Localism Bill

2. CIH member consultation

This submission has been informed by extensive research and consultation with housing professionals and others with a keen interest in the housing sector since John Hills’ review of social housing in 2007. In adopting new approaches, social housing reform should protect and enhance current approaches which demonstrably work best for individuals and communities: protecting the vulnerable, providing a safe, secure and affordable base to pursue individual aspiration; and maintaining and developing stable, engaged and sustainable communities.

This consultation response represents the views of CIH as a professional body and it incorporates feedback from individual members drawn from different parts of the housing profession located all over England. CIH engaged extensively with its members, who have a wealth of experience and a commitment to excellent housing services. Our specific engagement to inform this response included:

· Eight regional social housing reform consultation events in the East Midlands, West Midlands, London, the South East, Yorkshire and Humberside and the North West. Over 300 members working at different levels in the profession actively participated in these discussions.

· An online survey which generated 295 responses from CIH members (a summary of findings is available at http://www.cih.org/socialhousingreform/).

· An online open-access discussion forum, and receipt of individual written submissions from members.

Our members have expressed great disappointment with the limited timeframe given for consultation on these proposals. CIH echoes that disappointment: the impending changes to the housing system will affect millions of households for many years to come, and so the short timeframe to consider the impact and suggest refinements to policy is totally inappropriate.

The proposals to reform social housing are taking place alongside other significant changes which affect housing such as regulatory reform, the launch of affordable rent, planning reform, and benefit reform. The impact of these proposals is not isolated from other changes in government policy, and the likely impacts and interrelationships of these policies need thorough consideration.

3. Summary of our main points

Our submission sets out CIH’s views of the changes being proposed, which are the same as the ones expressed in our response to the recent consultation Local decisions: a fairer future for council housing. In most cases we are comfortable for the new powers to be available, but unconvinced that they will have the effect government intends.

Our priorities for amendments to the legislation are:

1. A minimum fixed term of two years for a flexible tenancy is too short. We would like an amendment to the Bill so that a minimum of five years is introduced.

2. Social landlords should have the power to change the terms of a tenancy (e.g. to charge more rent or convert to shared ownership) at the end of a fixed term tenancy, and we would like amendments to enable this.

3. We do not support the proposal that the Housing Revenue Account deal can be reopened in future. Local authorities need security to plan their business for the future. We would also like local authorities to be able to keep receipts from Right to Buy sales.

4. We want the provision for a ‘democratic filter’ (that tenants can only access the Ombudsman if they are referred by an MP, councillor, or tenant panel) to be removed. It is a barrier to access to a valued dispute resolution service, and creates a process which many will find difficult to negotiate.

5. There is no need to ‘remove’ existing tenants from the allocation system when they want to move but are not in priority need; existing allocation systems can be altered to enable the same outcome with significantly less cost and greater transparency.

6. Housing professionals’ capacity to use the new homelessness powers with confidence will be limited by weaknesses in regulation of the private rented sector. We want to see national-level action in the form of greater regulation of the PRS In line with Rugg Review proposals. Much better resourcing of regulatory activity at local level is also required to improve capacity.

Views we would like to express to the committee are:

7. We have been supportive of consumer regulation and do not want to lose momentum in the journey towards co-regulation. We want to avoid a situation where national consumer-focused regulatory activity is withdrawn before local capacity is fully ready to replace it.

8. The affordable rent model is problematic – a revenue model has inbuilt instability for tenants as well as providers; it creates a two-tier social housing offer which will be confusing and inconsistent for tenants; and it does not provide sufficient capacity outside of high value areas.

9. The tenure and waiting lists reforms risk having impacts which run counter to government intentions, and creating bureaucracy and cost without significant return to tenants.

10. Government’s approach to housing reform risks further residualising the sector and turning social housing exclusively into welfare – which will hinder individual community sustainability and engagement.

4. Detailed evidence on specific housing clauses

Below we set out key points and more detailed evidence on specific housing clauses.

Allocations p4

Homelessness p7

Tenancy strategies p10

Flexible tenancies p13

Housing finance p24

Housing mobility p26

Regulation p30

Housing complaints p31

Allocations

Clauses 121, 122 and 123 make reforms to the legislation on the allocation of social housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 (the 1996 Act). They give

local housing authorities in England the power to determine what classes of persons are or are not qualifying persons to be allocated housing and take existing social tenants out of the scope of Part 6, with the exception of those who must be given reasonable preference for an allocation.

We make the following key points :

· There are some positive elements in the broad proposals to introduce greater flexibility in allocating social housing. For example, restricting access to the housing register could lead to more realistic customer expectations and deliver a more accurate picture of need for sub-market housing at a local level. However, local authorities would need to work closely with housing association partners to determine appropriate access arrangements to support sustainable application of affordable rents at the household and community level.

· Limiting access to the housing register to the statutory groups will seriously hinder providers’ ability to target a range of affordable housing options at different groups in an area. This contradicts government’s stated aspiration to offer support to low income earning households.

· CIH challenges the suggestion that restricting access to housing registers will improve access to social housing or create more options for people to meet their housing needs.

· There is no need for additional reasonable preference categories. However, there is an appetite for greater local discretion to add categories to suit the local context. It may also be useful to flex the CBL bandings and priority given to the reasonable preference categories.

· CIH supports the aspiration to change allocations systems so they can better support existing tenants who wish to move, but does not feel that running dual waiting lists will achieve this aim – we would rather see reform of the existing framework to enable the aspirations of existing tenants to be addressed.

Detailed evidence

CIH has called for a review of the way in which waiting lists operate in order to generate a more realistic picture of housing need locally and across the country and to better manage customer expectations. There are now over 1.8 million households on social housing registers. Many of those on social housing registers have no realistic chance of getting a home. In addition, these statistics are not representative of overall housing need [2] . There is widespread misunderstanding about the allocation of social housing and perceptions of unfairness [3] which can be a source of tension in communities [4] .

There is no need to change the existing reasonable preference categories.

There are a number of potential advantages to proposals to introduce new flexibilities around the use of waiting lists. These include:

· Applicants for social housing would be more realistic about their housing options.

· More realistic waiting lists would lead to a more accurate picture of need for sub-market rented housing locally.

But there are also potential disadvantages to the current proposals:

· Turning social housing into welfare housing – so it is only accessible by people in acute need.

· Increased pressure to help applicants access accommodation in the private rented sector.

· An increase in the risk of homelessness if and where tenancies fail in the private rented sector.

We are sceptical that closing housing registers will do anything more than reducing the number of people on them – it will not improve access to social housing or create more housing options for people struggling to meet their needs.

Tenants/residents involvement in influencing housing registers qualification criteria

CIH notes that government is committed to providing public services which are more transparent, more effective, and cheaper; simultaneously enhancing local accountability to local people for services delivered at a local level [5] . This should include the opportunity locally for tenants and residents to influence the local authority’s qualification criteria for the housing register. However, for tenants and residents to be able to participate meaningfully in influencing the decision making of local authorities, they will need a certain level of capacity and social capital. The local authority will also need the right skills to facilitate meaningful and inclusive community involvement in decision making. This capacity is known to be lacking in many areas, meaning that some communities could be excluded from this ‘Big Society’ approach. Local authorities will need to recognise that existing and potential tenants may have quite different views about qualification criteria, and they will need a way to manage this.

