Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Housing quality vs housing supply?

****

While part of me welcomes this sort of initiative, it does seem also that it will do precisely nothing to address the housing challenges especially in London:

‘All landlords should be licensed and required to raise the quality of their homes to the decent home standard required by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

‘If they are unable to do so, they should hand over long-term management of their property to a social letting agency in return for a fixed, lower rate of return. The social lettings agency could raise funds on the open market, allocate on the basis of need and have a more supportive, community-based relationship with their tenants.’

We need to decide whether we care more about housing quality or about housing supply. We can't address both at the same time.

....

2 comments:

SadButMadLad said...

Why should the goverment decide what is decent. What it means is some civil servent coming up with a list of bullet points which don't have any connection with reality. There is enough regulation already (fire, HMSO, etc) to ensure that properties are decent.

If a property isn't decent, then people will not rent it. Or the landlord will have to put the rent at a lower rate equal to what the market thinks is worthwhile. It doesn't need a social letting agency doing and taking their cut.

A solution looking for a problem. A problem that doesn't exist.

Single acts of tyranny said...

"part of me welcomes this sort of initiative"

Presumably not the conservative part?

"If they are unable to do so, they should hand over long-term management of their property to a social letting agency"

In the same way Mao encouraged capitalists to hand over their factories to him.

Are you honestly a conservative? I can think of nothing in this nonsense Tony Blair would disagree with.