Build back worse: renters and risk

The Week in Housing 14/10/22

Before diving into this week’s Newsletter, readers might be interested in the Professional Cert in Social Justice, now open for applications, at the School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice. This Programme allows you to take one of our 12-week masters level courses, one of which is my Critical Political Economy module, which is very focused on housing and inequality from a political economy perspective. Find our more about the Programme here, or get in touch with me directly.

It seems the Government are now considering a Winter eviction ban, which would be a welcome reprieve for tenants given the extent of issues in the PRS at the moment. One thing we do know about eviction bans, based on the Covid-19 experience, is that they appear to be the most effective way of bringing down the number of people in emergency accommodation. Despite this, policy since the pandemic has reverted to business as usual in the PRS, and we are currently seeing the inevitable consequences of combining weak security of tenure with inadequate supply. Despite some of the optimism in policy circles following the pandemic experience, it seems Government had opted to ‘build back worse’.

Given this background, a new report from Threshold and the Citizens Information Board, published just yesterday, could hardly be more timely. It looks at the issues in the PRS in terms of risk and vulnerability, and gives us a more nuanced picture of what the issues are and how they are experienced by different cohorts. The research draws on data captured by Threshold and the CIB in the context of the queries they receive and the assistance they provide.

What emerges most strikingly from the research is the issue of security. The main issue encountered by Threshold/CIB clients is tenancy termination. ‘Landlord selling’ and ‘landlord requiring property for personal/family use’ are the two main reasons for terminations. Threshold data suggests that just under half of all tenancy terminations raised with them by clients are invalid.

In terms of affordability, ‘the analysis shows that those vulnerable groups who are most likely to have a fixed income and dependent children in the home were more likely to contact Threshold and CIS for support on a rent review’.

The report is interesting in the way it drills down into certain vulnerable cohorts of renters. It notes for example, that the number of people with a disability or in bad health living in the PRS has risen from 86,300 in 2011 to 97,400 in 2016 (the last available census). Similarly, over the same period ‘the number of children under the age of 18 years living in private rented accommodation rose by 19%. The growth was principally amongst primary school children, aged 5-12 years, growing 33% between 2011 and 2016’. This speaks to the wider trends towards a greater reliance of more vulnerable social groups on PRS housing, resulting in large part from the long-term decline in investment in social housing and the related reliance on subsidised PRS housing as a form of pseudo-social housing.

Importantly, the report finds that tenants who are part of a vulnerable cohort are more at risk of eviction: ‘compared to single clients, those with children; in receipt of a social welfare payment; or a housing support, are more likely to face landlord-led terminations, invalid notices of termination, and the threat of homelessness as a result’.

This aspect of the report is interesting to consider in conjunction with other recent research, such as the ESRI/IHREC report on housing inequality, as we are now getting a better picture of how housing issues interact with wider inequalities, e.g. migration and family status.

Some of the report’s policy recommendations include abolishing all no-fault evictions and greater enforcement of RPZs. Two further interesting ideas are abolishing the category of licensees (who have virtually no rights) and ‘investigating landlords’ resistance to HAP’, both of which seem eminently sensible.

All of this brings us back to the issue of the Winter eviction ban. There are certainly strong arguments for introducing this, given the urgency of the issues. Having said that, there is a stronger case to be made for moving a way from reactive, somewhat ad hoc, policy responses in the PRS, towards finally addressing the long-term issues in the sector. Many of us have been arguing for years now to remove the grounds for no-fault terminations – especially terminations on the grounds of sale of property, family use, or renovation. Tenancy terms could be maintained at 6 years, during which time only terminations on the grounds of breach of tenant obligations should be allowed. This would finally give tenants a clear time period in which they enjoyed real security. Landlords could still recover properties, but they would need to wait until the end of the tenancy period, or until the tenant moved out voluntarily.

The arguments against doing this has always been about protecting supply (note: no evidence has ever been provided on the likely impact of the above measures, or any other measures, on the supply of PRS properties).

There are three things that we can say here in response to concerns around supply:

First, removing grounds for within-tenancy terminations would only effect landlords who wish to rent out properties for a period of less than 6 years, i.e. short-term and medium-term landlords. We don’t know what proportion of landlords fall into these categories, so we don’t know what the impact will be on supply. I would presume that any new investors in the sector would be envisioning remaining in the sector for at least 6 years (although I’m open to correction on this). Anyway, the main point is that there would be no loss of long-term landlords. Given the extent of the security issues, removing short-term landlords from the PRS altogether may well be of benefit.

Second, it might be possible to create a more targeted policy with the aim of creating a parallel rental market for medium-term rentals (e.g. 1- 3 years, or similar). For example, property owners could have the option of applying for a specific permission to rent out a property for a period of less than 3 years, in which case they would have the ability to terminate tenancies on the grounds of sale of property or family use. The crucial point here would be that each household (or perhaps each property) could apply for this permission just once. For example, for a household that moves to another country for work reasons for a year or two, this would enable them to put their property on the market and recover their property when they return. This would ensure that housing which is vacant for a short or indeterminate period could be funneled into the PRS, but would limit that to an exceptional ‘once off’ status, rather than making it the norm.

Third, instead of addressing what are clearly fundamental flaws in the security of tenure enjoyed by tenants, successive Governments have taken the approach of introducing one sticking plaster after another. This has created huge uncertainty for tenants and landlords. We have had four – yes four! – forms of rent control since 2015. We have had almost constant changes to the terms and conditions of termination tenancies (such as notice periods). Tenancy lengths have been extended from 4 to 6 years, and then turned into indefinite tenancies. And we have had several periods of eviction bans. This constant stream of policy reform is in fact one of the main reasons landlords claim they are selling up.

The point is, by failing to grasp the nettle the Government haven’t actually achieved anything. In fact, they have achieved the difficult balancing act of pissing off both tenants and landlords.

Proposals for a winter eviction ban, a three year rent freeze and so forth are probably necessary given the failure to deal with the structural issues. But I find it very hard to see, at this stage, why anyone would not find it preferable to have a simple, straightforward 6 year tenancy period, with full security, and rent increases capped at CPI/2%. We live in hope.

I’ll be taking a break for the next fortnight as it’s mid-term grading time.

Events

An interesting two day workshop on care, health and housing is coming up as part of the City-of-Care project, register here. A reminder that the Housing Agency in conjunction with the Geary Institute have a really interesting forthcoming series of seminars on the politics, economics and policy of land.

What I’m reading

This is an important new report from Focus Ireland on causes of family homelessness during the Covid-19 pandemic. RTE Brainstorm published an interesting new piece on the constitutionality of eviction bans. This new report from CACHE uses an innovative ‘co-production’ participatory approach to look at what low-income renters want from the PRS. And finally, AHURI have a new report on ‘housing pathways and mental health’.