There are two problems with the current system of housing benefit. The first is that it costs the taxpayer too much – a massive £20 billion at the moment, around £4 billion of which is as a result of the recession. The second is that the quality of the housing provided is substandard. An estimated 40 per cent of the homes paid for in this way do not meet the decent homes standard. That means they are damp and draughty, expensive to heat, and are in need of essential repairs and upgrading. If the Ministry of Defence spent this amount of money to procure something so poor, it would be a national outrage.
In the social housing sector the previous government accepted it had a responsibility for raising the quality of the housing that it pays for: it had a target that 95 per cent of social housing stock should meet the decent homes standard by the end of this year. The target may not be met, but its existence has certainly driven up standards. There has been no such commitment for the private sector. No wonder that there is a clear link between wealth and health when the children of people on benefits live in properties of such a poor standard.
Considering both these problems together leads to different policy conclusions than if we consider the issue of cost alone. To address the quality issue, all landlords should be required to be on a register (the legislation already exists). To get on the register, the home would need to meet the decent homes standard. Housing benefit would then not be paid to tenants whose landlord was not on the register.
When the landlords complain, because they are unable or unwilling to undertake the necessary investment, they would be offered the opportunity to have their property managed on, say, a 30-year lease by a social letting agency. They would get a lower rent stream, and hence the benefit bill instantly comes down, but they wouldn’t have to worry about managing the property or the tenants, and over time the state would use some of the savings to bring the property up to scratch. Or, of course, the landlord could simply sell, giving an opportunity for a forward-looking government to purchase more social housing at a knock-down price.
Combining housing policy with housing benefit policy is something that the siloed world of Whitehall has found hard to achieve. But when the prize is better quality homes at a more affordable price, surely it’s worth a try.
better still of course why did you not build council houses when you were in power then you could have controlled the rent, but you did not you went from social housing to helping the banks by allowing people in the shit to have to go into more debt with mortgages labour Tory Tory labour your all the same.
You’re saying that privately owed housing should only be available to DHSS renters if the landlord signs up to a scheme. Many landlords like DHSS tenants as the rent is more reliable. The problem is that many landlords don’t want tenants who are on the dole and this is creating a further barrier. Taking into account that the current government are bringing down rents in the social sector, this makes it even less feasable. However, there’s a good idea in there, but I think it would need the input of the landlords to ask what they want in return in order to induce them into the scheme. Otherwise you could end up with a whole load of homeless people.
Kitty Ussher was a former Labour MP and adviser to Patricia Hewitt who as minister was hell bent on privatising as much as possible while spouting left wing rhetoric. Her proposals would mean yet mor e bureaucracy which would maintain the ineffectual public sector workers in jobs while producing little housing. This in a nutshell is the story of socal housing. I am totally in favour of draconian housing benefits as I do not want to subsidise the feckless and the permanently or long-term economically inactive large families in the most expensive areas. Registering landlords is an old idea and it did not work as Ussher knows. In fact the inspection regime of local authorities was one of the first things to be cut even under New Labour. The powers under the Private Dwelling Management Orders were not used and expecially not by Labour councils. This is something which Labour Housing Group has been silent on. Why? Because like Usser they want more and yet more regulation. And of course they are arguing for yet mor e social housing so that the economically inactive can be housed. Demos has produced some interesting proposals on poverty but this is not one of them