Summary of Response
· *
Housing Acts since 1977 have moved law away from
protecting tenants towards protecting private interest
·
* Callaghan Government made inroads into security
of tenure in an attempt to increase supply of private rents
·
* Tories in 80s and beyond made a sustained attack
on tenants with 10 pieces of legislation in 15 years
§
1988 move to ‘assured tenancies’, which
established mandatory grounds for possession, thus reducing security
§
1996 Act introduced assured short-hold
agreements, which had the effect of allowing landlord mandatory possession
after fixed term –thus creating possibility of ‘revenge eviction’
·
* 2012 ‘Non-decent’
rents were 1.3 million of 9.million
total rents; this figure rose to over
3.million in 2013
·
* Right
to Buy subsidizes home ownership when what is needed is more social
housing
·
* Since
1980 2 million council
homes have been sold off and not replaced
·
* Tenants in UK are less secure than in 36 out of
50 states in US
·
* ‘Generation rent’ face a fall in living
standards for the first time since WW11
·
* GR’s parents have sold off protection, which
they enjoyed in order to make a fast buck from housing
·
* GR questions why those with money pay less to
live both as a proportion of their income and also in actual terms.
The full article
To the
Jester and the Court - salutations. Please accept this humble petition for your
consideration, a Roman farce that has transformed into a Greek tragedy. Over
the last thirty five years we, the benighted members of Generation Rent, have
seen our security of tenure removed one parliamentary bill at a time. Where
security tenure was once made of steel, it is now made of paper. Why did this
happen? As illustrated below, successive conservative governments have made an
ideological decision to change the power structure within housing law from
protecting tenants to protecting private interests. Whilst misrepresented as a
way of increasing the diversity of choice available to private tenants, this
petition will argue that it has been a cynical and politically motivated
attempt to bring the "free" market into yet another aspect of British
life where instead of bringing equality and liberty as promised, market forces
have left our most vulnerable citizens at the whims of unethical, rapacious
private landlords. This petition will discuss the primary pieces of legislation
that have bought it about, namely the housing acts 1988 and 1996 and their
grievous impact on security of tenure by attacking tenancy succession rights, increasing
the number of reasons a landlord can apply for eviction and introducing the
legal concept of mandatory possession. This petition will also outline what
ideological laws have meant in practice for tenants. The petition starts by
providing context so that the later legislative alterations may be better
understood.
Initial Inroads
Unfortunately
for the socialists among us, it was the government of Jim Callaghan that
initiated the decline in tenure security by changing tenancy succession law
through the 1977 Rent Act. The legislation was introduced to hamper exclusive
occupation from being handed down through multiple generations of one family.
The secure tenancies consolidated by the act are strong by modern standards,
although it set the precedent that has prevailed ever since, succession to any
tenancy and only in specific circumstances. The reform to succession rules was
tempered slightly by the Protection from Eviction Act and the Protection of
Torts Act of the same year; however, overall the Rent Act 1977 had long-term
implications that were to seriously undermine tenants’ security of tenure.
Some might
argue that the initial reforms to succession were reasonably popular, and were
designed to increase the amount of properties available for private rent. [1]
High levels of tenant protection in the private sector meant that property
owners were reticent to rent out. If you might not ever be able to get a tenant
or their descendants out of your property, then it is surely a considerable
risk to take a tenant on? As you might expect, property owners being such a
risk inclined bunch, private tenancies were in short supply. Figures suggest
that in 1918, that 76% of British people rented privately, when landlords
refused to let properties because tenants were too well protected and naturally
this led to a shortage of supply. [2] What is interesting is that even today,
having a sitting protected tenant in a property is seen by some investors to
decrease the value of the property as it is a higher risk investment. [3]
Rules of
Succession
Further
crucial changes to succession rules were applied from 1977 that were to have a
profound effect on security of tenure. Upon succession, pre-existing private
tenancies now defaulted to the industry standard at the time.
Spouses were afforded the same status as the protected tenant they succeeded,
as long as you had lived at the same property for two years. Later, in 1988 the
government altered succession rules for family of protected tenants. If you
were living in the property with the protected tenant for the duration of their
tenancy you were entitled to succeed with the protections afforded an assured
tenant.
