Published 23.07.13
As far as I can see, an overcrowded private rented sector has two main impacts: first, it pits those in housing need against one another with potentially devastating consequences. Second, it enables landlords and letting agents to profit from the desperation of a market where tenants compete for properties rather than properties competing for tenants.
In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of Article 4 Directions implemented across England – these are measures brought in by local councils aimed at limiting the growth in shared housing for rent. Often this decision is cloaked in the rhetoric of creating ‘balanced communities’ and ‘opening up homes for families’. Let us peel back that rhetoric for a minute and look at what this policy does in reality; it shuts both students and other young people out of the only housing that is affordable to them.
With ever decreasing access to social housing and young people likely to be locked out of home ownership until at least their mid-thirties, we need shared housing more than ever. Exacerbating matters still more, we’ve now seen Local Housing Allowance for under 35s capped to the point that single occupancy accommodation is no longer an option for many more people. To add insult to injury, in Leeds where an Article 4 Direction has been implemented, houses which are much better suited to shared occupation are falling empty due to the fact that their owners are unable to rent them out to sharers. No one is winning here and this is clearly not the solution.
We need to take a moment to question why people’s instinct when it comes to the housing crisis is to ruthlessly asses who is more or less deserving of a decent home. This is just one example among many where different artificially defined groups are pitted against one another. We’re seeing students villainised and pushed out of the areas where they want to live. We’re seeing social housing tenants stereotyped as scroungers who don’t deserve stability. We’re seeing migrants seeking to contribute to the British economy having their eligibility for housing questioned. This constant effort to divide the nation up into ‘deserving’ vs. ‘undeserving’ cannot be allowed to continue – everyone deserves a stable roof over the heads and the chance to put down roots. We need housing for everyone.
The second area of impact I want to highlight, is that of tenant exploitation. An undersupply of housing has huge consequences for the experiences of renters whether they be students, young professionals or anyone else. Firstly, it limits the amount of leverage they have to ask for something of their letting agent or landlord. Prospective tenants are scared to ask for their rights due to fear of being characterised as a ‘troublemaker’ and passed over for another of the many willing takers queuing up behind them. Once into their tenancy, people are scared to complain or be persistent in asking for repairs or improvements due to fear of being evicted in retaliation.
Perhaps the most significant issue we’re seeing becoming increasingly problematic is the prevalence and level of letting agent fees; even once a student has managed to find suitable accommodation, the property is effectively held hostage until they cough up a huge sum of money which, quite often, they won’t have. For students, they’ll often need to secure accommodation before they’ve even got a sniff of their maintenance loan and it’s therefore no surprise that a small, but significant group are turning to payday lenders such as Wonga to enable them to secure their accommodation.
It is clear to me that until we have suitable housing for everyone, the status quo will work for no one – unless that is, you’re a fat cat property developer (in which case it works very well indeed thank you very much). We need to forget our differences, whether they be political, social or economic and join forces to say a resounding Yes to Homes.
Colum's column 