Private landlords are tired of being a scapegoat

We’re in the business of providing homes, just like you

The private rented sector has come in for some stick lately, but it’s currently meeting housing needs other tenures are failing to address. Changes to taxation, however, are threatening the business model and undermining its ability to deliver, argue the two main trade bodies

By Mark Cantrell

First Published in Housing magazine

A thick skin is a must for private landlords, you might think, especially given the private rented sector has taken a lot of flak lately, but while criticisms can be rebuffed, it’s a little harder to fend off attacks on one’s livelihood.

Over the last 10-15 years, the sector has grown considerably; it has overtaken social housing provision as the second largest tenure, and is chasing on the heels of home ownership. But this shift in fortunes has not come without a certain degree of vitriol aimed at private landlords.

Some of this vitriol may be well deserved – no tenure is a paragon of virtue, after all – but there is certainly a sense that private renting is being used as something of a whipping boy for the faults of others. Private landlords may not be under siege in quite the same way, or intensity, as the social sector, but they’ve certainly come under fire.

Criticism has inspired policy. Over the last 18 months or so, private landlords have seen their mortgage interest rate relief axed; the sector has seen the imposition of a 3% surcharge on Stamp Duty for buy-to-let purchases; and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne offered landlords a further twist of the knife, when he exempted the sector from cuts to Capital Gains Tax.

The private rented sector is certainly feeling hard done by, after all that; a sense that it’s been used as something of a scapegoat. And it’s not just landlord representatives saying this. Jeremy Blackburn, head of UK policy at RICS, recently said: “The private rented sector became a scapegoat under the previous Prime Minister, and because of that it suffered.”

This matters because, as RICS warned, the private rented sector, for all its recent growth, is in no position to cope with the rising demand that will be placed upon it, as social housing continues to decline, and home ownership continues to become ever-more unaffordable. Around 1.8 million new rental homes will be needed by 2025, RICS said, but recent policy changes will dampen private landlords’ enthusiasm, as much as their ability, to rise to the challenge.

The “economics of private renting have been dramatically rewritten over the past year”, said Richard Lambert, chief executive of the National Landlords Association (NLA). His counterpart at the Residential Landlords Association (RLA), Andrew Goodacre, concurs: it’s “changing the business model of the buy-to-let sector” he said.

Confidence matters

“The impact we’re seeing is a huge loss of confidence,” said Lambert. The NLA conducts a regular tracker survey of member sentiment and its most recent one recorded the lowest figure it had ever seen – only 39% were confident of the future for their business. By all accounts, sentiment was ticking along quite nicely – until the Chancellor fired off his taxation salvo.

“[The surveys] ran fairly consistently from about early 2013 to the second quarter of last year in the mid-60% and then it plunged to the low 50s, high 40s, and it just kept going down over the past year,” Lambert added. “Effectively, it is now below the lowest point after the financial crash. So in effect two speeches from George Osborne last year had the same effect on landlord confidence as the financial crash of 2008/2009.”

Landlords are “working through the changes” he said and adapting to these new financial operating conditions, but the net consequences will see some sell-up and exit the market, while others will downsize their portfolios. It is also expected to see investment decisions deferred – and rents pushed up to cover the added costs.

“All of this affects the supply side,” Lambert said. “It doesn’t alter the fact that there is a continued and rising demand for private rented property. Even with the Help to Buy scheme people cannot get into owner occupation in the way they could 10 years ago. It is very difficult to get into social housing because there’s such a limited amount.

“So the growth of the private rented sector has, basically, taken up the slack between the other two tenures and is providing housing for people. That demand continues but essentially we don’t have enough supply. We need more properties built. We need them to come onto the market in a way that people can actually access them. If landlords are not investing, then where’s that coming from?”

Part of the private rented sector’s woes, Lambert suggests, comes down to policymakers not taking the time to gain a holistic understanding of the business.

“Nobody in Government really takes the time and trouble to get a deep understanding of how the private rented sector works from both sides,” he said. “Most people appreciate how it works from the consumer side, from the tenant perspective, because most people at some time in their lives have been tenants. Few people understand what it’s like from the suppliers’ side, and get a grasp of how the economics work, how the business processes work, what the issues are.”

The private rented sector tends to be viewed as a “monolith” too, which again doesn’t help matters. “The private rented sector is a massive web of complex interactions, of different tenant types, property types, areas, markets, the huge swathes of regulation,” said Lambert. It’s a very complex area and it does take time and effort to get a real understanding of it. Certainly, we find at political and governmental level the grasp is partial.”

In this view, the Government – and perhaps by inference, many of the sector’s critics outside Westminster and Whitehall – have to recognise that the private rented sector has a role to play – and that it is a business – and that policy, therefore, must seek to balance the needs of landlords, agents and tenants.

Business flair

The business theme was also picked up by the RLA’s Goodacre. 

 

“We have to be prepared to accept that responsible landlords are operating as small businesses in many ways. It’s not recognised as that by the taxman necessarily, but it really is,” he said. “If you’ve got a portfolio of five, six or more properties, then you’re talking about a small enterprise. All these tax changes, and not just tax changes – we’ve got upcoming things like energy efficiency requirements by 2018 – it almost feels like the private rented sector, despite what it has achieved in the last few years, despite providing homes for more and more people – and good quality homes – is being held a scapegoat for the housing crisis.”

And not just a scapegoat, he added – but “almost a cash cow”. 

 

“There’s not a lot of general sympathy held towards landlords. I understand that,” he said. “They’re not a sympathetic bunch of people necessarily, and it’s hard to feel sorry for landlords because they’ve got the temerity to invest money in more than one property, in the eyes of many people. So it’s easy to raise taxes against landlords knowing there won’t be a huge amount of public uproar or even political uproar about it.”

