Friends or foes?

When Julie Rugg was commissioned by the government to review private renting, it was inevitable that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would want to contribute, given our interest in reviving the sector during the past 20 years.We were interested in how the sector can provide homes for vulnerable people and earlier this year held two round table events involving agencies working with homeless households and other vulnerable groups. 

What was surprising was that they did not universally bash the private rented sector, feeling that it has value if used in the right way. Of course, it emerged that there are good landlords who go the extra mile for their tenants.

While some issues of principle remain – the move to the private rented sector as a ‘permanent’ solution for homeless households was questioned by many – those working at the sharp end with other vulnerable groups saw real potential in using the sector more effectively. We can perhaps concentrate on sorting out issues which prevent the sector being used to its full potential.

It is clear that support is the key issue – and part of that is getting the offer right for both tenants and landlords. Here intermediaries such as social letting agents could be a powerful tool in attracting and supporting landlords. They can minimise the risk for landlords and their tenants. There are already good examples of intermediaries providing tenant support, as well as providing a letting service for the landlord, which could be better publicised.

Agencies can also assist landlords through fast-track housing benefit applications – a major issue for smaller landlords who cannot afford to finance 16-week delays in claims. In addition, such agencies can help to resolve problems and act as a mediator between landlords and tenants when things are at risk of going wrong.Rent deposit and bond schemes also have a place –creativity is needed to provide greater flexibility.

How it works for tenants is, of course, central. What is clear is that they must be treated as individuals and not ‘groups’ of people who are vulnerable.Support needs to be more flexible and tailored.It may need to include such things as confidence building – referred to as ‘softer’ skills – and possibly, in some cases, more limited forms of support, such as to help find and set up a tenancy in the private rented sector.

As noted, such services minimise risks for the landlord and the tenant.When linked to assessments of a tenant’s support needs – which are central – this is seen as a potentially powerful solution.

However, there is frustration in the implementation of the Supporting People programme.There is a strong sense that funding mechanisms have become too prescriptive and circumscribed by strict rules on what is eligible support.This has sometimes prevented services from offering what is really needed, and led to the view that eligibility criteria are more important than the needs of the service user. Pressure on resources has meant that some costs have crept back into rent thereby keeping costs too high for those in work.

Which leads us back to housing benefit – which can be a barrier.Some landlords have a bad perception of benefit cases, while mortgage lenders and the insurance market have introduced restrictions that mean some landlords cannot take benefit cases.

Agencies take the view that joint commissioning has not yet taken off and clients are missing out on services.Local housing authorities interpret vulnerability in different ways, and this creates more hoops to go through, particularly over issues such as direct payments.Special arrangements are needed for those who are not in a position to manage their financial affairs themselves.

Affordability is another issue.Here again eligibility criteria are a concern with rent deposit and bond schemes which do little to prevent crises until people are homeless.In many places, discretionary payments are insufficient to cover private rent levels.

Security of tenure is a serious – and key – issue. Clearly for those with long-term needs, the social rented sector may be the appropriate option, but many of the agencies we talked to see real opportunities for using the private rented sector.

They see it as potentially more mainstream and therefore the preferable option for some vulnerable people.

They point out that the private rented sector offers more opportunities in terms of where people can live; what they are concerned about comes back to support– getting it right for the individual.

A lot of this is about building trust. Agencies are already showing that they provide a way of achieving that trust, an important part of which is by getting that ‘offer’ right.It requires true flexibility from all those involved so that it is those needs of individuals that are met.

Julia Unwin is director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.