Moving the
Goalposts
The
goalposts were moved still further in 1996 by affording the successor the time
limited protection of an assured shorthold tenant. [4] Say Joe lived with his
Mum and Dad in a 2 bed terrace, but because he was a chinless wonder, Joe had
never managed to get married and move out. Joe's folks had lived in the same
house since 1969, around about the time his Mum was pregnant with his handsome,
dashing, and more popular younger brother. This means that Mum and Dad enjoy
the considerable security of a protected tenancy.
The
agreement states that Joe's Mum have the right to succeed to his Dad's tenancy.
As a protected tenant, Joe's landlord has to go to the local rent officer and
give a reason why he has had to increase the rent, and justify the amount with
evidence. The rent officer was known to decline attempts to raise the rent
above "fair" levels. Until 1999, when the Labour government retrospectively
altered schedule 15 of the Rent Act 1977, all the grounds for possession of the
property were at the discretion of the local judge. Then, sadly, Joe's Dad
passed in 1987, carried away by an excess security of tenure. Joe's Mum
succeeded to the tenancy, as under the Rent Act 1977 she was entitled to do.
Joe continued living in the same property with his Mum until 1997, when she had
to be moved to a nursing home. These dates may seem arbitrary, but their
significance will become clear shortly!
Joe
succeeded to the tenancy, because his landlord had no interest in getting him
out at the time, nor was the landlord a lawyer who had kept abreast of the
reform. Fast forward to 2016, Joe's landlord decides that they want to sell the
property because he can cash in on the housing crisis by selling at a
hyper-inflated price, and live like an old pirate king in the Bahamas. Bad luck
for old Joe, his landlord's new lawyer points out that, because of the 1996
Housing Act, at the point Joe succeeded to his Mum's tenancy defaulted to
an assured shorthold tenancy as this was the legislative default at the time.
On top of this, because no fixed-term was ever issued, the tenancy counts as
being statutory periodic, and that means a section 21 (4)
(a) notice can be served to end the tenancy without the landlord having to
satisfy the courts that they have grounds to evict Joe.
Sustained
Assault
Whilst the
reforms to succession brought in by the Rent Act 1977 were deemed necessary by
those who owned private property, it was the first in a long line of legislation
that brought about a complete change in the fortunes of private tenants. The
dread government that was to succeed Callaghan's in 1979 continued with what
can only be construed as a sustained assault on tenant rights. The legislative
programme that the Conservatives embarked on was to see no less than ten
different pieces of legislation that effected tenant rights directly in a
fifteen year period. The impact of some of the legislation was more profound
than others, yet the cumulative effect has been to greatly strengthen the legal
position of landlords at the expense of tenants. The major bulwarks of landlord
power are the 1988 and 1996 Housing Acts.
The 1988
Act
The 1988
act was effectively the tombstone for tenant rights. Assured tenancy
contracts were introduced as the new default tenancy, replacing the protected
tenancies which had come before. Assured tenancies increased the number of
grounds a landlord could apply for a court hearing to evict a tenant, and also
introduced mandatory grounds for possession. Previously under
British tenancy law, county court judges had always had the final say over
whether a possession order was issued by the court. The introduction of
mandatory grounds for eviction can only be seen as reinforcing the rights of
property owners and reducing security of tenure.
Still,
most landlords found assured tenancies more protected than they would like,
even with the introduction of mandatory grounds for possession. Ending the
tenancy before the death of the tenant required that correct notice had to be
served at the beginning of the tenancy, or a landlord had to go before the
courts and show why the wanted to evict their tenant. [5] Compare this
to secure local authority tenants, where there are no mandatory
grounds for eviction and only a judge can grant possession of a property
through a court order. Where a judge might evict a private tenant for rent
arrears because of housing benefit issues, it is very rare that this is true
of secure local authority tenants.
