Stereotypes about social tenants simply wrong, report claims The majority of social tenants able to work are in employment, while lone parents and migrants experience no advantage in securing a social home. These are the conclusions of a major three-year research project into the lives of tenants in London, which claims to show the ‘stereotypes’ about residents of social housing are ‘simply wrong’. The Real London Lives project, carried out by the University of York on behalf of the G15 group of the capital’s largest housing associations, showed two thirds of tenants able to work are in full or part-time employment. However, it found that 75% of these tenants were still struggling to make ends meet as a result of low pay, an inability to increase working hours and welfare reform. Mark Rogers, chief executive of Circle Housing and deputy chair of the G15, in a piece for Inside Housing, said: ‘Many of the stereotypes about social housing residents are simply wrong. Residents’ lives are more diverse and dynamic than anyone has previously understood. ‘There are people who are in professional careers, some working part-time and some full-time. Others are in jobs on zero hours contracts, some are holding down two jobs, others in training, and some with no real prospect of employment due to physical or mental health problems. Two thirds of residents who could reasonably be expected to work, do.’ The report found migrants had often spent years living with family or in the private sector before accessing a social home, while most lone parents had become single after securing a social home. Based on in-depth interviews with working age tenants, the report concludes that tenants ‘place a high value’ on their tenancy, which protects against ‘shocks which might otherwise lead to homelessness’. It also found the bedroom tax was not incentivising tenants to move to smaller homes, despite the financial hardship it caused, largely due to ‘the psychological attachment to the property as “home”’. ‘This is my children’s home and this is where I raised my babies,’ said an anonymous tenant quoted in the report. ‘There are memories in this place…When people say it’s not your home, it is.’ Shaun Brady | 19/11/2014 4:15 pm I need a little more convincing than this.....walk around in my shoes for a week on the patch. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Man Withabacus Man Withabacus | 19/11/2014 4:44 pm How was this research undertaken... cross referencing tax records with addresses... matching registrations of births, deaths and marriages... asking for evidence supporting answers... No it was a telephone survey with 1,648 households followed by 54 interviews. Ten of the respondents in the survey were not in a position where they would be expected to work, either because of mental health problems or physical disabilities. Twenty-nine of the remaining 44 respondents were in work. (29/44 = 65.9%... IH this is less than 2/3rds!) Half were fully reliant on housing benefit and only 9 had lived in social housing for less than 5 years. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment J H | 19/11/2014 4:55 pm What is the PURPOSE of this report? Not a silly question when asked as WHO is this meant to convince? Scanning the link above to executive summary: It is full of jargon so clearly not an audience outside of housing such as Joe Public or Government. It is ONLY about Londons social housing variables - which bear little resemblance to social housing outside of the capital. Hence it holds little relevance even to a social housing audience nationally It states who DOES live in social housing yet not who doesnt - For example 51% of all PRS tenants are under 35 yet just 19% of all social tenants (nationally) are under 35. The relevance here is report tries to counter the get pregnant get a council house myth of folklore which by the above numbers (all from EHS the largest yearly study of housing) dictates must be more of an issue in privately rented properties than in the SRS. The paper looks at welfare reform and the bedroom tax specifically yet fails to mention that for example the bedroom tax has twice as many affected in the NW than in London - hence it is parochial. The report then incredulously says tenants will not move as a result of the bedroom tax due to emotional attachment! Well knock me down with a feather as London must have oodles of smaller properties to downsize to than the 4% who are able to downsize nationally! Nice glossy report. Poorly framed and purposeless Oops it has one purpose - a quarter of social tenants in London are not in poverty and living on a comfortable plateau - Ah I see. The G15 having experimented with and abandoned affordable (sic) rent (one of them making £16m more in rental income alone last year) have just paid for some research that they can use to substantiate the pay more to stay farcical proposal of this coalition. Still it means G15 CEOs can justifiably share more platforms with Lord Freud et all at next years Housing Conference and consider themselves important! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment WomanWithLexicon | 19/11/2014 6:25 pm This article will be cheery news to the ears of IDS and the DWP. It suggests many G15 tenants are the sort of people who will be less affected by welfare reform (cuts) and may well be the sort of people keen to see a draconian clamp-down on the feckless wastrels routinely exhibited in the Daily Fail. Shaun Brady makes an intriguing point and JH makes some very sound observations. Why do I get the impression this report was commissioned to address one agenda in the lead up to an election while undermining several others. One wonders if the G15 is suffering from simultaneous tactical 20/20 vision and strategic myopia. Others may not wonder. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment BlokeWithAConscience BlokeWithAConscience | 19/11/2014 6:26 pm I can see that the report might pose a threat to the world of Sun and Daily Mail readers and some of the regular posters on this website. It does rather spoil the stereotyping and demonising of social tenants which in turn could turn attention to governments failure to provide sufficient homes for its population ............ and we cant have that can we? Thats no fun at all! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Man Withabacus Man Withabacus | 19/11/2014 6:32 pm I suspect WWL has spotted the true purpose of this... the majority of social rented tenants are working... they can pay the bedroom tax and afford more... Those dogs at Westbrook may be blazing the trail in Hoxton but I suspect that the fat cats are Ging them on silently as they will benefit from rising rents and may even follow their lead! Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment WomanWithLexicon | 19/11/2014 6:38 pm It would be good to juxtapose this report with the lives of RP CEOs, so that the unfair stereotype of many of them being progressive, lefty, jumper wearing charitable types can be undone. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Mr Webb | 19/11/2014 9:11 pm It is striking to read so much negative reaction to evidence that the myths and lies spread virtually unchallenged by media and politicians are just that - myths. When weve all finished judging people for the social crime of tenancy perhaps we can move the debate onto the economic value of social tenure and the value the nation lost turning away from it. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Will Bodrum | 20/11/2014 3:47 am Well, of course you will find more tenants unemployed in more depressed areas and more tenants employed in areas offering more jobs... Is it not the same for private owners and everybody else?... However there seem to be no clichés about private home owners - and not negative and insulting clichés as there are for tenants anywaya... the fact is social tenant has been turned into an insulting expression that both governments and social landlords have happily helped flourish by scapegoating social tenants for every ill of our society... All in the cult of the highly respected home owner. Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment eyeinthesky | 20/11/2014 9:41 am It may well be entirely justified to criticize these findings. My main criticism is that it states the plainly obvious. Reasonable (yes I know-what constitutes reasonable?) people already knew this. Those that criticize and condemn social tenants will continue to do so. Whats new? Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment Previous Page12Next Page View results 10 per page | 20 per page insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/stereotypes-about-social-tenants-simply-wrong-report-claims/7006945.article
Posted on: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:19:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015