Maybe so, but others are left to pick up the bill for a politician’s quick bite out of the sector. Again, in the RLA’s exploration of its members’ sentiment, the organisation is finding that tax changes, stamp duty surcharge and the like, is taking its toll. A recent survey found that 31% are considering leaving the sector, 58% are thinking about cutting back on investment, and 66% are considering rent increases to meet the extra costs.

“If it’s about homeownership, about encouraging people onto the ladder, well causing inflationary pressure on their outgoings in terms of rental prices and costs will make it harder for them to save [for a deposit], so it seems counterproductive,” said Goodacre. “The danger is that if there is a churn of landlords, a lack of investment or reduced investment because of these tax and regulation changes, then the people hardest hit will be those renting the properties in the first place.”

Cameron and Osborne have since left the building, of course, so quite what Theresa May’s Government will bring to the table, only time can tell. Both Lambert and Goodacre concede there have been some ‘interesting noises’ emerging from the current administration. But these noises are a far cry from rescinding policies they argue are damaging to the private rented sector’s business model.

“We are hopeful that the new regime will generally listen and recognise that the private rented sector landlord has an important role to play in providing homes, and indeed in the economy of the country,” Goodacre said. 

 

However, as it is, he worries that the legacies of the old regime might provoke an exodus of professional landlords from the sector, costing it skills, and altering its nature and outlook in the years ahead. “That would be a shame,” said Goodacre. “People talk about professionalism in the sector and the need to adhere to regulations and standards, well that comes with the more professional landlord.”

Devil’s advocate

Sympathy for private landlords may be in short supply, as Goodacre intimated, but whether or not they are more sinned against than sinners, the rise of the private rented sector is a testament to the failings – whether by deliberate design or unfortunate happenstance – of the social rent and owner occupation tenures. 

 

Simply put, we haven’t built enough homes for decades, whatever the tenure, as most industry figures agree. Instead, we have deliberately set about reducing the availability of genuinely low-cost social housing, and somehow all the efforts to boost levels of home ownership have simply pushed the dream ever further out of reach for many.

Regardless of what anyone might think of private landlords, they can’t really be blamed for that one – all they have done is fill a gap. As it is, when it comes to some of the criticisms aimed at the private rented sector, stones and glass houses spring to mind.

# # #

Private renting in profile

• 19% of all households were private renters in 2014-15, equating to 4.3 million households
• The sector increased from 11% in 2004-05 to 18% in 2012-13, and then again to 19% in 2014-15. Between 1994-95 and 2004-05, the sector increased at a more leisurely pace from 10% to 11%
• In 2014-15, 70% of private renters were aged under 45, compared with 25% of owner occupiers and 36% of social renters
• Between 1994-95 and 2014-15, the proportion of private renters aged 25-54 went up from 56% to 72%. The proportions of younger (16-24) and older (55+) private renters went down
• 76% of private renters had lived at their current home for less than five years in 2014-15, compared to 20% of owner occupiers and 39% of social tenants
• On average, private renters had lived at their current address for four years. By contrast, social renters had lived at their current address for 11.4 years, and owner occupiers for an average of 17.5 years
• In 2014-15, 27% of private renters were one-person households, down from 38% in 1994-95
• In 2014-15, 23% of private renting households were couples with dependent children, up from 16% in 1994-95
• The proportion of lone parents with dependent children has also increased, from 7% to 13% between 1994-95 and 2014-15
• In 2014-15, 65% of private renters were satisfied with their current tenure, compared to 98% of owner occupiers and 82% of social renters
• However, satisfaction among private renters has increased since 2004-05, when 48% were satisfied
• In 2014, 28% of private renters (1.2 million households) lived in properties that were non-decent. In 2006, when the private rented sector was smaller, 47% (1.1 million households) lived in homes that were non-decent
• Compared to other tenures, the private rented sector has a higher rate of non-decent homes. In 2014, 18% of owner-occupiers and 14% of social tenants lived in non-decent homes

(Source: English Housing Survey, Private Rented Sector Report 2014-15, July 2016)

# # #

Self assessment

The landlords...

• Most landlords are aged between 55 and 64 (35%) followed by 45 to 54 (27%)
• 52% of landlords had a mortgage on their own home while 41% owned outright
• More landlords were working full time (26%) than were retired (24%) or self employed (19%). Only 16% classified themselves as full time landlords
• 35% chose to become a landlord through borrowing money, such as buy-to-let
• 41% describe themselves as specialising in letting to families
• Most landlords had been providing homes for over 10 years (56%)

The tenants...

• Most tenants are aged between 25 and 34 (44%), followed by the 35 to 44 age group (32%)
• 74% of tenants are in full time employment
• 63% of landlords let to tenants with at least one child
• 86% of landlords have a good relationship with their tenant
• 82% of landlords say their tenants pay their rent on time
• 28% have experience tenants going into two months or more of rent arrears in the past 12 months
• Out of those that tried to evict a tenant, 49% said it was because of rent arrears

The properties...

• Portfolio sizes are widely spread from one to more than 21, with 28% of landlords owning two to three properties, followed by 21% who own six to 10 properties
• 35% of landlords let a two-bedroom property to one family
• The South East is the most popular region for landlords, with 20% letting property there
• 21% of landlords have not diversified their portfolio across different regions
• 54% of landlords let out unfurnished properties
• 36% say they allow tenants to have pets
• Only 1% of landlords say they allow sub-letting

The rent...