Tenants and residents will already have been involved in devising allocation policies in some areas, and good practice can be identified from these experiences. In addition, local lettings plans are commonly used by social landlords, and so there will be good practice around tenant and resident involvement/consultation which can be drawn from their development. Our Practice Brief, Allocations and local flexibility, contains useful guidance and examples in this regard.

Removing transferring tenants not in housing need out of the allocations system

CIH would like to see social landlords enabled to address the transfer aspirations of existing tenants – as in any service it can be frustrating to cater for new customers to the detriment or exclusion of existing ones. The idea of taking existing tenants outside of the allocation framework is unclear, and as described so far sounds as though two systems will be required to run in parallel, which will be cumbersome and lack transparency.

There are potential problems if separate systems are required:

· It could potentially generate higher levels of demand for internal moves which could be difficult for landlords to manage, particularly in areas of high demand.

· It could perversely create less transparency about who is moved.

· It could generate additional staffing, administration and management costs.

· It could create tensions with local authority partners.

· It could create ‘springboard tenancies’ – where tenants get a home through the housing register and then instantly request a transfer on the existing tenants register to see if they can get a ‘better’ property.

We accept that there is a range of advantages to proposals to enable landlords to use the new flexibility created by taking social tenants seeking a transfer who are not in housing need out of the allocation framework. These include:

· Increasing mobility in and through the social rented sector.

· Generating shorter waiting times for internal movers.

· Enabling social landlords to take action to deal with under-occupation and thus make more efficient use of the housing stock.

· Enable providers to exercise greater flexibility in their allocation decisions.

· Make it easier for social landlords to create chain lettings.

· Provide greater customer choice and enhance the way existing customers are treated by their landlords.

· Accelerating the transfer process.

Our preference, to gain these benefits and avoid the problems listed above, would be to see the allocation framework amended so the aspirations of existing customers could be included without requiring a demonstration of ‘need’ – for example by building on the good practice around chain lettings and management moves.

Homelessness

Clause 124 enables a local authority in England or Wales fully to discharge the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation with an offer of suitable accommodation from a private landlord, without requiring the applicant’s agreement. Tenancies must be for a minimum fixed term of 12 months.

Clause 125 provides that the main homelessness duty will recur, regardless of

whether the applicant has a priority need for accommodation, if the applicant becomes unintentionally homeless again within 2 years of accepting a private sector offer and re-applies for accommodation.

We make the following key points :

· CIH broadly welcomes proposals on homelessness reform as an immediate solution to current problems in terms of use of temporary accommodation and an insufficient supply of social housing units to meet demand, but there are challenges around discharging the duty in this way which must be addressed.

· We have serious reservations about the availability, affordability and suitability of private sector housing in many areas to provide accommodation for people owed the main homelessness duty.

· Government reforms to homelessness duties must be accompanied by additional regulation of the private rented sector to improve its quality. More funding and power to regulate the PRS will be required, as well as to support provision of decent homes.

· CIH points out that access to private rented sector housing could be significantly limited by new restrictions on local housing allowance payable, which could limit the workability of the proposed measure.

· CIH notes that the private sector already plays a very significant role in meeting the temporary accommodation needs for authorities in connection with their homelessness duties, and that housing professionals are accustomed to working with private landlords.

· Without some form of tenancy support in the private rented sector, there could be higher rates of tenancy failure amongst the formerly-homeless.

· We would like to see further explanation and modelling in practice of what the proposal for duty to recur if a formerly-homeless person subsequently housed in the PRS became homeless again within a period of two years.

· We would be comfortable to accept a requirement for 12 month PRS tenancies for people owed a homeless duty.

Detailed evidence

CIH broadly welcome proposals on homelessness reform as an immediate solution to current problems in terms of use of temporary accommodation and an insufficient supply of social housing units to meet demand. CIH believes

that it is not possible to look at social housing in isolation from the wider housing offer and the private rented sector should be a key component in a more joined up approach to meeting housing need in England. Proposals to make more effective use of the private rented sector could free up waiting lists and facilitate quicker transfers. However, there are key concerns around the quality and affordability of accommodation in the private rented sector, the quality of private sector housing management and access to the sector which must be addressed. We are therefore calling for more finance and power to regulate the PRS, to accompany the proposed changes in homelessness legislation.

Potential positive outcomes which could be seen in some areas are:

· More realistic expectations around tenancy options.

· Greater availability of social housing for non-homeless households.

· Homeless people could be moved into a settled home more quickly.

CIH notes that the private sector already plays a key role in meeting the temporary accommodation needs for authorities in connection with their homelessness duties. The sector currently houses almost 57,000 households, over 70 per cent of the total temporary accommodation needs in England with private sector leasing (PSL) providing the bulk of this total. Some organisations have built up considerable experience of delivering cost effective PSL schemes for local authorities whilst ensuring that tenants benefit from high standards of management and maintenance.

We anticipate that most local authorities will make use of the power to discharge the homeless duty by housing people in the private rented sector. The scale of use is likely to vary by authority – depending on the price and availability of private rented accommodation in different market areas. It is likely that rural areas will find this power less useful than urban ones.

The lower end of the PRS can be quite poor quality in some areas and housing professionals will be loathe to house homeless households in accommodation they do not have confidence in themselves. There will therefore be a requirement for further funding to assist the private sector in providing decent homes and assisting in sustaining tenancies for vulnerable groups.

We hope local authorities would also assess the likelihood of a homeless household being able to sustain a private tenancy before discharging duty, and to have criteria for when a household would be more appropriately housed in social housing.

Housing professionals have reservations about the availability, affordability and suitability of private sector housing in their areas to provide accommodation for people owed the main homelessness duty. Of course the private rented sector is growing and varied in terms of location, size, quality, cost and security: ranging from small scale buy-to-let landlords, to ‘accidental’ landlords who are only letting because they cannot sell on the open market and multiple landlords letting as a business. Different properties and landlords will be more or less suited to housing homeless people. Not all private landlords will be able to deal with vulnerable or challenging tenants. Social

landlords currently have expertise with tenancy support and their interventions stop many tenancies failing. Without some form of tenancy support in the private rented sector there could be higher rates of tenancy failure, with people re-presenting themselves as homeless again and again. This in turn would be expensive for local authorities to manage and could lead to instability in communities.

Although we support the change of powers, there are challenges around discharging the homelessness duty into the private rented sector which will need to be addressed:

· Private sector landlords not being prepared to supply housing to people deemed statutorily homeless or in receipt of welfare benefits

· The creation of a revolving door of homelessness with tenants losing their homes after a fixed period of time

· Local housing allowances payable to tenants in the private rented sector not keeping up with private sector rent levels resulting in tenants having to top-up their rent from their own income or other welfare benefits

· Access to private rented sector housing being limited by new local housing allowance caps and the shared room rate.

· Increases to the overall housing benefit bill.

· The need to increase local authority resources to find suitable properties in the private rented sector and to support landlords letting to formerly homeless households

· There is a risk that formerly homeless households will be concentrated in one area – where PRS rents are cheapest – if many duties are discharged into this sector, thus concentrating deprivation and creating problems for an area. Local lettings plans have been used to address this problem in social housing and may become needed in the PRS to maintain a balance between community sustainability and flexibility around discharge of homelessness duties.