Even when
possession orders against secure tenants have been granted by a judge, as long
as the tenant applies to the court for a stay before a bailiff enforces the
eviction, then the judge will often suspend the possession order. Council and
housing association rent collectors have often been thwarted by the same
disorganised, chaotic tenants who have gone to the CAB and with their help have
had the possession orders suspended 8 or 9 times without a social
landlord ever having the bailiff’s warrant enforced. All social tenants need do
is make a N244 application to the court, requesting for a suspension of the
possession proceedings by agreeing to pay the contractually obliged rent and an
amount in addition to cover the arrears they have accrued. This is scaled to
income and can be as low as £1 or £2 per week if hardship would be inflicted by
higher repayment demands. Basically, judges take a dim view of social landlords
who want to evict their tenants for rent arrears. Quite right too, as what is
the purpose of a social landlord other than to provide secure housing and
support for those who are not necessarily intellectually or emotionally
equipped to manage all aspects of tenancy? Surprise, surprise, we find
that this is not true of private landlords, as ever successive conservative
governments have afforded no profligacy when it concerns upholding the rights
of private property. In 2012 there were 220,000 claims for possession granted
in England and Wales, in 66% of which the appellants were private landlords,
the other 34% being mortgage companies and banks. [6]
Mandatory
grounds for possession were certainly a certainly a crippling blow to tenant
rights, but the Conservative government were not content until they had dealt
said rights a mortal blow. If the 1988 Housing Act had been the tombstone of
security of tenure through the introduction of mandatory grounds then the 1996
Housing Act was the epitaph chiselled on that tombstone, and it read:
'How
f**ked are you now? You're surely f**ked now.'
The 1996
Act
The 1996 act introduced the
assured shorthold agreement as the new default tenancy type,
setting a fixed-term to the protection from eviction afford to assured tenants,
as in a landlord must go before a court and show grounds as to why they wish to
evict their tenants. After the expiry of the fixed-term, the landlord need only
serve the dreaded section 21 (4)(a). This new notice entitled the landlord to
mandatory possession of their property with a 2 month notice period with no
need to show a court grounds for eviction.
From bad to worse – ‘Revenge
Eviction’
Going from bad to worse, a
landlord did not even have to issue a fixed term to an assured shorthold
tenancy, as the 1996 act enabled property owners to setup a statutory periodic
tenancy, which ran from payment period to payment period. If you paid your rent
weekly it ran week to week, or if you paid monthly from month to month.
Technically, a section 21(4)(a) notice could be issued a day after the tenancy
had started. The advent of section 21 (4)(a) notices has had a devastating
effect on tenants, insofar as if you complained to the landlord or local
council about the condition of their property outside of the fixed-term of the
agreement then often you would find yourself under notice to leave their
property within two months. Thus was born the revenge eviction,
what an imaginative epithet that is.[7] Revenge section 21 (4)(a) notices
meant that landlords now had not only legislative control over their tenants,
but also psychological control, tenants now had to put up and shut up or find
themselves somewhere else to live. This is particularly crippling for poorer
tenants with limited means to secure themselves further accommodation.
The current government made
the token gesture of disallowing a section 21 (4)(a) if the tenant has
complained to the local council about a category one health hazard within two
weeks of the date of the notice and only to assured shorthold tenants granted
exclusive possession after 1st October 2015. Otherwise, tenants will have to
wait until 2018 for the new regulations to come into force across the board.[8]
It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats tried to introduce a bill
preventing revenge evictions in the last parliament, which was filibustered by
Conservative backbenchers Christopher Chope and Philip Davies on the pretext
that it was a badly written law.[9] It is unsurprising to find that both
Mr Davies and Mr Chope are private landlords who wonder why they should bear
the burden of over-regulation in the private housing sector.[10] Perhaps Mr
Chope thinks the burden should fall on the taxpayer, like the £881 bill for
re-upholstering his sofa.[11]
Regulation by market forces
Arguably, the long term
effect of the section 21(4)(a) notice has left tenants with the paper shield of
market forces as their only protection. If the area where you wish to live has
an ample supply of private rented accommodation, then landlords may be forced
to improve their properties and charge fair rents. In the south of England, and
particularly London, where supply is shortest private tenants are forced to pay
exorbitant rents for substandard, often unsafe housing. The number of
non-decent homes in the UK stood at 1.3 million in 2012 out of a total of 9
million privately rented properties. This increased to 30% of all private
properties failing to meet the decent home standard set by the Homes and
Communities Agency by the end of 2013.[12] Market forces have brought about the
opposite of what Mrs Thatcher said they would, with demand so high no private
landlord can be compelled to improve their property, they simply evict their
problem tenant, put the rents up, and find someone else who does not complain.