• 6% of landlords say their rental income does not meet their expenditure
• 39% of landlords say the rental income they receive meets less than 79% of their costs
• 37% of landlords think rents can be “reasonably raised” by 1% to 3% in the next year
• 56% of landlords plan to increase their rents in the next 12 months. The main reason given was changes to mortgage interest relief (36%)
• The average rent is £855 a month
• The current average tenancy period is three years

(Source: Landlord Investment, Finance & Tax Report 2016, Residential Landlords Association)

This article first appeared in the October/November 2016 print edition of Housing magazine. It was subsequently republished on the HousingExcellence website, 13 December 2016

Getting behind the rent

Lost in translation

New research has claimed an indisputable link between the introduction of Universal Credit and tenants getting behind in their rent. The implications for landlords and tenants alike are significant, but it can be fixed – if the Government is prepared to listen

By Mark Cantrell

This article first appeared in the August/September edition of Housing 

IRONICALLY, for a welfare benefit supposedly built to better support claimants into work and out of poverty, Universal Credit isn’t quite up to speed when it comes to dealing with some of the realities of life at the bottom of the labour market – and this has implications for landlords.

Rent arrears is a problem; not only is it a direct detriment to a landlord’s income stream, but dealing with the issue is itself a further drain on resources that could be deployed to other effect. What’s more, it can indicate hardships taking root in the communities where they operate for which there may be no immediate and direct solution to hand – just a further strain on resources.

Exasperation might prompt some to accuse tenants in rent arrears of being feckless – incompetent and irresponsible – when it comes to managing their money. For sure, personal mismanagement is a real and present factor in why some people fall behind with the rent, but it’s not the entire story. The reasons for arrears can be many and varied, but recently a further causal factor has been added to the mix, with the publication of research that claims an indisputable link between rent arrears and the introduction of Universal Credit.

Released in June 2016, the study was a joint endeavour by the National Federation of ALMOs (NFA) and the Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH), which set out to examine the impact of Universal Credit on council tenants.

The headline findings proved quite startling, disconcerting even. It revealed that 79% of tenants receiving Universal Credit were in rent arrears. Moreover, only half of them had been in arrears before they were moved on to the new benefit. It doesn’t bode well, then, as the benefit continues to be rolled-out across the country.

“These survey findings continue to be extremely concerning for everyone involved in managing social housing in this country,” said John Bibby, chief executive of ARCH. “Despite the best efforts of ALMOs and local authorities to help prepare and support tenants claiming Universal Credit our research shows that one year on the proportion of claimants in rent arrears is still shockingly high. A review of current policy is imperative if we are to reduce unnecessary hardship within our communities.”

The research followed up a study conducted a year earlier, when the process of rolling Universal Credit out beyond its initial pilot zones was getting underway. This earlier study found that 89% of tenants on the new benefit were in arrears. So this new one, at least, has offered a little slice of positive news, even if the impact remains high. But the latest research not only set out to identify the extent of rent arrears that can be attributed to Universal Credit, it also wanted to know why the new benefit was tripping people up. In simple terms, you could say it boils down to design flaws.

“Although half did already have arrears, there is an element of people who went on Universal Credit quite early. Anecdotally we think it is possibly because these people are likely to be in and out of benefit and have had a change of circumstance,” said Chloe Fletcher, the NFA’s director of policy. “We know from housing officers and rent recovery officers that those types of people who have got quite different working arrangements – who are in and out of work, or on zero hours contracts – are often the people they find it difficult to collect [their] rent, because these people are managing on very low and changeable incomes, which makes it difficult to plan their financial affairs.”

The critical issue, the research found, is the length of time – six weeks – it takes to process claims and the fact that payments are made in arrears, whereas rent payments are expected in advance. For those leaving work, there’s a further seven-day period added to the length of time it takes before they receive Universal Credit. What’s more, it’s a week for which they receive no payment.

“These are people who are on very low incomes, who will not have savings, may have been in and out of work, on zero hours contracts,” said Fletcher. “People who lost their job, or their contract ended, may not have a significant wage cheque at the end, but they are expected to see themselves through that initial seven-day period. Given this is a safety net benefit and the vast majority of people claiming this are on very low incomes to start with, and are in that very insecure labour market, we don’t think that is reasonable.”

There is an element of forewarned is forearmed to this report. In disseminating their findings, the NFA and ARCH are providing housing associations an indication as to what they can expect once Universal Credit rolls up on their doorsteps. That is if it is not successfully reformed before then. That’s not necessarily an unrealistic hope. The research is also intended to provide the evidence needed to persuade ministers at the DWP that this flagship policy needs a little spit and polish if it is realise its aspirations.

Both NFA and ARCH are calling for the DWP to abandon the current seven-day waiting period. Furthermore, they want the Government to review the policy of monthly in arrears payments to ascertain if this is causing “unnecessary hardship” and longterm disadvantage to claimants. It also wants the processing of Universal Credit claims speeded up to three weeks, bringing it more in line with Housing Benefit.

None of these points are fundamental issues with the benefit, neither do they call into question its reasoning and aims. Furthermore, the DWP is not unaware of the problems. During a debate in the House of Lords on 13 July, the research cropped up in questions from peers put to welfare reform minister Lord Freud. In answering them, he announced he had commissioned a review to “help understand the true level and causes of these arrears”.

“I appreciate the concern with this. The reality is that there are a lot of factors at play and Universal Credit is not the sole issue. Many people are coming into Universal Credit with pre-existing arrears. Safeguards are in place for claimants, including advances, budgeting support and alternative payment arrangements. Research shows that over time claimants successfully reduce their arrears,” he said.

Lord Freud later added: “The essential fact is that landlords like their money paid in advance and all benefits systems pay in arrears, so we do not know how much of this is what the ALMOs call book arrears and how much is real arrears. We need to get to the bottom of that and we need to get to the bottom of what are the processing and payment systems issues. We need to understand what the existing arrears are.

“They are much higher than we expected—50%—and that is a frightening fact. We may be looking at a group going into [Universal Credit] which is unusual because it is moving up and down, and we need to understand and quantify those factors.”