We have some concerns that reductions in local authority funding may result in homelessness prevention services being cut which may unfortunately lead to homelessness increasing. As a consequence, there may be a higher demand for PRS accommodation for homeless households as more people being owed a duty by authorities. It is to be hoped that this can be avoided through strategic decision making around local budgets.

Some of these challenges will be addressed by local authorities, but they cannot do this within their existing means. Political leadership is needed to ensure appropriate resourcing of work with the private rented sector at local level. CIH is also calling for national-level action in the form of greater regulation of the PRS In line with Rugg Review proposals. We also restate our opposition to the Housing Benefit reforms due to be implemented this year.

CIH would be comfortable to accept a requirement for 12 month minimum PRS tenancies for people owed a homeless duty. Housing professionals with experience of working with private landlords to secure accommodation low (e.g. for homelessness prevention) have been able to get 12 month tenancies but longer is significantly harder. There are of course many landlords who would not be prepared to grant 12 month tenancies, limiting the pool of property available. There is already a wealth of good practice to draw on from England and also in Scotland where this policy is already in force. For example, the Homes4let social lettings agency in Dorset works in partnership with councils to administer 250 private lettings.

The rationale for the local authority duty recurring if a formerly homeless household loses their accommodation within two years is unclear; unless it means that people who would otherwise not be priority are in fact priority because of the way the duty to address their previous priority circumstances was discharged. We would like to see further explanation and modelling of what this expectation could mean in practice.

Tenancy Strategies

Clause 126 places a new duty on every local housing authority to publish a tenancy strategy setting out, in high-level terms, the matters to which all registered providers of social housing should have regard in framing their own tenancy policies.

Clause 127 sets out the procedure an authority must follow when preparing its

strategy or making a modification to it that involves a major change of policy, and in particular its obligation to consult private registered providers on a draft of the strategy.

Clause 128 provides that the Secretary of State may direct the social housing

regulator to set a standard on tenure. Clause 129 requires that a local housing

authority, when formulating its homelessness strategy, must have regard to its current allocations scheme, tenancy strategy and, where the authority is a London borough council, the London Housing strategy.

We make the following key points:

· CIH feels positive about the proposed local strategic policy on tenancies and the benefits they could deliver.

· We support the requirement to have a tenure policy but want the requirement to be framed in a way that allows the policy to be integrated into other strategy documents where appropriate.

· Some difficulties will arise from the strategies which will need to be addressed at local level. We would support local arrangements which bring together the local authority (or neighbouring authorities where appropriate), landlords and members of the community to agree a strategic approach for the area.

· It is not currently desirable for government to prescribe the content of landlords’ tenancy policies – housing professionals and communities need flexibility to work through what they need and want from the policies

· Landlord policies should give clarity to tenants, ensure consistency of approach, and protect housing providers from legal breach or challenge. It would be reasonable to require, probably through regulation, that landlord policies address these aims.

Detailed evidence

CIH feels positive about the proposed local strategic policy on tenancies. The strategy could aid a more positive and transparent relationship between providers; be an opportunity to reset relationships between councils and housing providers; and establish principles for meeting needs, making use of the new flexibilities, dealing with affordable rent (supply, plus conditions for reviewing fixed term tenancy and for ending tenancies) etc. Whilst we support the requirement to have a strategic policy on tenancies, we want the requirement to be framed in a way that allows the policy to be a part of other documents where that is appropriate for a local area.

The strategic tenancy policy should be part of a wider housing strategy for the area which includes:

· A local lettings plan: This should comprise estimates of the supply and demand for different types of accommodation and an analysis of how the demand can be met, including general priorities, and of local factors to be taken into account under current legislation and guidance.

· Arrangements with other housing providers: Formal and informal arrangements with other registered providers and organisations in the voluntary and private sectors.

· Advisory services: Information and advice to prevent homelessness and on housing options for applicants on the housing register.

· Joint working arrangements: including common housing registers or common approaches to choice-based lettings by all social landlords in a given geographical area; multi-borough choice-based lettings schemes such as Home Connections; common exclusion policies.

We have identified some difficulties which could arise out of the development of local authority tenancy strategies which will need to be addressed, probably at local level:

· Local authority tenure strategies could potentially make sub-regional letting schemes difficult.

· While local authorities will develop tenure strategies which focus on local housing market conditions, national registered providers might struggle to fit these with their own national or regional tenure policies. This could present difficulties with joint-working arrangements including choice-based lettings and nomination agreements.

· Local authorities may state a preference for particular tenancy types which are difficult or undesirable for registered providers to deliver. Similarly, national policy may pull registered providers in directions which are not compatible with local aspirations.

· Because they will be required by law, they may be added on top of existing housing strategies rather than integrating with, and complementing them.

· The requirement to comply with wider strategies e.g. the London Housing Strategy might lead to conflicts with the tenure strategy. Alignment of the various strategies will be difficult and local authorities will need to be mindful about balancing various policies and managing conflicting areas.

Local authority tenure strategies will need to be developed in consultation with local residents and organisations (going beyond tenants and providers of social housing). They will need to be based on a good understanding of the local housing market and interactions and accessibility of different tenures. Consequently they will need to be refreshed regularly.

There is an appetite to ensure that landlords’ procedures around fixed term tenancies in an area are consistent, to ensure transparency and fairness, so it may be that guidelines or even an area policy feature in the local tenure strategy.

Local tenure strategies must reflect the housing needs and aspirations of local communities, and so consultation with all registered providers in the area, advice agencies, tenants and applicants will be essential. Authorities will need to take care to take soundings from a range of local people, not just the most vocal or active. They will also need to understand the aspirations of businesses and how economic development might rely on particular approaches to tenure.

Landlord policies on tenancies should give clarity to tenants, ensure consistency of approach, and protect housing providers from legal breach or challenge. It would be reasonable to require, possibly through regulation rather than legislation, that landlord policies addressed these aims.

CIH believes that landlords should include in their policies on tenancies: information on different tenure options, eligibility criteria, eligible groups, rent levels, the processes involved including application, review at the end of a fixed-term or affordable rent tenancy; and information on rights of appeal and other housing options.

In addition, the following additional items of information would need to be included:

· Clear information on the expiry date of fixed-term tenancies.

· Fixed review dates for the tenancy established before the tenancy sign-up.

· Clear points in the tenancy agreement established for rent reviews.

· Requirements that the identity of the prospective tenant is checked before sign-up.

· Clearly established criteria used to decide the length of the tenancy, and how it can be extended.

· Detail of any requirement to determine the income (and savings) of prospective tenants.

It may not currently be desirable for government to prescribe content, as housing and legal professionals, local authorities and tenant groups work through what they need and want from these policies. For example, some landlords may wish to harmonise policies for a local area, others may wish to stand alone, and government should not restrict this at this stage.

Social tenants often have very constrained choice about their housing and so they do need a voice, especially in relation to proposals which could impact on them significantly.

