Giles Peaker, Solicitor
Guardian - 20 September 2011
email Giles
However incoherent and piecemeal the government's social housing policy, there is a consistent viewpoint emerging through the localism bill and the current proposals for new grounds of possession based on anti social behaviour (ASB).
Ministers have stated that social housing is a privilege, not a right. In this latest echo of the division between the deserving and undeserving poor - albeit this time with an added means test - the argument is that the privilege should be lost by those who breach the social contract. Those who are not, or are no longer, financially in need of subsidised housing, or those whose households do not behave suitably well should lose their homes.
This is perhaps clearest where policies have been put together in a matter of days, such as the post-riot proposal to remove the 'locality condition' from the grounds of possession due to anti-social behaviour. The housing minister describes this condition as a loophole by which tenants can escape liability for their, or members of their household's, behaviour outside the area of the home.
The existing anti-social behaviour possession grounds were intended to have a protective purpose, preventing neighbourhoods from suffering from anti social behaviour connected to a tenant's occupation of a property. Those grounds could be justified as being for the protection of others where there was a clear risk of further disruption or harassment to those in the neighbourhood from the tenant remaining in the area.
But in the current government's rhetoric, the ASB grounds have their purpose in taking away tenancies from the badly behaved in general. Locality is cast as a loophole, to be exploited by anyone with a bus pass or a bike, and one that needs to be closed.
While the prospective policy is piecemeal and largely driven by instant responses to events or media campaigns, the direction of travel is clear. The 'deterrent' role of social housing management is now overtaking the social role of ameliorating housing need.
Whatever your organisation's view about the practical and moral merits of limiting social tenancies to those below a certain income level, or of the 'punishment eviction' of tenants where a member of the household has committed a crime, these are the actions that housing providers will be expected (perhaps required) to take.
While some councils have announced that they will pursue eviction, housing associations have taken a more measured view. If the current direction of travel continues, this may be a difficult position to maintain. It is unlikely, although far from impossible, that the removal of the locality condition will become law (though it will certainly face challenge if it does). The affordable tenancy provisions of the localism bill almost certainly will become law and it appears probable that there will be more legislation along similar lines.
The question for social housing providers may well turn out to be how far they are willing to be hired muscle, the enforcers of the government's social contract, and risk the potential financial consequences if they decide against taking on that role.
Giles Peaker is a solicitor in Anthony Gold's Housing & Public Law department and editor of the Nearly Legal housing law blog. For further information email Giles or call 020 7940 4000.