Some may read into this Government prevarication; others may welcome it as an acknowledgement of a problem and so the first step towards a solution. Be that as it may, the wheels turn slowly for those landlords and tenants wrestling with the rent arrears triggered by Universal Credit. But maybe it is a start, all the same.

As it is, Universal Credit is not seen as the problem, per se; a few tweaks to its implementation and administration would, so the arguments go, make the benefit roll so much smoother for all concerned.

“The NFA supports the idea of Universal Credit,” said Fletcher. “Once it gets going and it’s done properly, in many ways it will be much better for the claimants to manage their money in future. So, whilst we believe in the principles of the new mechanism, there are minor things with the policy that we think need changing, which would make a big difference for claimants.”

One might say, then, that Universal Credit is a good idea, it has just kind of lost some its meaning in its translation into practice. A little reinterpretation will make its meaning clear. 

# # #

Rental issue

The households most likely to have fallen into rent arrears included lone parents with dependent children, or those where the householder was unemployed, according to the latest English Housing Survey (EHS).

• Lone parents with dependent children were more likely than other types of household to be in arrears (24%) or have been so in the previous 12 months (27%). Single person households and couples without children were least likely
• Households where the person responsible for the tenancy is unemployed were more likely to be or have been in arrears at some point in the previous 12 months (27% and 29% respectively). Those where the head of the household was retired were least likely to be or have been in arrears
• Of those who did not have their rent paid by Housing Benefit, 364,000 households (14%) were in arrears. A further 348,000 households had fallen behind in their payments at some point during the previous 12 months. This had changed little since 2011-12, the EHS said
• The main reasons given for rent arrears were debts or other responsibilities (27%), reductions or delays in benefit payments (22%), and unemployment (21%)

(Source: English Housing Survey)

This article first appeared in the August/September 2016 print edition of Housing magazine. The article was subsequently republished on the HousingExcellence website, 4 October 2016

Cover Story: May The Lady Be For Turning?

Britain on the blink

Can housing save the economy from the Brexit blues? 

The collapse of David Cameron’s Government opened a Pandora’s Box for Britain, but a window of opportunity for the social housing sector. Can the new Prime Minister be persuaded there’s more to securing a decent home than ownership alone? Well, some voices are willing to try

By Mark Cantrell

First published in the August/September edition of Housing magazine 

THE last couple of months have seen a remarkable uprising against an orthodoxy fervently embraced by Government, but while the ‘old order’ has been swept away (kind of), the legacy of that discarded regime remains a force to be reckoned with.

No, we’re not talking about the Brexit vote, per se, though it certainly threw things into some disarray. For politics junkies, the meltdown in the country’s political leadership may have proved an entertaining circus, but to sober policymakers urgently looking for a little, well, leadership, it has been something of a sorry farce.

The Conservatives sheathed the knives and regrouped first. Now – after Theresa May’s root-and-branch Cabinet reshuffle – Government is back in the business of governing. About time too, it might be said. There’s likely a lot of trouble ahead.

Brexit or no Brexit, the UK languishes under the grip of a worsening housing crisis. The vote to cut loose from the EU has left the country under a brooding cloud of uncertainty, but it seems likely that it will rain further misery on the bereft victims of Britain’s broken housing market.

On that note, we come up against that peculiar orthodoxy; namely, that creating home owners is the only game in town when it comes to Government housing policy. There was nothing unique to David Cameron’s love affair with home ownership and first-time buyers – you can track it all the way back to the last Labour government and beyond – but during his time at the national helm, it was allowed to become a rather all-consuming affair.

Dissent has been bubbling away for some time, and would have broken to the surface regardless, but Brexit has given it an added urgency. The collapse of Cameron’s Government, meanwhile, has offered an opportunity to make the case anew for a radical change in housing policy.

Town hall chiefs rattled the cage, if not their sabres, during the Local Government Association’s annual conference, making a strident call for a renaissance in the construction of council housing.

“The housing crisis is affecting more and more families every year,” said Councillor Peter Box, the LGA’s housing spokesperson. “For many, studying hard and succeeding in work will no longer guarantee an affordable and decent place to live. Even if the country is able to achieve full employment in 2024, around four million working people will need some type of affordable housing as wages struggle to keep pace with house prices.

“Bold new action is needed in the wake of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. National and local government must come together around our joint ambition to build homes and strong, inclusive communities.”

Box was speaking at the launch of the LGA’s Housing Commission report. The document pointed out that the last time the country was building more than 250,000 homes a year was in 1977/78, when councils built 44% of new homes. Since then, of course, changes in Government approach saw councils’ contribution collapse.

This has left a gap in supply that private house builders and housing associations have never been able to fill. Private developers in England have only been able to build an average of 90,000 homes a year since 2009/2010. In 2013/14 this was around 77% of all new homes, the report said. In comparison, the same year councils were only able to build 1% of all new homes; a situation that must end, according to the LGA.

“A renaissance in house building by councils must be at the heart of this bold new action,” Box added. “The private sector clearly plays a crucial role but it cannot build the homes we need on its own, and will likely be further restricted by uncertainties in the months and years ahead.”

Somebody certainly has to build. The Government has made it clear that the one million homes ‘ambition’ remains in force. But Brexit saw private housebuilders’ share prices take a double-digit hit; confidence in the sector’s prospects in terms of skills, labour, market conditions, has also felt the pinch. A downturn in the industry – with its knock-on economic impact – is a real and present danger.

Ten days after the LGA report, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (EAC) published Building More Homes, which provided a highly critical assessment of the Government’s housing policy. The document makes clear that, in the EAC’s view, the housing crisis will never be resolved unless councils are once again allowed to become major players in the provision of new homes.