CIH believes that tenants have a key role to play in influencing their landlord’s approach to tenure policy. It will also be important to hear from potential future tenants, who may have quite different views about a tenancy policy. The ability to do this at a local level will be an element of the government’s commitment to localism and increased local accountability. Individual and community empowerment can foster a more genuine sense of ‘community’, social cohesion and collective responsibility. For landlords, it can lead to better knowledge and awareness of the needs of local communities and the impact of current service provision. It can also lead to the development of more informed and responsive services for the future [6] . For tenants and communities to be able to participate in local approaches to tenure, they need

a certain level of capacity and social capital. This capacity is known to be lacking in many areas. In addition, there is variability of leadership, capacity and skills at local authority level, and the need for cultural change in some places to embrace the role of tenants in influencing decisions on tenure and other aspects of policy.

Flexible tenancies

Clause 130 gives local authorities the power to offer flexible tenancies to new

social tenants. A flexible tenancy is a secure tenancy of a fixed term (not less than two years). The clause provides for the circumstances in which a new tenancy will be a flexible tenancy. It also provides for the process by which a landlord may offer and terminate a flexible tenancy as well as a tenant’s right to terminate a tenancy or request a review of a landlord’s decision with regard to the offer or termination process.

Clause 131 provides that the right to improve and to be compensated for

improvements will not apply to a flexible tenancy. The clause also prescribes the circumstances in which an introductory tenancy will, on coming to an end, become a flexible tenancy. These provisions will apply where prior written notice has been served on the tenant advising them that the tenancy will become a flexible tenancy. The clause also prescribes that when a flexible tenancy is demoted, the tenancy will revert to being a flexible tenancy on successful completion of the period of demotion.

Clauses 132 and 133 provide that, subject to certain conditions, existing secure and assured tenants will be able to retain a similar level of security on exchanging their property with a social tenant with a less secure tenancy.

Clause 134 removes the statutory right of those other than spouses and

partners to succeed to a secure tenancy. It also provides discretion for landlords to grant succession rights in addition to the statutory minimum of one succession to a spouse or partner.

Clause 135 enables landlords to grant additional succession rights

for assured tenancies. Tenancies commenced before these clauses come into force are not affected by these changes.

Clause 136 provides that if an assured shorthold tenancy becomes a Family

Intervention Tenancy (FIT), and a new tenancy is granted after the FIT, then that tenancy will become an assured shorthold tenancy.

Clause 137 provides that a court cannot make an order for possession of a

property let by a private registered provider of social housing with a fixed term of at least two years, unless the landlord has given the tenant at least six months’ notice in writing stating that they do not intend to grant another tenancy and informing the tenant how they can obtain help and advice.

Clause 138 provides that tenants of private registered providers with assured

shorthold tenancies will have the right to acquire their property subject to the same conditions applicable to assured tenants and further exclusions made by way of regulation.

Clause 139 extends repairing obligations on the landlord to include flexible

tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies granted by registered providers with a fixed term of seven years or more.

We make the following key points:

· CIH calls for a more flexible approach to tenure which places choice and stability for customers at the heart of a more modern approach to social housing allocations.

· CIH supports in principle a flexible approach to tenure which includes fixed-terms (where these are of an appropriate length) and tenancy reviews; however, the emphasis must be on offering tenants positive and supported choices to improve their housing options and to support the development of sustainable communities, rather than on enforcing particular behaviour or eligibility. As such, we have concerns about the current proposals for tenure reform.

· Social housing should not be exclusively used as part of the welfare system, and moves to further residualise it or to require housing managers to police eligibility will be strongly resisted by the profession.

· We are concerned that the impact of the flexible tenure proposals as currently described will lead to social housing becoming more residualised, and further stigmatise those living in the sector. There needs to be greater flexibility in the way in which local authorities work with their housing association partners to facilitate access for customers with a broader range of income and housing needs.

· Two years is too short as a minimum term for a general needs social tenancy because this will create instability in households and communities with additional negative social effects, and lead to additional and burdensome administration and housing management costs which may have no clear benefit for the customer. Five years may be a more appropriate minimum term.

· Proposals to introduce flexible tenancies do not address the underlying structural problem of the need to address the shortage of housing options offered at a price which households can afford.

· CIH proposes an approach to flexible tenure for future tenants in which the terms of a tenancy could be altered to recognise changes in an individual’s circumstances: this would not impact negatively on individual security or affect stable communities. We would like amendments to the Localism Bill to enable this.

· CIH would like to see an approach to housing management where security of tenure is be preserved for all tenants but where there would be an end to the guarantee of a permanent sub-market rent for tenants whose financial or other circumstances improve, linked to active support to assist tenants access other housing options if they want to as their circumstances and aspirations change.

· We are very resistant to any proposals which could see tenancies ended on the basis of an income-based means test.

· We see the benefit of landlords being able to move tenants to make better use of stock, but we are sceptical about whether fixed term tenancies can really improve availability of social housing overall.

· The new fixed term tenancies should contain a probationary period, as these have been used to good effect in recent years.

· CIH agrees that older people and those with long term illness or disability should continue to have a guarantee of a secure tenancy. We suggest that some exception to the right to occupy the same home could be provided for all tenants whose household composition changes significantly, regardless of age or disability, where this does not put the individual tenant at risk.

· Where fixed term tenancies are used, it is appropriate for general needs social tenancies to be of different lengths depending on different circumstances. There is no need to prescribe lengths for different circumstances – good practice will develop and become owned by the sector.

· Landlords should generally offer existing secure and assured tenants who move to another social rented property a ‘lifetime’ tenancy in their new home.

· Clarity and consistency around decisions to end fixed term tenancies will be essential.

· CIH is keen to see a greater role for social landlords to provide advice and assistance to tenants in relation to their housing options and for this to be sufficiently resourced.

· Landlords should definitely provide advice and assistance when a fixed term tenancy is not being renewed. It may be that independent organisations are best placed to offer advice in these circumstances.

· We are also keen to see development of an ‘active housing-options approach’ where reviews are regularly offered to all tenants to help them plan for the future and identify support needs

· As the professional body for the housing sector, we see a clear role for CIH in working with the sector to help it walk the line between providing settled homes, dealing with unmet need, and managing assets for best local and financial effect.

Detailed evidence

In its 2008 report Rethinking Housing [7] , CIH called for a more flexible approach to tenure which places choice and security at the heart of a more modern approach to social housing allocations. CIH supports in principle a flexible approach to tenure which could include fixed-terms (of an appropriate length) and tenancy reviews; however, the emphasis must be on offering tenants positive and supported choices to improve their housing options [8] . We are clear that social rented housing should remain a positive tenure of choice, and do not want it to become (intentionally or by accident) solely a backstop for people who have no other housing options.

CIH has long pointed out that social housing is allocated (often securely) on the basis of a particular moment in an individual’s life: a time of ‘housing need’ which may be temporary or transitional [9] . Currently, the allocations system does not reflect this and it does not provide an offer that can easily change with an individual’s needs or aspirations [10] . CIH has proposed a new approach to tenure which will enable social housing to meet people’s housing aspirations and respond to changing personal circumstances.

