When a house is not a home

The public seems to have regained its appetite for home ownership, and the mass media is getting into a frenzy about the prospect of another housing boom. Hardly a day goes by without a story reporting huge percentage increases in house prices or renewed tales of gazumping. However, less publicity has been evident about the still huge numbers of households whose experience of home ownership has led to impoverishment, ill health and emotional trauma.

In the first half of 1999, whilst the housing market was supposedly booming, 16,410 households experienced mortgage possession - that is over 630 a week or over 90 a day. These households join the 454,280 which had already experienced mortgage possession in the 1990s. Over the last decade well over 1.3 million adults and children have lost their homes due to mortgage default. Despite this, after a flurry of interest during the housing crisis of the early 1990s the topic has remained resolutely off the agenda of both politicians and the mass media.

The short-term housing crisis of the early 1990s masked a series of more enduring changes in society which have resulted in high levels of mortgage possession becoming a permanent feature of life in Britain: lower levels of inflation have meant that mortgage costs do not erode in real terms as fast as they did in previous decades; the growth of "flexible" labour markets have increased the work insecurity of many mortgagors; and levels of relationship breakdown amongst dual earner households in owner occupation have increased.

At the same time, state safety nets for mortgagors have been weakened and the much-heralded private insurance alternative is problematic both in terms of current levels of take-up and the coverage it provides.

Although no longer on the front pages or very high up the political agenda the social consequences of mortgage possession for families is immense and responses to the problem, at the level of both policy and practice, are far from adequate. Last week we published a study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which sought to give some of these apparently unnewsworthy families a voice.

Not surprisingly the experience of mortgage possession and subsequent rehousing was always stressful for family members. This stress was often compounded by the protracted administrative processes and procedures of lenders, the courts and some local authorities.

Although there is never such a thing as "a good possession" there was great variability in how damaging the actual process itself was on the lives of family members.

People described how high levels of uncertainty and a feeling that they lack any control over events amplified what was already a traumatic, emotional and stressful life event. Families were often unsure whether or not a lender would decide to possess following the build up of arrears; whether the courts would uphold an eviction order or suspend an eviction; or whether local authorities would classify a family as "intentionally homeless" or in "priority need".

In addition, family members were often unclear about where a household would be rehoused; how much choice, if any, they had about accepting accommodation that was offered; or whether or not their children would be able to stay at the same school.

For most families, the consequences were both dramatic and overwhelmingly negative. At a personal level people felt that their social status, identity and sense of self-worth had all been damaged. "I felt a complete failure" was a phrase used by many people, and they described how they felt they had "let their family down".

Personal and family relationships were also disrupted, and in some cases shattered.

Relationships between partners were placed under immense strain. Parenting under these stresses and uncertainties was made more difficult. Whilst in some cases members of the households extended family offered support, in other cases these relationships were made more difficult.

Women with dependent children who were left in the family home following divorce or separation were especially vulnerable. Women caring for dependent children were less likely to be mobile than their ex-partners. So where men had "disappeared", it was the women who were being chased for the outstanding debts. In some households the husband controlled the household finances, and in some of these cases men had taken out further loans and/or mortgages in joint names. Women were more likely to become lone parents making it more difficult to take on paid work because of parenting responsibilities and the costs of child care. A further legacy of outstanding debt was that people felt unable to take on paid work as they feared that the lenders would chase them more vigorously for the money they still owed.

The physical and mental health of many people was affected. Depression was experienced by most of the men and women who participated in the study. A small number of men said that they had contemplated suicide, but that they had not gone through with it because they wanted to do what they could for their children. Chronic conditions, experienced by men, women and children, such as asthma or seizure were made worse due to the stresses of the experience.

A move from being a homeowner to being a renter had quite dramatic effects on the quality of life of many families. Some moved to what they considered "undesirable" neighbourhoods, experienced significant lifestyle changes, and found themselves having to endure significant poverty and debt. Some families who had started rebuilding their lives had been shocked when, years after the possession, they received letters from their lenders demanding thousands of pounds: "we thought perhaps we can start rebuilding our future, and this one [letter] comes and it was thirty thousand and that's it, we're done." Lack of financial resources and a lack of self confidence meant that some people felt intensely isolated socially and were not able to participate in social activities.

People's future aspirations were severely curtailed. Many felt anxious and worried about what the future might hold for their housing, financial and social circumstances.

The consequences of high levels of unsustainable home ownership have major implications for the development of policies to "support families", tackle health inequalities and also policies aimed to improve the social position of women.

The right of lenders to pursue outstanding debts associated with possessed homes for up to 12 years is a policy which should be reviewed and changed. So too should the practice of selling on outstanding debts to debt collecting agencies. The voluntary Mortgage Code subscribed to by many lenders needs to pay more attention to the issues of indebtedness and possessions. Policies and procedures on homelessness and the legal framework in which they operate could also be reviewed with a view to reducing the considerable uncertainty experienced by families who lose their homes due to possession. Information about the procedures of repossession and peoples' rights could also be improved. It should be clear and consistent. For example, people should be informed about monies owed to lenders and about possible charges that they might incur. They should also be informed by local authorities about if, and where, they are to be rehoused.

The prevention and the amelioration of the consequences of possession requires that housing, social security, health, employment and family polices be much better co-ordinated. It provides a classic example of the need for real "joined-up" policy thinking.