Among its criticisms, the EAC said the Government had created uncertainty in an already dysfunctional market by frequent changes to tax rules and subsidies for house purchases, reductions in social rent, and the extension of right-to-buy. All of these changes served to reduce the supply of homes for those who need low-cost rental accommodation. Furthermore, its narrow focus on home ownership neglects those who rent their home.

“The Government is too focused on home ownership which will never be achievable for a great many people and in some areas it will be out of reach even for those on average incomes. Government policy to tackle the crisis must be broadened out to help people who would benefit from good quality, secure rented homes,” said the EAC’s chairman, Lord Hollick.

“It is very concerning that changes to stamp duty for landlords and cuts to social rent could reduce the availability of homes for rent. The long-term trend away from subsidising tenancies to subsidising home buyers hits the poorest hardest and should be reversed. If the housing crisis is to be tackled the Government must allow local authorities to borrow to build and accelerate building on surplus public land.”

As for the goal to deliver one million homes by 2020, the EAC’s report argues it is insufficient, either to meet demand for new homes, or to moderate the rate of house price increases. Indeed, it calls for 300,000 homes to be built each year “for the foreseeable future”.

“The private sector alone cannot deliver that [figure]. It has neither the ability nor motivation to do so. We need local government and housing associations to get back into the business of building,” Lord Hollick added.

“Local authorities are keen to meet this challenge but they do not have the funds or the ability to borrow to embark on a major programme to build new social homes. It makes no sense that a local authority is free to borrow to build a swimming pool but cannot do the same to build homes.”

The day before Building More Homes was published, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), together with the CIH, revealed something of the damage Government policies had inflicted on councils’ ability to deliver new homes.

In their joint report, ‘Investing in Council Housing’, the two organisations said plans to build 500,000 new homes over the next 30 years had been scuppered by Government’s fickle approach. In the scheme of things, and over that time-scale, such figures (around 16,600 a year) are small-fry, given the extent of the undersupply of housing, but it represents a significant escalation from a historically low base.

Growth begets growth as it were. There were high hopes of the self financing settlement in 2012, and councils took on £13bn of extra debt finance to fund building, based on future rental income. However, policy changes have dashed hopes and shrunk that potential, such that only 45,000 homes (1,500 a year) are now expected. That’s little more than councils managed pre-settlement, according to CIPFA and the CIH.

“The situation is desperate,” said CIPFA chief executive, Rob Whiteman. “Families across the country will not get the homes they need because the Government keeps on tinkering with housing policy without properly thinking it through.

“At best, successive governments have turned a blind eye to the consequences of inconsistent housing policy, at worst they have deliberately set out to undermine local authorities’ best laid plans.

“By reducing rents to soften the blow of welfare cuts, the Government has choked the revenue streams that were meant to fund new house building. At the same time, the right-to-buy policy has led to assets being sold off, further reducing the ability to councils to finance new homes.

“We need urgent action to reset the self-financing settlement, with assurances that its foundations won’t be pulled away the moment government attention turns to something else.”

There’s already a lot there for May to consider, if she is so inclined, but the National Housing Federation (NHF) has added its own proposal to the mix. The organisation, again with the backing of the CIH, has also called on the Government to take a long hard look at its housing policies, and allow councils and housing associations the much greater leeway they need to build homes. It’s not just about tackling the housing crisis anymore, vitally important though that is, but shoring up the economy against the potential impact of Brexit.

The NHF is calling on the Government to relax restriction on the tenure of homes, allowing housing associations to build more on their terms, and offer councils a ‘new deal’ including greater flexibility on the borrowing caps they face. Furthermore, it wants the government to switch some of the £7bn planned funding from supporting home ownership to supporting “affordable” rental properties.

“The warning signs are flashing amber – housebuilding may be set for a slowdown – but housing associations have a track record of building through tough times. Demand for good quality rented homes remains high,” said David Orr, the NHF’s chief executive.

At the time of writing, it is impossible to say beyond the flimsiest of speculation quite what direction May will take on housing. There is a clear economic – as well as social – case to be made for government to invest in housing across tenures, but then there was before Brexit too; there’s no guarantee that this new Conservative administration will be any more amenable to the arguments than was the last.

May showed a ruthless hand in purging the personnel of a Government of which she herself was a veteran member, but will she prove as ruthless in purging the policies of the recent past? The course she steers, inevitably, will depend on the economic and political waters – and on some hard and canny lobbying too. 

 

The new Prime Minister is not entirely unaware of the issues. When she launched her leadership campaign, she said: “[U]nless we deal with the housing deficit, we will see house prices keep on rising. Young people will find it even harder to own their own home ... And more and more of the country’s money will go into expensive housing instead of more productive investments that generate more economic growth.”

But as the campaigning organisation Generation Rent said when Theresa May ascended to leadership: “[G]iven the Government’s shameful record on affordable housing, and their manifesto commitments to home ownership gimmickry, we cannot take anything for granted.”

Okay, so calling it an uprising is putting things a little strong, but for now, that orthodoxy of ownership is vulnerable and open to question. It won’t remain so. 