Margaret Thatcher, ever the
champion of private property, tore tenancy rights to shreds. Whilst her
Government’s stated intention was to increase the amount of properties
available for private rent, Thatcher's motives in reforming tenancy law appear
to have been almost entirely political. Political in the sense that the reforms
only benefited those who owned private property; political in the sense that
the reforms encouraged acquisitive greed among landlords and political in the
sense that the reforms applied Thatcher's ideological obsession with market
forces as the only necessary means of regulation.
Consequences of ‘laissez-faire
regulation’
Unfortunately the laissez
faire model of regulation applied by successive Conservative governments has
made tenants the victims of market forces rather than being liberated by
them.[13] The deregulation of tenancy law was also another stick with which to
beat local authorities, when questioned by Jeremy Corbyn on 8th May 1990 about
the increase in the number of homeless households in London, Thatcher responded
that the crisis was in not the fault of private landlords or the government
that sponsored them, but that of the London boroughs, such as Islington Council
(the local authority for Corbyn's own seat) for having residential properties
standing empty for long periods of time.[14] Mrs Thatcher's response to Mr
Corbyn is by no means atypical of her attitude. I would argue that her
government's assault on security of tenure actually began with the sell-off of
public housing to private interests through the dreaded Right-to-Buy,
introduced under the 1980 Housing Act.[15]
Right to Buy
Whilst not discussed
specifically in this analysis, it is possible to argue that the 1980 Housing
Act was first in the procession of those politically motivated pieces of
housing legislation. As is well known in hindsight, Thatcher affords no
profligacy when strengthening the position of those who own private property.
Whilst Michael Heseltine may have claimed that the 1980 act was the start of
social revolution when he introduced the bill to Parliament in 1979; it seems
now that it was little more than an attempt to subsidise home ownership for
those households that were already well-off.[16] Long-term, the Right-to-Buy
has seen the gradual shift of the dominant form of tenure within the rented
housing market; formerly, government owned housing stock was the dominant form
of tenure, now London wide, 36% of those same properties have coalesced into
the hands of private interests, and in poorer areas of the capital that ratio
is even higher.[17] 2 million council houses have been sold since 1980 across the
country with a devastating effect on security of tenure - the absence of secure social housing has
merely driven low income families into the arms of avaricious and unscrupulous
landlords. To rub salt in the wounds of our lower income households, the
transfer of social housing to private interests been subsidised at tax payers
expense by successive conservative governments (notice I use the small "c" form here, as the Labour party
dropped its opposition to Right-to-Buy in 1985).[18]
World class tenant
insecurity
British tenants are less
secure than tenants in most of the developed world and, very worryingly, are
even less secure than tenants in some thirty-six out of fifty states in the US.
In New York State, Florida and Alaska revenge eviction notices can be
challenged in court on any terms and if successful, are deemed invalid by a
judge. In New Zealand, a court can discard a notice if the tenant has been
found to appeal on grounds of the landlord not fulfilling the agreed terms of
the tenancy, and the landlord cannot reissue any notice within six months.[19]
Smashing tenant rights appears to fit with the normal Conservative party agenda
of increasing the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, and protecting
the rights of private property.[20] Perhaps, more worryingly than the fact that
Britain lags behind the developed world in protecting its poorer citizens, is
the lack of outrage from the public and Parliamentary opposition who are
happier discussing whether David Cameron had his pork in a pig's head rather
than lambasting him daily from the dispatch box on his systematic disregard for
are most vulnerable because they do not vote for Self-servative party.
Beware Generation Rent
Thirty five years is not a
small amount of time for a human being, but a whole generation. Within one
generation we have seen the almost complete erosion of tenant rights, and the
security once enjoyed by many has almost completely evaporated. Those who have
not been able to join the property ladder face a lifetime of extortion, neglect
and legally mandated abuse in private rented accommodation. With the supply of
social housing drying up, Generation Rent now faces a real decline in the
quality of life that they have been programmed to anticipate. For the first
time since the Second World War many younger British citizens are facing a real
decline in their living standards; Generation Rent have watched their parents
enjoy the protection afforded by the post-war consensus, then watch their
parents sell off the protection they enjoyed to private interests all for a
little cash in their own bank account.
