| |
Is the policy to move the poor out of city centres?
• IN response to Meric Apak’s letter (Housing disaster, November 20) about the threat to secure council housing tenure, I would like to point out that it is not just council tenants who are being targeted, and not just secure tenure that is the issue.
These proposals are part of the sweeping reforms of welfare and social housing that are beginning to hit both council and housing association tenants.
As rents rise towards the governments “target rents”, social housing tenants on low incomes that are just above the “benefits level” are wondering how they are going to manage to keep up rent payments.
On top of this many social housing landlords are switching to the variable service charging system, bringing in higher service charges for many tenants. This is partly in readiness for offering estates choice in the level of communal services they have.
There is nothing to stop social landlords from concentrating their leasehold sales and market rentals on the nicer estates in better locations and, as these will command higher rent and sales income, it would only be good business sense to do so. But these estates, with a higher percentage of better-off tenants, will be more likely to vote for more services, and thus higher charges. The overall effect of these policies will not be as advertised by government and quango spin, less polarisation of estates into “sink” and better ones. It is more likely to sift out the lower-income tenants who cannot afford the higher costs. They will be “empowered” to “choose” to move to estates in less salubrious areas with fewer amenities and services, further from good transport links.
As government’s next target for what they call scrutiny is housing benefits for social housing tenants, it is not unlikely that housing benefit will no longer cover the extra services chosen by some estates. The most vulnerable residents will then also have to “choose” between paying extra costs or moving further downmarket.
Means-testing of social housing tenants will mean regular monitoring of those not actually on housing benefit, with their finances being pried into to see if they can afford to pay more rent or move into property ownership.
Not only is this a massive invasion of privacy (and privacy is essential to a real democracy), but will bring unnecessary stress into people’s lives.
The housing reform Green Paper will be out shortly, with even more threats to social housing tenants in it, all presented as greater opportunity, empowerment and choice.
Many housing association tenants are beginning to think that the real aims of these reforms are to move the poorer and most vulnerable out of the city centres, leaving the best and most conveniently located social housing to be taken over by city workers who can afford to buy the flats or pay high rents.
The “underclass” and the other less well-off, both council and housing association tenants, will be out of sight and out of mind.
The Chartered Institute of Housing and government policy makers and advisers insist that “housing is broken”.
Maybe. But is that any reason for them to take up their hatchets and thoroughly finish it off?
Vivienne St Clair
Housing association tenant, W1 |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