Within the proposed new framework, the introduction of tenancy reviews could deliver a greater sense of fairness and could help people to access additional housing and support services; relocate; or plan for and move into ownership, intermediate rent or private renting [11] . The way tenancy reviews are framed will shape their effectiveness, however. We are loathe to see social housing becoming exclusively welfare provision, with eligibility policed and managed by housing staff. Tenancy reviews which determine whether someone keeps their home will be confrontational and not conducive to a positive landlord-tenant relationship. On the other hand, building an ‘active housing-options approach’ into housing management (as indeed some housing providers have done) where reviews are used to plan for the future and offer support can be a positive, customer-focused experience. The emphasis of any support and advice provided to tenants must be on tenant choice and not landlord expediency.

CIH also points out that introductory tenancies are now widely used: they apply to three-quarters of new LA lettings [12] . This reform has already brought a degree of flexibility into the lettings process.

Many housing professionals are uncomfortable with the idea of asking someone to leave their home following a positive change in their circumstances, especially increased household income. It is destabilising to households and, in many areas, has a detrimental effect on the local economy. CIH proposes that, rather than ending occupation at the end of a fixed term when a tenant can no longer demonstrate a clear need for social housing, a housing provider may alter the terms of a tenancy to recognise changes in the individual’s circumstances. If a tenant’s income increases significantly, additional rent could be charged, or help could be provided to prepare for intermediate or outright ownership. Tenancy reviews could deliver a greater sense of fairness around access to social housing and could help people to access additional housing and support services; and be more proactive about planning for future housing choices [13] .

CIH has strong reservations about the workability and possible adverse effects of DCLG proposals to introduce flexible tenancies as currently outlined. The proposals require further development and the potential impacts assessed. Current proposals could lead to social housing becoming more residualised and those in living in it stigmatised. These concerns are backed up by extensive research. The current model of social housing of necessity prioritises allocations to those in greatest need [14] . The social housing sector provides accommodation to some of the most vulnerable people in society: 70 per cent of social tenants have incomes within the poorest two fifths; social tenants have high rates of disability, are more likely to be lone parents, single people or aged over 60. In addition a quarter of all black and minority ethnic householders are social tenants.

An allocations process based on ‘need’ has resulted in concentrations of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in society living in social housing. This process of residualisation is made worse by concentrations of disadvantage in particular areas; and the negative labelling of individuals and groups living in social housing [15] . The 2009 report In the Mix stated: ‘The chronic under-supply of public housing coupled with a needs-based allocations system, means that public housing is now what might be called a ‘poverty-tenure’ because only the poorest people are filtered into it’ [16] . It is felt that current proposals will further marginalise the sector and will not contribute to stable or sustainable communities.

In addition, CIH notes that proposals to introduce flexible / fixed term tenancies need to address the following points:

· Homelessness: Care needs to be taken so that shorter-term tenancies do not exacerbate the risk of homelessness by providing less secure housing options for vulnerable people – the reasons for ending a fixed term tenancy need to be clear, fair and transparent and not landlord led.

· Human Rights: There is currently some discussion in the sector about the legality of introducing flexible tenancies given that under current legislation, landlords are not permitted to end tenancies on the basis of time. In addition, concerns about the implications of Human Rights legislation on flexible tenancy proposals have also been raised. In the recent case of Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] the Supreme Court held that courts must consider proportionality when hearing possession cases [17] . The justices unanimously held that where a person’s home is at stake, that person should be able to have the proportionality as well as the reasonableness of that action decided by a court, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not clear that ending a flexible tenancy would necessarily comply with this requirement.

As the professional body for the housing sector we see a clear role for ourselves in working with the sector to help walk the difficult line between providing settled homes, dealing with currently unmet need, and managing assets for best social and financial effect.

Evidence from our membership has indicated that it is likely that enthusiasm for flexible tenure would largely depend on local politics: particularly the view of the social landlord on whether security of tenure is a fundamental housing right or whether social housing should be primarily a transferable welfare asset.

Organisations may decide not to make use of fixed term tenancies for the following reasons:

· Concerns about reviewing flexible tenancies in terms of making judgements about people’s housing need and discerning continuing need at the end of a fixed tenancy period.

· Concerns about potential legal challenges and reputational damage due to disputed decisions to end tenancies

· Objection to flexible tenancies on a point of principle.

· Inability to identify tangible benefits with the proposals.

· Local housing markets are not conducive to support flexible tenancies e.g. PRS and owner-occupation in the locality are out of reach of most households.

· Increased administration costs.

· If their IT/housing management systems do not have the facility to trigger tenancy reviews (most can support 12 month introductory tenancies alongside secure/assured tenancies but some will not support varied tenancy lengths).

It will be essential to provide clear information about the different tenancies (to potential tenants and to people who provide advice, whether informally or formally) and to ensure potential tenants do understand what they are committing to when they apply for a property. This would reduce the risk that the use of different tenancy types by different landlords in an area could make it difficult for a potential tenant to make informed choices about where to live.

Organisations may choose to use fixed term tenancies in order to:

· Tackle under-occupation.

· Make it easier to end tenancies for people in arrears or with poor behaviour.

· Change tenancy conditions to reflect increases in a tenant’s income

· Move tenants onto other housing options if their financial circumstances improve (though there is great resistance to this in the sector).

Most organisations we have spoken to are currently evaluating the merits of using fixed term tenancies and have not yet made firm decisions. It is likely that a number of organisations will wait to see what others in the sector decide to do and learn from them. Many see the appeal of using fixed tenancies to enable them to ask under-occupying households to move to smaller property, but beyond this it seems likely that customer-focused

tenancy reviews and amendments to occupancy terms could be done without recourse to fixed tenancies.

We would like to see the Localism Bill amended to enable social landlords to change a household’s occupancy conditions/terms following a tenancy review.

Organisations need to give thorough consideration to the potential positive and negative impacts of fixed term tenancies, the resource implications, the local authority’s strategic view, and the views of current and future tenants. It is likely of course that the powers will not exist for 12 months, which does give time for organisations to plan and consider their approaches. Therefore, some organisations may make use of the powers as soon as they are enacted. Many will wait to learn from the experiences of other organisations before introducing changes, however.

Two years is too short as a minimum term for a general needs social tenancy. Five years may be a more appropriate minimum term. We understand that many fixed terms will be renewed and that many providers would choose to use much longer fixed terms than the statutory minimum for all tenancies, but we believe the minimum needs to be of an acceptable length to protect tenants and communities.

From a management perspective, using a two year fixed-term general needs social tenancy would lead to increased housing management and IT costs without necessarily delivering improved outcomes for tenants. It is therefore unlikely that such short terms would be offered in practice.

Nevertheless, from a tenant and community perspective, CIH has a number of concerns about use of a two year minimum fixed term general needs social tenancy:

· Perverse incentive: A two year period could act as a major disincentive for tenants to change their circumstances. Assuming that access to the housing register is restricted to people in the most need (statutory preference groups), people gaining social tenancies will be leaving difficult circumstances which they may have endured for some time. If tenants fear that changing their circumstances might jeopardise their home, there is a psychological incentive to suppress aspiration and not to move forward in their lives.

· Unsustainable communities: A two year fixed-term general needs social tenancy would not support sustainable communities. There is no incentive for tenants to invest in their homes and communities if their tenancy is only guaranteed to have two years duration. Widely used shorter tenancies would break up neighbourhoods and communities; and where properties within existing communities were converted to fixed-term tenancies this could provoke tensions between tenants with different tenancies. Many local authorities point to problems with former right to buy properties that are now in the private rented sector and where there is rapid turnover, affecting the stability of communities.