 

# # # 

Rabble rousing

Among its proposals for a council house renaissance, the Local Government Association is calling for:

• National backing for new local government housing delivery models to build new and different types of homes. This must coincide with a revitalisation of council house building by allowing councils to keep a greater proportion of right-to-buy receipts and to combine receipts with Homes & Community Agency funding
• Allow councils to set planning fees locally so they can cover costs and continue to develop a proactive planning approach for unlocking housing growth, and developing powers for councils to ensure homes are built on sites where planning permission has been granted but building may have stalled
• Build a new market of homes attractive and suitable for older people that are better able to meet their health needs and support them to move, which, in turn, would release more family homes into the local market

The Economic Affairs Committee proposed a number of recommendations for tackling the housing crisis, including:

• Lifting restraints on local authority borrowing: councils should be free to borrow to fund social housebuilding as they are other building programmes. This would enable local authorities to resume their historic role as one of the major builders of new homes, particularly social housing
• The current historically low cost of borrowing means local authorities could make a large contribution to building the houses needed for the future. Further, the new Prime Minister has announced that the Government will abandon its fiscal target. This paves the way to increase local authority borrowing powers, the committee said
• The Government’s reliance on private developers to meet its target of new homes is “misguided” according to the committee, which described the private sector housebuilding market as “oligopolistic”. Its business model is based on maximising profit margins (not unreasonable given they are private businesses), meaning it is not best placed to tackle the housing crisis, the committee argued. To address this, it recommended that local authorities be granted the power to levy council tax on developments that are not completed within a set time period

The National Housing Federation, outlined its case in a post-Brexit proposal, which included these points:

• By making £7bn of allocated funding available on a more flexible basis, focusing less on tenure and more on overall supply of affordable housing, the NHF estimated its members could deliver over 300,000 new homes over the course of this parliament – close to a third of the Government’s one million home ambition
• Housing associations would be able to use Government investment more flexibly to deliver a range of affordable housing, including “affordable” rent, rent-to-buy and shared ownership. This flexible approach would enable housing associations to deliver homes that meet the needs and challenges of different areas and markets
• Housing associations could sign up to deliver an agreed number of affordable homes, but with flexibility to decide what tenure these homes should be as the market changes. This could include a target for the number of homes that are available for home ownership, either immediately or over time
• Alternatively, it argued, the Government could offer a commitment that if the market cannot support homes built for sale, then housing associations would be able to switch the tenure of these homes to rented homes with Government support

This article was first published as the cover story for the August/September 2016 print edition of Housing magazine. It was subsequently republished on the Housing Excellence website, 27 September 2016

Well, who needs council housing anyway?

Quite a lot of people, actually...

With social housing in decline there’s never been a greater need for councils to strengthen their presence as landlords offering secure, low-cost housing but Government policy threatens to snuff out their new beginning

By Mark Cantrell

This article first appeared on the June/July edition of Housing magazine

IT'S been a bad year for council landlords. The Government has come gunning for their property, while their relationship with organisations long-regarded as trusted partners turned decidedly Shakespearean over the matter of extending right-to-buy to housing association tenants.

Local authorities, after all, are the ones expected to cough up the compensation provided to housing associations for any sell-offs. The National Housing Federation argued it simply did what had to be done to safeguard its members’ independence – and it was up to councils to fight their own battles – but it’s left a sour taste for many a council chief.

Once shafted, twice shy, they might say. That housing associations – whether, individually, they wanted the “voluntary” deal or not – are now locked into a Faustian Pact with Government, courtesy of the Housing & Planning Act, does nothing to wash the taste away; nor, indeed, the fact that housing associations as social landlords are themselves facing existential turmoil.

Council housing, of course, has been badly depleted in the years since the original right-to-buy was implemented back in the 1980s, further denuded by stock transfer during the Blair-Brown Labour years, and the latest twists and turns are expected to denude stock still further – not just in terms of existing numbers but also the homes that it is said will no longer be built.

Councils were building again, many for the first time in a generation. The numbers were small – some 6,340 new homes in England since April 2010 – but crumbs after a famine is a feast. It was a beginning. Flashes of optimism, especially around the self-financing settlement with the Housing Revenue Account in 2012, saw the hopeful anticipation of a council house renaissance.

Now, as Chloe Fletcher, policy director at the National Federation of ALMOs (NFA) noted on the organisation’s blog, we appear to be “going back to the bad old days for council housing”.

“Councils already have to find, from their own resources, the costs of the discounts given to their own tenants exercising right-to-buy and in some cases pay any remaining capital receipt over to the Treasury rather than being able to use it to re-invest in housing locally,” she added.

“The new requirement to pay the Treasury a sum of money each year based on a formula of the expected sale of high-value voids will further deplete council’s resources and control over their assets.”

Indeed, the charity Shelter has suggested the extension of right-to- buy is going to cost councils in England £26 million a year and see the loss of 23,500 council homes in just one year.

“With millions of families struggling to find a home they can afford, forcing councils to sell off huge swathes of the few genuinely affordable homes they have left is reckless,” said Shelter’s Campbell Robb. “Whilst the small number of lucky winners from this policy will understandably be grateful for the chance to buy their housing association property, ultimately far more people will lose out and be left with no choice but expensive, unstable private renting.”

In March, the Local Government Association (LGA) revealed the fearful expectations of its stock-retaining members: 90% expected to see their stock decline as a result of Government policies, such as right-to-buy, social rent reductions, and so-called pay-to-stay.

Many predicted rising homelessness as a consequence (78%), along with increased demand for temporary accommodation on their turf (80%), while 81% expected to see their housing waiting lists climb higher. Furthermore, 82% said investment in estate development or regeneration would decline over the years to 2020, and 58% expected to see their housing benefit bill hiked up, as more people are forced into the more expensive private rented sector.

“[H]ousing reforms that reduce rents and force councils to sell their homes will make building new homes all but impossible,” said Councillor Peter Box, the LGA’s housing spokesperson. “With 68,000 people already currently living in temporary accommodation, more than a million more on council waiting lists, and annual homelessness spending of £330 million – there is a real fear that this lack of homes will increase homelessness and exacerbate our housing crisis.

“While private developers have a crucial role to play in solving our chronic shortage, it is clear that they cannot rapidly build the 230,000 needed each year alone. There is no silver bullet, but we will not resolve our housing crisis without a dramatic increase of all types of housing, including those for affordable and social rent alongside those to support homeownership.

“New homes are badly needed and we will only see a genuine end to our housing crisis if councils are given the powers to get on with the job of building them too.”