Make no mistake we are angry
about it! There may come a point where those owning private property may be
looking over their shoulders, or rather over the walls of their gated
communities, at the angry mob made up of those who have been the victims of
Margaret Thatcher's obsession with market forces. An angry mob that wonders why
those who have money pay less to live, both as a proportion of their income and
now in the actual amount they pay, than those who earn less. I urge you to vote
for a government that will return some power to the have-nots, or we may be in
for some far more radical reforms to tenure along the lines of what happened
in Dr Zhivago.
Yours,
The Tenant from Hell
Generation Rent
C/o Colaphis Caedimur
Via Peregrino
NF1 4BD
1 Anon, [http://www.nabarro.com/insight/briefings/2013/march/residential-tenancies-the-good,-the-bad-and-the-ugly/] "Residential
tenancies: the good, the bad and the ugly" (Nbarro LLP Briefing,
07/03/2013)
2 Shepperson, T., [http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/07/19/the-rent-act-1977-in-context/]
"The Rent Act 1977 in context" (Landlord Law Blog, 19/07/2011)
3 Simon, E., [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11151149/How-to-get-60-off-buy-to-let-homes-at-auction-with-lifetime-tenancies.html] (UK Telegraph,
14/08/2014)
4 Wilson, W., Succession Rights and Privately Rented Housing,
(House of Commons Library, Social Policy Section, 06/03/2009) p.2
5 Shepperson, T., [http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2011/08/31/which-tenancy-dilemma/] "Which Tenancy
Dilemma" (Landlord Law Blog, 31/08/2011)
6 Bright, S., Whitehouse, L.,[ https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/housing_possession_report_april2014.pdf "Information,
Advice and Representation in Housing Possession Cases"(Oxford, Hull,
2014) p.7
7 Anon, [http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/repairs_in_private_lets/risk_of_eviction] "Revenge
eviction if you ask for repairs" (Shelter England, 01/10/2015)
8 Anon, [http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/health_and_safety/health_and_safety_assessments_of_rented_homes] "Health and
safety assessments for private rented homes" (Shelter England, 2016)
9 Hardman, I., [http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/tory-backbenchers-talk-out-revenge-evictions-bill/] "Tory
backbenchers talk out revenge eviction bill" (UK Spectator, 28/11/2014)
10 Palmer, E., [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-mps-who-blocked-bill-banning-revenge-evictions-are-private-landlords-1477218] "Tory MPs who
blocked bill banning 'revenge evictions ' are private landlords"
(International Business Times, 29/11/2014)
11 Hennesy, P., [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5375313/MPs-expenses-Tory-Christopher-Chopes-881-bill-for-repairing-sofa.html] "MPs'
expenses: Tory Chopes £881 bill for repairing sofa" (UK Telegraph,
24/05/2009)
12 Gousy, H., Can't Complain: Why Poor Conditions Prevail in
Private Rented Homes, (Shelter England, March 2014) pp 8-9
13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqOvBKnKdk ("Tony
Benn - The Issue is Thatcher - 22/11/1990")
14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEPyjolGQQ ("Jeremy
Corbyn vs Margaret Thatcher - 08/05/1990")
15 Gulliver, K., [http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/apr/17/margaret-thatcher-legacy-housing-crisis] "Thatcher's
Legacy: her role in today's housing crisis" (UK Guardian, 17/04/2013)
16 Balchin, P., Housing Policy: An Introduction (Routledge,
2002) p. 188
17 Boffey, D., [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/right-to-buy-housing-scandal] "Private
Landlords cash-in on Right-to-Buy - and send rents soaring for the poorest
tenants" (UK Observer, 12/01/2014)
18 Anon, [http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/right-to-buy]
"Right-to-Buy" (www.politics.co.uk, November 2011)
19 Gousy, H., Can't Complain: Why Poor Conditions Prevail in
Private Rented Homes, (Shelter England, March 2014) p.14
No comments:
Post a Comment