· Community engagement: Shorter tenancy terms could result in less willingness on the part of tenants to engage positively with their landlords and the community which runs counter to broader government aims to reinvigorate community activism [18] . Effective individual and community empowerment provides opportunities for people to influence and shape decision making processes which in turn can foster a more genuine sense of ‘community’, social cohesion and collective responsibility. For service providers, it can lead to better knowledge and awareness of the needs of local communities and the impact of current service provision. It can also lead to the development of more informed and responsive services for the future [19] . Where tenants experience instability in their housing, these objectives are compromised.

· Negative effects on children: Additional negative social effects could result including unstable housing for children and the possibility that they might have to change their schools more often, damaging their educational opportunities [20] .

Probationary tenancies have become quite an accepted part of housing management, and they are used quite effectively to ensure new tenants can meet the basic responsibilities required of them. Therefore the new fixed term tenancies should also contain a probationary period. There will be lessons from the introduction and management of probationary tenancies which can inform good practice in the use of fixed term tenancies.

Social housing plays a key role in housing and supporting vulnerable groups and older people. Any new approach to flexible tenure should fully take into account individual circumstances. Where, for example, vulnerability is permanent or acute, there should be sufficient flexibility to not require housing reviews on the same terms suggested for other tenants. CIH agrees that that older people and those with a long term illness or disability should continue to be provided with a guarantee of a secure tenancy through the Tenancy Standard. This does not mean these people should not be offered a tenancy

review – as it can help to identify needs and aspirations which the landlord may be able to help address. Despite our commitment to a regulatory requirement for security for specific groups, we recognise the growing need to ask people to move elsewhere if they are occupying a home much larger than they need, and so suggest that some exception to the right to occupy the same home could be provided for all tenants whose household composition changes significantly, regardless of age or disability. These cases would need to be assessed individually so the tenant is not put at risk (e.g. to health) by moving.

If fixed term tenancies are used, it is appropriate for general needs social tenancies to be of different lengths depending on different circumstances. There is no need to prescribe this in the tenancy standard; good practice will develop and become owned by the sector. Landlords should have flexibility to decide tenancy lengths at a local level (with local defined loosely), although there is a risk that this could create patches of high demand as potential tenants seek the most attractive offer. If flexibility to set different terms was offered, it is likely that many landlords would offer secure or very long fixed term tenancies to the following groups, for example:

· Older people (secure).

· Adults with disabilities or long term illnesses (secure).

· Families with children under 16 (longer fixed-term tenancies).

Landlords who make use of fixed term tenancies may find they can use secure tenancies to support local lettings plans e.g. to attract particular types of people to a low demand or difficult to manage area in order to develop stability in the area.

CIH points out that the term ‘lifetime tenancy’ employed in the DCLG consultation document is misleading and does not reflect the current statutory framework for the allocation of tenancies in the social housing sector. Local authorities and housing associations can offer secure or assured tenancies, but these can be terminated within the life-time of a tenant where tenancy conditions have not been met and only with a court order [21] . Also, as noted

above, the vast majority of new tenancies now start off being non-secure, and only become secure at the end of the introductory period.

Landlords should generally offer existing secure and assured tenants who move to another social rented property a so-called ‘lifetime’ tenancy in their new home. Whilst more flexible tenure options can have a part to play in new lettings to existing tenants (especially in terms of improving ability to reduce under occupation), there is a risk that mobility will be restricted if tenants risk losing something they value by moving. The Local decisions document says that affordable rent is required to be a fixed term tenancy, although the Housing Minister has since said that it is not. This requires clarification. Affordable rent must also be lettable on an assured tenancy because we do not want to see a system where existing tenants cannot move to brand new homes without their landlord breaking legal requirements around continuity of tenure, or where new older/disabled tenants can never move to a home built after 2011 because the tenancy the required to have cannot be given.

If new tenants are given a secure/assured tenancy on the basis of an assessment that they will always need one, the idea of removing this tenancy type when they move is contradictory. It would lead to uncertainty for tenants and inconsistency of practice for landlords.

We would want to see fixed term tenancies being used as part of a positive, customer focused approach rather than as management of welfare provision. If tenants are asked to leave, a socially-focused organisation should definitely make sure they are supported and able to move on in a positive way.

We would stress that we also want regular provision of advice and assistance around housing options to become common practice for people who have long or ‘lifetime’ tenancies.

CIH has long called for an augmented role for social landlords to provide advice and assistance to tenants in relation to housing more generally. In its 2007 publication Modernising Housing Advice [22] , CIH pointed out that many housing advice services are still focused on crisis management. Whilst this may help to prevent homelessness a more sophisticated approach which helps more people to plan ahead to meet their aspirations would be beneficial to both service providers and service users. This could include signposting individuals to independent financial advice and lenders, information about good quality local private landlords, links to lettings and estate agents, local private sector lettings schemes, etc. In addition to these core one-stop housing services, the service should also look at how it can provide a

signposting or integrated service around preventing problems and providing support, linked to advice about employment, skills, childcare, etc.

It may be that independent organisations are better placed to offer support and advice to tenants reaching the end of a fixed tenancy, especially if housing providers fear being accused of putting business interests before the tenant. We would also stress that safeguards will be needed, such as ensuring a tenant has actually been able to secure good quality alternative accommodation before they are required to leave their home.

Issues which landlords might choose to take into account in deciding whether to reissue a tenancy at the end of a fixed term are:

· Whether the home let continues to be a suitable size for the household.

· Whether tenants have complied with the tenancy conditions.

· Whether the tenant is still in a priority need group.

· The availability of suitable alternative accommodation.

We are very resistant to any proposals which could see tenancies ended on the basis of an income-based means test. We would like landlords to have the power to vary the terms of a tenancy based on income however e.g. by increasing the rent or converting the home to shared ownership. Increased rent may not raise much extra income for the landlord but would demonstrate fairness to people who are uncomfortable with tenants paying a below-market rent when they could afford to pay more. There are of course concerns that increasing rent would be a disincentive to increase income, and so we would like to explore what income thresholds might be appropriate and maintain affordability before this idea was pursued further.

Clarity and consistency around decisions to end fixed term tenancies will be essential. The housing sector will need to quickly develop good practice which enables housing organisations to behave transparently and to make consistent, fair decisions for people with similar circumstances. The risk of challenge – through complaints policies and legal means – is high; and housing providers are keen to avoid this.

We see the benefit of enabling tenants to move to make better use of the housing stock, but beyond this there is scepticism about whether fixed term tenancies as a tool can really improve availability of social housing by moving people on as their circumstances change. In high value areas, and areas where there is a high income-cost ratio, alternative accommodation outside of social housing will seldom be available so it will not be possible to ask people to move on to private renting or owner occupation. We have been extremely concerned by the assumption that it is acceptable for PRS tenants who

cannot meet rent through Local Housing Allowance to move to cheaper areas – possibly many miles away from their settled home. Therefore we would be similarly concerned if social tenants were asked to leave their home at the end of a fixed tenancy on the grounds that they could secure PRS accommodation away from their existing location.