Research by social action centre Cambridge House and the University of Leicester, in partnership with Lambeth County Court Duty Scheme, suggests that local authority housing is an essential protection against homelessness for those who are vulnerable because of old age, mental illness or physical disability, as well as those who are on low incomes.

‘Why we can’t afford to lose it’ by Dr Hannah White of Cambridge House and Professor Loretta Lees of Leicester University, had its focus on south London, but has clear implications further afield. The aims of the research, conducted late last year, was to establish who is vulnerable from eviction and why, and to investigate how council housing and the law protects low income and vulnerable people. Their findings (see below), presented earlier this year, essentially reinforce the view that council housing is a far from obsolete asset.

“London is rapidly changing. Parts of the capital, particularly inner-city boroughs with large stocks of social housing are undergoing state-led gentrification, leading to the displacement of low-income groups. This is partly due to a potent mix of Government policy, cuts to local authority budgets and international investment, which has seen councils selling off dilapidated estates they can no longer afford to maintain,” said the report.

“Rather than resolving the current housing crisis, proposals such as the right-to-buy housing association homes, the selling off of ‘void’ council properties, removal of local authority planning restrictions and prioritisation of starter homes will likely see further increases in landlord repossessions and more families priced out of the capital. For the moment, however, council estates remain home to a large number of Londoners and offer secure and truly affordable accommodation.”

It all points to a clear need out there. This is further reinforced by a groundbreaking study commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and published in April. The researchers, led by Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick at Heriot Watt University, ventured into territory left untread by government analysts to produce the first comprehensive study of destitution in the UK. It found that 1.25 million people – including 312,000 children – were destitute at some point in 2015.

“There is a shocking number of people in the UK living in destitution. It is simply unacceptable to see such levels of severe poverty in our country in the 21st century,” said Julia Unwin, the JRF’s chief executive, when the report was published. “Governments of all stripes have failed to protect people at the bottom of the income scale from the effects of severe poverty, leaving many unable to feed, clothe or house themselves and their families.”

There’s no official definition of destitution, except in asylum legislation, so the researchers ‘crowdsourced’ a working version from experts and the general public. They defined destitution as when someone lacks two or more basic essentials in one month. That is, they have: slept rough, had one or no meals a day for two or more days, been unable to heat or light their home for five or more days, gone without appropriate clothing for the weather, or gone without basic toiletries.

Around a third of those who fell into this state were described as having a complex need. Young, single people – especially men – were more likely to become destitute, but the study said “considerable numbers” of families are destitute too. The reasons people fall into destitution are many. Common causes include the extra costs associated with ill health and disability, unemployment, and the high costs of housing.

Government welfare reforms aren’t helping either: delays in benefit payments, or the DWP’s notorious sanctions regime also had a hand in tipping people into destitution. In 2015, destitute people reported problems with getting behind on bills (57%), serious debt (33%), benefit delays (40%) or sanctions (30%), serious health problems (29%), eviction (19%), problems with work (19%), a breakdown in family relations (25%), separation from a partner (14%), and domestic violence (11%).

Whatever the cause, deprivation results from the precarious nature of living for a long time in poverty: all it takes is one mishap or misfortune to tip someone over the edge. Council housing is no magical solution to poverty, of course, but by providing low-cost homes with security of tenure, it has a critical role to play.

All told, the reports and surveys and arguments raised above were all part of the furious debates and lobbying efforts unleashed to sway Government thinking on its Housing & Planning Bill as it made its way through the parliamentary machine.

Sadly, Government’s have a tendency to be deaf to moral arguments and blind to evidence when it clashes with their political objectives, and so it seems to be with this contentious legislation, as the Bill became an Act tweaked but far from defanged.

If the concerns of the LGA, NFA, Shelter and others are anything to go by, then for the sake of a few hundred thousand new mortgage holders, the Government is looking set to systematically exclude millions of people from a decent, secure home at prices they can genuinely afford.

With councils’ ability to play a role in providing genuinely affordable housing curtailed, and signs of a declining interest in providing low-cost homes for those at the lower end of the social pile emerging within housing association ranks, it begs an increasingly urgent question – where will those millions of our fellow citizens live in the years and decades to come?

# # # 

Protection for the poor

• Local authority housing plays an essential role in protecting people who are vulnerable because of old age, mental illness or physical disability, as well as those on low incomes, from homelessness
• Local authority tenants with a secure tenancy are better protected than housing association or private tenants
• The Pre-action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords protects both local authority and housing association tenants. However, housing associations, unlike local authorities, can seek possession of a property using a Ground 8, Section 8 Notice. In this instance if the tenant owes more than eight weeks rent on the day of the hearing, the court has no mandate to intervene
• Women with dependents, and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented amongst those at risk of eviction in south London
• Work does not necessarily pay – over two-thirds of those defending a possession order were either in full- or part-time work and yet still struggled to pay their rent
• Housing benefit delays or mistakes are a primary cause for rent arrears

(Source: ‘Why we can’t afford to lose it’ by Dr Hannah White and Professor Loretta Lees)

This article first appeared in the June/July 2016 print edition of Housing magazine. It was subsequently published on the Housing Excellence website, 9 August 2016

Cover Story: Buy-to-let blues

Landlords under siege?

Private landlords and buy-to-let investors are feeling rather aggrieved by recent Government policies their representatives have called an attack on the sector, but however hard-pressed they may be it’s not like they’re social landlords

By Mark Cantrell

First published in the April/May 2016 edition of Housing magazine 

BY now, it ought to be fairly obvious that the current Government just doesn’t like social landlords, but in the drive to push home ownership at all costs it seems ministers have gone off private landlords too. 

 

Lately, the private rental sector has found itself the brunt of policy initiatives some regard as likely to be detrimental to its business – landlord bodies have been quick to invoke the poor benighted tenants, who it is said will ultimately lose out as a result of Government interference.

