Rent chaos

If you are lucky enough to become a tenant of a social landlord, what should determine the rent you pay?

Should it be a national Government-set formula that takes account of local incomes and property values? Or the cost of providing the home? Or your landlord’s local policy? Or your income? Or what will enable you to work or to stay within some benefit cap? Or the name of the programme your home was provided under? Or whether your landlord is currently building new homes or not?

Labour’s rent policy for social housing, rent convergence, was criticised for being very top down, with Government dictating the rent of each social rented home in the country (well, almost). It related rents to regional incomes and property values through a complex formula. Over time it aimed to converge council and housing association rents (the latter being significantly higher on average), with the consequence that council tenants faced faster increases. In addition to social rented homes, there were also various schemes that aimed to provide homes at discounted market rents, with or without a bit of subsidy, which were gradually subsumed with shared ownership into the category of  ‘intermediate homes’.

Whatever the criticisms and inflexibilities of the rent convergence policy, it provided some stability for a decade. Landlords generally knew where they were and could plan ahead. Tenants saw rents rising more rapidly than inflation but in a controlled way and they were mainly treated fairly in that the same system applied equally to all. Yet quietly, behind the scenes almost, subsidy for investment declined and rents took more of the strain. And that meant that housing benefit costs also rose.

Since 2010 things have got a lot more complicated, and with increasingly random effects on tenants. The system is the same if you are offered a normal social housing re-let, but there are scarcely any new ones to consider. Following the first spending review, the Government put what was left of the housing budget into the so-called ‘affordable rent’ product, where rents could go up to 80% of market rents (compared with the typical 40-50% for social rented homes). But the actual rent was determined through the bidding and negotiation process between the developer and the Homes and Communities Agency, and the outcomes vary hugely. To make the ‘affordable rent’ scheme work, a share of social housing re-lets (believed to be around 20% of lettings currently, otherwise estimated at 82,000 homes nationally over the life of the programme) were ‘converted’ from social to ‘affordable’ rents – ie stolen from the social rented stock. Everyone got confused by the term ‘Affordable Rent’. This was a deliberate ploy, it was ‘intermediate rent’ masquerading under a different name and was anything but affordable.

Now it appears the Government wants to distinguish between the tenants of ‘developing’ housing associations and ‘non-developing’ ones, enabling the former to charge higher rents and have faster increases. It may be that someone in CLG can make sense of this, but to a new tenant entering the sector the rent they are likely to pay will seem to be almost random. And that’s before they start considering any implications for them of the benefit changes.

The rent you pay should not be so hit-and-miss: it should be related to some rational process of assessment. There are many possibilities. Linking social rents to market rents has always seemed a daft concept to me as the factors involved are so different and markets are unpredictable. The concept of rent pooling, with surpluses from older properties helping to meet the costs of newer ones, made council housing work through its best years. There is more interest in linking rents to incomes (the London Labour Housing Group has talked about a ‘London Living Rent’ of 35% of disposable income) but this would involve a means-test and any such system would have to make sure that landlords could cover their costs.

The Government is talking about setting out a long term policy for rents during the Spending Review. I personally doubt if they will produce any coherence out of the chaos they have created. Looking back, Labour’s rent convergence policy looks a better decision than it seemed at the time, but the tide of opinion is moving correctly towards having more subsidy for building, keeping rents down and making us less dependent on housing benefit.

In a little poll, 85% of Inside Housing readers have opposed the idea of placing developing and non-developing landlords on different rent regimes. I’m not surprised.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Rent chaos

  1. Pingback: Frontline Friday 14th June 2013: Our favourite frontline blogs this week

  2. Jill Riley says:

    I believe that rents/service charges are never really set to match the reality that people exist within. How can a rent set at £80.33 be affordable to someone on benefits? And is spite of what official figures say…I for one am not on £26,000 a year…my benefits currently amount to £8,602.37 per annum…..does that mean I am owed £17,397.63 then from the Government?

  3. Edward says:

    I live in social housing. I am on benefits due ot serious illness, including some vulnerability in mental health terms. My neighbours are elderly or those on minimum wage. We all contribute to our community. There is no anti-social behaviour. I am now terrified of the uncertainty in all this. I believe social rents are already too high for people like us – most social housing tenants in other words. Surely keeping social rents low would help tenants have stable lives and move forward and keep the HB bill low? Development funding must be treated as a separate thing. The vulnerable tenants in social housing cannot take this on their shoulders.

  4. grahamangus says:

    I always supported Nick Raynsford’s policy of rent convergence it was a very sensible policy but it depended on continnuation of grant in order to enable Housing Associations to build new housing to be let at affordable rents. It had the additional merit that it forced reluctant local authorities to increase rents to a realistic level, with some of them their stock was in a poor condition because they had not allowed sufficient expenditure on maintenance and improvement. It was a rational realistic and fair system which applied across the whole of social housing. Now it is being torn up and we are reverting to the old unfair system where similar and adjacent houses ha. ve very different rents, here in Cornwall we have the ridiculous system where 3 bed houses are let at c. £80/ week and new 3 bed on same estate let at £ 150/week or £162.50 /48 weeks plus relets at much higher rents, Drastic cuts and irrational rents are the norm.

  5. Dan Filson says:

    It is useful to read of the current process for determining rents for social housing. I was a councillor previously in the 1980s when the prevailing policy was to try and restrain council rents after an 8 year period of Tory control where the policy had been to raise them to ‘policy rents’. My view at the time – though I was outvoted in Labour Group – was that we were wrong to be capitalising revenue repair expenditure on the scale that we were, given there were areas where genuine capital works were not being done for shortage of capital funding, when it should more reasonably have been met from rents and logically therefore rents should not be held down but moderately increased. After all the expenditure was pooled as were the rents, so the rent increases would not have been insufferable for those who had to pay them without benefit of Housing Benefit. What I had not taken into account was the Housing Benefit side of things, namely that for those on HB any increase in rents would be met by a corresponding rise in HB. Given that HB was not a charge on the rates (though exercises of discretion were), there was therefore no incentive on councils not to increase rents. So part of the current problems with the massive HB bill has been the disconnect between HB and the rent-charging body whether a housing association or a local authority. I don’t know the answer but saying there will be a cap on benefits under a Labour council without saying how this will be achieved seems to play into the hands of IDS and his mates,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s