Housing Finance

Clauses 140-147 provide for a new system of council housing finance. The

Housing Revenue Account Subsidy system will end and councils that operate a Housing Revenue Account will keep all of their rental income and use it to support their own housing stock.

Clause 141 sets out the framework for calculating the value of each local

housing authority’s ("LHA") housing service. To implement the new system some LHAs will be required to make a payment to Government and other LHAs will receive a payment from Government. The framework will be used in calculating the values of those payments, known as "the settlement payment", the details of which will be provided in a determination published by the Secretary of State.

Clause 142 allows the Secretary of State to issue a further determination if

there has been a change in any matter that was taken into account when the settlement payment was calculated.

Clause 143 provides for the Secretary of State to require that payments to

central government under clauses 141 and 142 are made in a certain way.

Clause 144 gives the Secretary of State the power to set a maximum amount of housing debt that can be held by each LHA.

Clause 145 requires LHAs to provide information necessary to exercise

powers in this Chapter.

Clause 146 allows determinations issued according to powers in this Chapter

to apply to all LHAs, groups of LHAs or individual LHAs and requires the Secretary of State to consult before making a determination.

Summary of CIH position

We make the following key points:

· CIH has been very supportive of the process of HRA reform and wants to maximise the degree of local financial control for authorities and ALMOs, their tenants, members and officers. We have long argued that the current national HRA subsidy system is outdated, no longer fit for purpose and actively works against effective local management of council housing, and we look forward to next April when the system will be replaced by one based on more local choice and more local financial control. Self financing for the HRA is a key aspect of the government’s localism agenda. For all of the 160+ authorities with council housing, the new system will mean the opportunity for the first time to develop a long-term and effective business plan for their housing, developed locally with local people.

· The recent policy document, Implementing Self-Financing for Council Housing, is a significant step on the path to reform, and we are pleased that CIH’s detailed engagement with this issue over several years has informed these changes.

· We are disappointed that the government has felt it necessary to confirm that some central controls will continue. We would like to see the localism within this settlement increased further and believe there is potential to do so by amendments to the key macro issues of setting a cap on borrowing, continued pooling of a proportion of right to buy receipts and ensuring that the circumstances in which the settlement can be revisited are limited and clear:

Detailed evidence

· Right to buy receipts: the proposal is to retain 75% pooling but to offer a concession on taking account of property losses in the settlement so that all authorities take on less debt instead of keeping all their receipts. There are a number of issues:

o Retaining any form of pooling runs counter to the principle of localism, and reduces the impact of local asset management on which government wants authorities to focus.

o Uncertainty around making the right assumptions – the RTB market is notoriously volatile and unpredictable – what assumptions do you make?

o The RTB proposals now bring a further layer of risk and uncertainty into the settlement process which we need to see reflected in the assumptions made.

· Capping debt: we acknowledge the need to control borrowing but will urge the government to consider the consequences for those authorities where decent homes backlogs and other investment needs still exist. Capping borrowing could hurt tenants by preventing investment in properties in the short term and risks stock deterioration until the resources become available – which could be many years away. We believe the government should consider offering some headroom for those authorities where their tenants need it the most.

· Reopening the settlement: this appears to be set in stone in the bill and in some ways is a failsafe for authorities if things do go wrong. We are encouraged that the reasons will be limited and believe that, in time, the risk of reopening might reduce as the new arrangements become the norm. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily appropriate to start a long-term planning process with any threat, imminent or otherwise, of the government coming back for more in the short term. We will continue to press for commitments to be made that the circumstances for reopening will be limited and that the settlement cannot be reopened for the medium term so that each authority’s business plan can really bed down.

Social housing is a valuable public asset and we want to develop a system that genuinely enables authorities to manage these assets effectively. Properly implemented, self-financing should allow authorities to make much more proactive and long-term decisions about how they use their assets.

The settlement will mean more rent retained locally over the long term by all authorities, and the scope for developing longer-term investment plans will be much improved. Nevertheless, some authorities might find that the reductions in public expenditure, particularly in decent homes backlog funding combined with the government’s proposals to limit future borrowing, could make their business plans quite challenging, especially in the short term.

For more detailed analysis CIH has prepared a briefing on Implementing Self-financing for council housing.

Housing Mobility

Clause 148 inserts section 193(2)(a) and section 197(2)(d) into the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

The new subsection 193(2)(ga) to that Act will give the regulator of social

housing the power to set a standard for registered providers in respect of assisting tenants with regard to mutual exchanges.

The new subsection 197(2)(d) to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 will

give the Secretary of State power to direct the regulator to set a standard under section 193 of that Act, or about the content of standards under section 193, or to have regard to specified objectives when setting standards under section 193 or 194, where the direction relates in the Secretary of State’s opinion to methods of assisting tenants to exchange tenancies.

We make the following key points:

· CIH supports broader government objectives to improve tenants’ mobility, though feels strongly that restricted mobility is not just a feature of social housing and actually affects low income households in all tenures.

· The proposals do little to improve inter-tenure mobility, which will be needed to support the wider aspirations of this policy.

· We agree that all social landlords should be required to subscribe to a mutual exchange service.

· CIH notes that IT services are fundamental to helping tenants organise a mutual exchange: however the needs of tenants who do not have access to IT (including a substantial number of older tenants, many of whom have larger properties which would be an attractive exchange) must be recognised if mutual exchange schemes are to be inclusive and comprehensive.

· CIH has identified a range of mechanisms which could facilitate greater mobility in the social rented sector including the provision of better housing aid and personal advisors, more effective cross-local authority working, more effective working with other providers including the private rented sector and voluntary partners; and incentivising moves within the social rented sector.

Detailed evidence

CIH notes that levels of mobility within the social housing sector are relatively low. Research by the Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) [23] has shown that around half of the 400,000 social housing tenancies terminate each year are due to tenants moving within the sector. As a proportion of all social housing tenancies in England, this equates to around 5 per cent. Activity levels of both mutual transfers and exchanges have seen significant falls from the mid-1990s onwards [24] .

The link between greater physical and economic mobility has informed debates on social housing since the Hills review of social housing (2007) [25] explicitly linked low housing mobility for social housing tenants with restricted employment prospects. In juxtaposition, the 2009 report Mobility Matters [26] identified a level of demand for mobility in social housing that the authors claim is currently not being met. 37 per cent of residents surveyed out of 1,280 said that they wanted to move.

Mobility within social housing is restricted because of lack of vacancies and new supply, low priority given to existing over new tenants within allocations systems, low priority given to people wanting to move into an area, lack of suitable alternatives (especially for downsizing), and difficulties for housing managers to create ‘chains’ of moves. A recent study, based on in-depth interviews with residents of a large former council estate in Sheffield suggests that people are unwilling to cut family ties and close social networks and hence move for what are most likely low-paid and insecure jobs. Elsewhere, it has been shown that relocating can make it difficult to replace existing social networks and ties of those living in ‘deprived’ communities [27] . In turn this had in some instances detrimental effects on the mental well-being of those affected. This might explain why the majority of moves (90 per cent) within the social sector are within a 10 miles radius [28] .

