Social housing is not, and should never be, second-class housing with second-class security of tenure. Although the idea of removing the right to a lasting tenancy may seem a way of opening up waiting lists ("An overstayed welcome" 26 March, page 27) , in the longer term it would ghettoise social housing and ensure the disadvantaged are kept apart from the community at large.

The example Tony Soares cites of a social housing tenant who does not "need" to live there is indicative in itself. This person is claiming housing benefit; surely anyone who can successfully claim this means-tested benefit could also make a case for maintaining a social housing tenancy, irrespective of the quality of rugs they put on their nice floors?

Along with a large number of former social housing tenants, I am now paying off a mortgage. I bet I'm not the only reader of Housing Today in this position.

I've always felt a sneaking admiration for those social housing tenants who remain in the sector even though they could afford to purchase a large house of their own. A certain former health secretary and long-term Peabody Trust tenant springs to mind.

The key to a successful social housing sector is a diversity of tenants. Long may this diversity continue.

Tim Cresswell, Foundation Housing, Leicester

I agree entirely that tenants who stay in subsidised accommodation when they could easily afford to buy or rent privately are depriving the needy.

However, just throwing them out is a bit extreme. It would be better to use a series of financial persuasions, built into the lease:

  • after three years, change the rent to market rent;
  • those who are still on low pay would be able to claim housing benefit
  • after three years, give the tenant the option of buying part or all of the equity at market price
  • where tenants under-occupy a property, end the lease to force them to downsize.

These measures would also bring in more rental income to be spent on development without government subsidy.

Bob Barnes, via email

The shortage of affordable rented housing is a result of a lack of investment. The removal of security of tenure as a solution sends shivers of dread down my spine.

Spiralling costs of renting in the private sector; a catalogue of personal tragedies as families are evicted; entire communities who feel alienated and rejected by society; an increasingly residualised social rented sector – the social implications would be disastrous.

Sure, there are scroungers. Let's get tough on those who cheat the system, but let's also invest in community development and introduce capacity building programmes that raise levels of independence, community involvement and community responsibility.

Campaign for more housing, not fewer tenants.

M Collis, community development manager, White Cliffs Housing Association, Kent

The example Soares gives is of someone in receipt of housing benefit, which means that means-testing has already taken place.

The tenant concerned has an obvious opportunity for a consultancy role, advising people on housing benefit on how they can afford servants, holidays and all the rest.

Liam O'Neill, area administrator, Highland council (writing in a personal capacity)

A mere tenant with nice furniture and carpets? I am deeply disturbed that Soares seems to suggest that rented social housing is only for the poor and slovenly.

This is the attitude that has stigmatised generations of tenants when dealing with employment and financial institutions.

Housing associations, as Soares will learn as he becomes a director, depend on government grants, allowances and housing benefit to subsidise their income. No one suggests that this is immoral. But if an individual claims the benefits that are deemed appropriate for their needs, society looks on them as a scrounger.

Perhaps he would like to see the tenancy agreement means-tested?

Many single elderly people would happily free up their three-bedroom mansions, but who has the bungalows to make this happen?

The ODPM has avoided creating specific grants for this national housing need and instead gives much-needed "general needs homes" to key workers and subsidises their mortgages so that these homes will never become available to Soares' needy tenants.

Much of the private rented housing market is single accommodation or small flats. Why, then, are RSLs building similar facilities?

The time has come for the government to set up a national housing register so that the homeless can be housed, but not necessarily in the area that they first want – perhaps after two refusals they should go to the back of the queue. After all, in the past, family units have been broken up because of work requirements, so why not housing need?

Stop subsidising the selling of habitable homes, let those who want a cheap house buy the decrepit ones and reap the rewards of doing them up and selling on. After all, the free market in housing is not Soares' priority, merely those without a stick of furniture or plans for an immediate foreign holiday.

George Brown, tenant board member, Southern Horizon Housing (writing in a personal capacity)

Source

Housing Today