almo authorities. At the same time, 11 councils with almos that bid for money received nothing.
But that does not mean almos have no future whatsoever. Next month, in East Kent, a so-called 'super-almo' will start managing 18,000 homes owned by four district councils, including Canterbury and Dover. All four have completed their decent homes work, and so the motive now is saving money, not raising grants from the government.
The 'super-almo' model appears to be in line with the government's policy of councils sharing services and so cutting overheads. East Kent Housing, as it was named by tenants, aims to save £2.5m during the next three to five years.
Whether it will be first and last of its kind remains to be seen, but those that have waved the almo banner so enthusiastically since 2002 will be hoping that it represents a way of making sure they are still around for a few years yet.
Arm's length management organisations (almos) first appeared on the scene nearly 10 years ago, primarily to attract government money for bringing homes up to the decent homes standard. An admirable aim and one for which Labour probably isn't given proper credit, the standard usually involved installing new kitchens and bathrooms in what were often rundown flats and houses.
Almos were the main alternative to councils transferring their homes to a housing association (which could then raise money for the work via private borrowing). However, they would not have been necessary in the first place if Labour had stubbornly refused to give money directly to local authority housing departments.
A decade or so later, many of the 60 councils with almos have started to question whether they are really necessary, especially where decent homes work is complete. A few councils have gone so far as to abolish their almos and take management work in-house again.
In the meantime, the coalition government has annoyed councils that went to the lengths of creating an almo by suggesting that, when it comes to claiming grants for outstanding decent homes work, an almo is no longer necessary. Last month, the Homes and Communities Agency gave £379m of the £1.6bn it was handing out in grants to non-almo authorities. At the same time, 11 councils with almos that bid for money received nothing.
But that does not mean almos have no future whatsoever. Next month, in East Kent, a so-called 'super-almo' will start managing 18,000 homes owned by four district councils, including Canterbury and Dover. All four have completed their decent homes work, and so the motive now is saving money, not raising grants from the government.
The 'super-almo' model appears to be in line with the government's policy of councils sharing services and so cutting overheads. East Kent Housing, as it was named by tenants, aims to save £2.5m during the next three to five years.
Whether it will be first and last of its kind remains to be seen, but those that have waved the almo banner so enthusiastically since 2002 will be hoping that it represents a way of making sure they are still around for a few years yet.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
A listening government?
Whisper it quietly but, just occasionally, the coalition government listens to criticism over housing. Last month, it backed down over plans that would have meant people claiming job seeker's allowance saw 10% of their housing benefit deducted it they did not find a job within a year.
Now it looks as if plans to radically change the terms under which families rent social housing are being quietly revised. Last year, you may recall, there was a huge fuss when David Cameron questioned whether, in future, council tenants should automatically get a home for life.
By the time proposals were published a few months later, social landlords were given the option of letting homes to new tenants for as little as two years, but there was no requirement. This week it was revealed that most councils and housing associations have no intention of offering such short tenancies.
As a result, the government now says that, while two-year tenancies remain an option, it expects tenancies will be for longer in most cases, especially where households include children or vulnerable people. Common sense, you might say?
Well, organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Housing are continuing to lobby for a minimum fixed term of five years. Others will say that is too short. The point is that, so long as it is left to the discretion of social landlords, it seems unlikely that any changes will be as Draconian as first seemed.
Some would argue that a council home should always be for life. But the fact is that social landlords offer a range of accommodation and will increasingly do so, especially if it becomes the norm to let newly-built properties at 80% of market rents.
In many cases, mobility has to be encouraged. Getting the balance right is going to be tricky, but at least the government appears to be leaving decisions to those that, in the main, understand and respect the needs of families on the housing waiting list.
Now it looks as if plans to radically change the terms under which families rent social housing are being quietly revised. Last year, you may recall, there was a huge fuss when David Cameron questioned whether, in future, council tenants should automatically get a home for life.
By the time proposals were published a few months later, social landlords were given the option of letting homes to new tenants for as little as two years, but there was no requirement. This week it was revealed that most councils and housing associations have no intention of offering such short tenancies.
As a result, the government now says that, while two-year tenancies remain an option, it expects tenancies will be for longer in most cases, especially where households include children or vulnerable people. Common sense, you might say?