In addition, respondents identified the lack of parity in terms of security of tenure between the private and social rented sectors as a major disincentive in terms of achieving greater inter-tenure mobility. Most private sector tenancies are offered initially on the basis of a six month assured shorthold tenancy. Reference was made to the fact that in the Republic of Ireland more effective use has been made of the private rented sector to deliver social outcomes. Through the Residential Accommodation Service, local authorities

draw up contracts with private sector landlords to provide housing for people with a long-term housing need for an agreed term [29] .

CIH supports broader government objectives to improve tenants’ mobility, including national coverage by home-swap systems. Greater geographical mobility could lead to greater economic independence and could therefore support local economies by improving tenants’ access to work. Improved mobility for existing tenants could help make better use of stock (e.g. reducing under-occupation), improve satisfaction and quality of life, and give existing tenants a greater sense of fairness.

CIH has illustrated good practice already in place in some housing organisations [30] . For moves within a local area, the awarding of extra points through local allocations schemes could be awarded for people in employment or training, for example. The challenge for housing providers would be to balance between meeting the most acute need and using discretion to provide incentives to earn points to move up a waiting list.

The majority of housing organisations are already part of a mutual exchange service. Reasons for non-participation could include:

· Cost of fees payable to service providers.

· Judgement that such a service is not of value to tenants.

· Belief that there is little demand for such services.

CIH believes that social landlords should subscribe to a mutual exchange service so that all tenants have the chance to move in this way should they want to.

IT services are crucial to helping tenants organise a mutual exchange. However, a personal advisor would also be advantageous. This would fit well with an in-tenancy housing options approach which we would like to see developed within the social housing sector.

CIH notes that whilst the internet offers an excellent means of arranging swaps for some tenants, not everyone will have internet or broadband access. Research by Ofcom has shown that that less than half of social tenants have

internet or broadband access at home (43 and 36 per cent respectively) [31] . A similar picture emerges when looking at home internet or broadband access by the 65-74 age group (41 and 33 per cent). And access for those 75 years of age or over decreases even further. Thus, the majority of older tenants do not have access to the internet and will therefore be excluded from schemes that are purely internet-based. Without the participation of older households however, there will continue to be a substantial imbalance between the size of properties households are looking for, and what they are currently occupying [32] .

CIH has identified a range of mechanisms which could facilitate greater mobility in the social rented sector. This could involve offering incentives for individual households to release under-occupied properties for letting to larger households [33] . There is also scope for making better use of private rented accommodation in tackling under-occupation, particularly in areas where there is little social housing. ‘Incentives’ here can take the form of brokering ‘safe’ moves through matching tenants to landlords, assisting with paperwork, etc. The following approaches to mobility could be developed:

· Better housing advice: In its 2007 publication Modernising Housing Advice [34] CIH emphasises the importance of setting the question of mobility within the social housing sector in a wider enhanced housing options [35] approach. A key component in an enhanced housing options approach could be looking at opportunities for greater mobility for individual households. Within this, facilitating access and providing more effective advice and information about different cross-sector housing options is necessary including the private rented sector, co-operatives, Community Land Trusts and other third sector providers; also low cost home ownership, and mobility schemes which enable applicants to move homes and across districts.

· Cross local authority working: It has been recognised that making provisions in allocations schemes to support moves within the social housing sector can play an important role in promoting greater social and economic mobility [36] . Sub-regional CBL schemes are an effective means of supporting this agenda. But even in the absence of such schemes, cross local authority boundaries moves can be facilitated through local lettings policies, which for instance could allow for a certain number of properties to be allocated to key workers, others to fill a specific skills gap within an area and householders seeking a move.

· Working with other providers: Local authorities’ work with other providers including the private rented sector has historically been considered to be less important than services such as provision of social housing, tackling homelessness, or development control for new housing. However, more effective partnership working with the private rented sector and other third sector providers can play a significant role in meeting both short and longer term housing need, facilitating greater mobility within the sector and providing choices for a wide range of consumers. Social lettings agencies (SLA), which have emerged over recent years [37] could support this aim. A SLA works in a similar way to a commercial lettings agency, with the exception that its customer base comprises tenants which are in receipt of local housing allowance (LHA) an that any ‘profits’ are re-invested into the organisation. A funding bid for setting up a regional SLA for the East Midlands region (DASH2Rent) is currently underway [38] . The proposal has the backing from both the Government Office for the East Midlands and the East Midlands Regional Assembly. In addition to improving access to accommodation for vulnerable households and those in greatest housing need, such a model could also be utilised to facilitate mobility for existing social tenants.

Regulation of social housing

Clauses 150 and 151 – Provisions for the transfer of functions from the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords to the Homes and Communities Agency and

Regulation of Social Housing

Clauses 150 and 151 introduce Schedules 16 and 17. Schedule 16 abolishes

the Tenant Services Authority ("the regulator") and transfers the functions of the regulator to the Homes and Communities Agency through the creation of a regulation committee.

Schedule 17 makes amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in order to enact a change in the role of the regulator in relation to consumer matters. This includes provision to ensure the regulator may only use its monitoring and enforcement powers if it has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a serious failure affecting tenants (or if there is a risk that there will be such a failure without the intervention of the regulator).

CIH has been supportive of consumer regulation and do not want to lose momentum in the journey towards co-regulation. We want to avoid a situation where national consumer-focused regulatory activity is withdrawn before local capacity is fully ready to replace it.

In the proposals for reform of regulation of the housing sector, CIH is pleased to see guarantees of the independent status of regulation, recognition of the importance of economic viability, value for money and governance; and a continued focus on co-regulation. The sector will need to work hard to make co-regulation work going forward to ensure value for money for the tax-payer and great services for tenants.

CIH is committed to working across the sector in driving up quality and standards - helping everyone to make a difference in their communities. Until the new framework comes in to being in April 2012, CIH will work with Communities and Local Government, the HCA, local authorities, tenants and the Ombudsman to help deliver the new regulatory agenda.

Housing complaints

Clause 153 makes changes to the way in which a tenant may make a complaint about their social landlord to a housing ombudsman. A complaint must be referred to the relevant ombudsman by way of a referral from a member of the House of Commons, a Councillor (a member of the local housing authority for the district in which the property concerned is located) or a designated tenant panel. The clause also provides an order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to provide that the housing ombudsman may apply to a court or a tribunal in order that a determination it makes against a social landlord may be made enforceable.

Clauses 154 and 155 provide for the creation of a unified service for investigating complaints about the provision of social housing. Under existing

arrangements tenants of a local housing authority make their complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman (Local Commissioner) and tenants of private providers of social housing make their complaints to the Independent Housing Ombudsman. The clauses extend the Housing Ombudsman's remit to cover local authorities in their capacity as registered providers or managers of housing services while removing these matters from the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman.

CIH would like the provision for a ‘democratic filter’ (that tenants can only access the Ombudsman if they are referred by an MP, councillor, or tenant panel) to be removed. It is a barrier to access to a valued dispute resolution service, and creates a process which many will find difficult to negotiate.

We agree that local representatives can play a valuable role in local dispute resolution - as advocates, scrutineers, and brokers. These representatives can be involved before the landlords’ complaints process is exhausted, rather than delaying tenants’ access to an independent and trusted arbiter.

February 2011