Get shorty

The premise of short life is that a group of tenants, usually a cooperative, takes over a property that is unlettable for some reason, and looks after it in exchange for cheap – or no – rent. The co-ops don't own the properties, but have a lease with the landlord. The landlord gets somebody to babysit the property until it is renovated and the tenants get a cheap place to live; usually this will be for several months although in some cases it can last for years.

Short-life tenant cooperatives are most numerous in London or the South, where demand is highest. They cater for different types of homeless people and single people who cannnot afford to live in the same areas at market rents. Most short-life groups are set up as "fully mutual" housing co-ops. This means that all members are tenants. It also means that no matter what they choose to call the agreement they give to members, the law will always see it as an "excluded contractual tenancy". If the landlord goes to court to get vacant possession, as long as they have served the notice correctly, the judge has no discretion and must award it. In other words, the member has no security of tenure. This makes moving people on relatively straightforward for the landlord.

All that the short-life co-ops ask is that landlords give them as much notice as possible when they want the property back, as the whole process can take about six months. Sometimes this means giving tenants notice quite shortly after they have been issued with their tenancy. This is quite common in the private sector and is also something that the co-ops go to very great lengths to explain to new members.

In addition, landlords don't always have to go to court to get possession. If they can offer to rehouse the tenant elsewhere, it's not necessary and they can have the property back much more quickly. The co-ops are doing pretty much the same as RSLs in terms of managing private sector properties for use by homeless families, and no one ever queries RSLs' ability to get possession.

Benefits for the neighbourhood
Another concern of landlords is that if people are hard to shift from a short-life tenancy, this could hold up work on the property and jeopardise regeneration schemes designed to benefit hundreds of people.

As outlined above, moving people on is not an issue and, furthermore, short-life tenants can have a positive effect on estates going through major regeneration and refurbishment. Who wants to live next door to a flat that's going to be empty for more than 18 months and attracts crime and drug misuse?

Also, think of all the positive benefits that short-life tenants' rent could pay for. Brent Community Housing, for example, currently has short-life tenancies in more than 100 units on the Stonebridge estate in Harlesden, north London, which is going through a massive redevelopment programme. These contribute more than £290,000 a year to this process.

It is often said that you are better off having your property empty than using it for short life because it's too much hassle. Yet how much hassle is it when the property gets squatted? Or vandalised? Or when the local drug dealers move in? How many complaints from neighbours will they be causing every day?

Who wants to live next door to a flat that’s empty for 18 months and attracts vandals and drug dealers?

All an RSL needs to do to get a property in a short-life programme is:

• identify a short-life group (perhaps via the London Federation of Short-Life Users)
  
• phone them and arrange for them to get the keys. Tell them how long the property will be available and what weekly rent you want
  
• sign the standard lease that they give you
  
• tell them how to make payments to you (standing order is easiest)
  
• give six months' notice to the group when you want the property back
  
• get the property back and start your redevelopment.

Short on time, not quality
Short-life is considered by some to be just substandard accommodation. It certainly won't be up to the standards of a newly refurbished RSL property, but the only major difference will be in terms of decor.

Co-ops take their responsibilities as a landlord very seriously, so they do ensure that annual gas safety checks are done, for example. They won't replace toilet seats, but they will replace a defective cistern. Their standards compare very favourably with the private sector. And the fact that the decor is not up to Changing Rooms' standards is reflected in the rents that they charge. "Housing co-op offers spacious one-bed self-contained flat with garden in desirable West Kensington area for £50.95 per week." Who could grumble about that? Who would live in a house like this?

Finally, there are those who say that no one wants to live in short-life accommodation and that employed people must have no interest in short-life.

With the current pressures on the housing market in London, short-life is a vital lifeline for hundreds of people. If Brent Community Housing had 100 empty flats today, we could fill them tomorrow. The majority of our tenants are single, but we do take some nominations of homeless families from the local authority. These families are nearly always living in bed and breakfast at the time of application. Self-contained homes are always preferable to living in one or two cramped rooms with shared facilities.

For years, short-life accommodation has been blazing the key-worker accommodation trail. At the last count, 75% of BCH's tenants were economically active. The biggest attraction is the low rents. Even people on what most would see as a "good" salary of £24,000 would find the private rented sector difficult and homeownership a distant dream. BCH recently offered nomination rights to St Mary's NHS in Paddington, and it was interesting that the bulk of people who expressed an interest were not nurses, but those further down the salary range: porters, security guards and admin staff – people just as important in terms of keeping the hospital running, but with far fewer housing options.

The question remains: when there are so many benefits for areas with high housing need and empty homes, why don't more housing organisations run with this idea?