Well, organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Housing are continuing to lobby for a minimum fixed term of five years. Others will say that is too short. The point is that, so long as it is left to the discretion of social landlords, it seems unlikely that any changes will be as Draconian as first seemed.
Some would argue that a council home should always be for life. But the fact is that social landlords offer a range of accommodation and will increasingly do so, especially if it becomes the norm to let newly-built properties at 80% of market rents.
In many cases, mobility has to be encouraged. Getting the balance right is going to be tricky, but at least the government appears to be leaving decisions to those that, in the main, understand and respect the needs of families on the housing waiting list.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Affordable renting that only the jobless can afford
The government has a problem when it comes to house building. It desperately wants to see more so-called 'affordable' homes built by housing associations, private builders and even local authorities, but it hasn't got much money to pay for it.
The solution it has come up with is called affordable renting. In future, most households moving into new housing association properties (as well as some existing homes) will pay higher rents. The extra money raised will be used to fund borrowing, so that associations can build additional homes without being as dependent on government grant.
But what exactly is affordable renting, and who exactly will be able to afford it? In the prospectus for its 2011/15 affordable homes programme, the Homes and Communities Agency describes affordable rent as a form of social housing. Except it's not.
Associations will be able to charge up to 80% of market rents and, given that the idea is to raise money, will have every incentive to do so. Higher rents can be charged on new homes and existing ones when they are relet to different families (but not when tenants who currently pay social rents remain in the same home).
In some areas, particularly London and Southeast England, affordable rents could be as much as £200 per week higher than social rents. The only constraint will be the housing benefit system. If associations charge rents that exceed the maximum that qualifies for local housing allowance, they risk not picking up the full sum from households on housing benefit.
For in many cases, it will be housing benefit that funds affordable renting, not individuals. Crazy as it sounds, the government is cutting the amount it invests in affordable housing through grants, and then picking up the majority of the bill when households move into homes where rents are significantly higher.
The problem for housing associations in the north and midlands is that, in some areas, the difference between social and market rents is negligible. But even they hope to find some areas where they can use affordable renting to raise money.
The difficulty for individual households, especially in the south, will be affording the higher rents assuming they are not on housing benefit. Will they really seek jobs if it might mean finding somewhere new to live and whatever happened to the idea of making work pay?
Meanwhile, the government has made it clear that it will only provide grants to build new social housing in exceptional circumstances. As increasing numbers of homes are switched to affordable renting as they are relet, we could end up with situations where families pay vastly different rents for neighbouring properties that are virtually identical. Then again, will tenants really mind if the government is footing the bill?
The solution it has come up with is called affordable renting. In future, most households moving into new housing association properties (as well as some existing homes) will pay higher rents. The extra money raised will be used to fund borrowing, so that associations can build additional homes without being as dependent on government grant.
But what exactly is affordable renting, and who exactly will be able to afford it? In the prospectus for its 2011/15 affordable homes programme, the Homes and Communities Agency describes affordable rent as a form of social housing. Except it's not.
Associations will be able to charge up to 80% of market rents and, given that the idea is to raise money, will have every incentive to do so. Higher rents can be charged on new homes and existing ones when they are relet to different families (but not when tenants who currently pay social rents remain in the same home).
In some areas, particularly London and Southeast England, affordable rents could be as much as £200 per week higher than social rents. The only constraint will be the housing benefit system. If associations charge rents that exceed the maximum that qualifies for local housing allowance, they risk not picking up the full sum from households on housing benefit.
For in many cases, it will be housing benefit that funds affordable renting, not individuals. Crazy as it sounds, the government is cutting the amount it invests in affordable housing through grants, and then picking up the majority of the bill when households move into homes where rents are significantly higher.
The problem for housing associations in the north and midlands is that, in some areas, the difference between social and market rents is negligible. But even they hope to find some areas where they can use affordable renting to raise money.
The difficulty for individual households, especially in the south, will be affording the higher rents assuming they are not on housing benefit. Will they really seek jobs if it might mean finding somewhere new to live and whatever happened to the idea of making work pay?
Meanwhile, the government has made it clear that it will only provide grants to build new social housing in exceptional circumstances. As increasing numbers of homes are switched to affordable renting as they are relet, we could end up with situations where families pay vastly different rents for neighbouring properties that are virtually identical. Then again, will tenants really mind if the government is footing the bill?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)