The Government has indeed been busy and it hasn’t yet quite marked the first anniversary of last year’s surprise Conservative majority win: first, the Chancellor of the Exchequer curtailed mortgage interest relief for the buy-to-let sector in his 2015 Summer Budget. Later, he followed through with a 3% increase in Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) for the purchase of additional homes in his Autumn Statement.

“Frankly, people buying a home to let should not be squeezing out families who can’t afford a home to buy,” said George Osborne in his speech, oiling the wheels of populism with a little of the moral opprobrium normally reserved for social housing.

Suffice to say, this hasn’t exactly gone down well among private landlords. The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) was quick to leap to the defence of tenants, whom it said would be the “biggest losers” because they will consequently “find it even harder to get accommodation at a price they can afford”.

“The extra stamp duty on buy to lets will exacerbate an already serious shortage of properties in many areas reducing choice and driving up rents. The Government should be encouraging landlords to invest, not doing everything they can to discourage them,” said the organisation’s chairman, Alan Ward.

As far as the chief executive of the National Landlords Association (NLA) was concerned, the motives are political and geared towards creating opportunities for large-scale investors operating higher up the economic food chain.

“The Chancellor’s political intention is crystal clear: he wants to choke off future investment in private properties to rent,” said the NLA’s chief, Richard Lambert. “The exemption for corporate investment makes this effectively an attack on the small private landlords, who responded to the housing crisis by putting their own money into providing homes, by the party that they put their faith in at the election.

If it’s the Chancellor’s intention to completely eradicate buy-to-let in the UK then it’s a mystery to us why he just doesn’t come out and say so.”

As it turns out, the ‘bigger fish’ are getting fried too. Fast-forward to Osborne’s Budget in March 2016: the British Property Federation (BPF) was not best pleased to discover that larger investors in the private rental sector won’t be exempted from the Stamp Duty hike after all.

“The Government’s decision to not include an exemption for investors who are purchasing large portfolios of properties for rent is extremely disappointing – and deals a huge blow to the Build-to-Rent sector,” said the BPF’s chief executive, Melanie Leech. “This is going to be a significant deterrent to the institutional investment currently poised to settle in the purpose-built rented sector, which has the opportunity to deliver a significant number of new, quality affordable homes.”

There was no time for the buy-to-let brigade to enjoy a little schadenfreude, however; they took another poke in the eye when the Chancellor declined to invite the sector to his tax-giveaway jamboree. When he announced he was cutting capital gains tax (CGT) from 28% to 20% he also made it clear that landlords are not included. “The old rates will be kept in place for gains on residential property and carried interest,” he said.

Grumbles from the sector were quick off the mark.

“This is now the third Budget which directly attacks landlords,” said David Cox, managing director of the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA). “The sector has been punitively taxed, with stamp duty on buy-to-let properties, mortgage interest relief and now capital gains tax changes. It’s an outright assault on the sector.

“Every other sector has been offered a tax break. Yet there’s nothing here to help the private rented sector, including landlords – and most importantly tenants, who will see rents rise to subsidise the taxes that landlords pay on property. The Government talks about wanting to help the younger generation get onto the property ladder, but with the changes announced the supply of available property is bound to decrease and as a result rents will rise.”

The NLA’s Lambert said: “The Chancellor said that this Government would tax things it wants to reduce not the things it wants to encourage. On that basis, it’s clear he does not regard ordinary people putting their own money into providing homes as worthwhile.

“The steady upward ratchet of taxation on landlords over the past year shows that George Osborne is determined to bear down on the private rented sector, but he still depends on the tax revenues he expects to pull from them. The NLA called for a short-term easing of CGT to allow landlords to restructure their portfolios or to exit the market altogether, but it appears that however much he wants us out, he can’t afford to allow us to leave.”

Mixed signals were already emerging out of the buy-to-let sector in the wake of the Chancellor’s Summer Budget and the Autumn Statement. On the one hand, there’s been a surge in mortgage lending for buy-to-let purchases, as investors look to get in ahead of the Stamp Duty increase in April. On the other, there have been reports that growing numbers of landlords are considering selling off properties and walking away from the business.

The latest Budget will surely do little for the sector’s sense of self-esteem and faith in the future. Earlier this year, for example, the NLA’s Lambert delivered a speech at the annual gathering of the Building Societies Association, where he told delegates that landlords’ confidence in the buy-to-let sector was at an all time low – lower, even, than at the time of the 2008 financial crash.

The NLA’s quarterly landlord panel forecast a sharp drop in the supply of private rented properties – 500,000 homes sold off in the next 12 months alone, followed by a further 100,000 each year to 2021. The net result would be to leave the private rented sector shrunken by up to 136,000 properties, it suggested.

“[T]here is no guarantee that these will be one- or two-bedroom flats or small houses that will appeal to first-time buyers, especially as landlords are more likely to offload less desirable stock in less desirable areas,” Lambert said.

“We have always said that Mr Osborne is blinded to the impact of his decisions by his commitment to homeownership. He may have intended to focus on the small-scale, part-time investor, but it’s the larger and more professional landlords who will be hit worst by cuts to mortgage tax relief and an increase to stamp duty, and who appear most likely to leave the sector.

“What happens to the people these landlords house if they still can’t buy and there are fewer and fewer properties available to rent?”

Pertinent questions perhaps, but the private rented sector’s exercise in ‘woe is us’ isn’t likely to garner much sympathy further afield. After all, landlords and buy-to-let investors aren’t alone in facing the Government’s cold shoulder, or the hardships invoked by an unsympathetic policy environment.

Indeed, compared to some you might say they’ve had it easy. The private rented sector may well feel hard done by, but it’s hardly a tenure under siege – that would be social housing. 
 

This article first appeared as the cover story in the April/May 2016 print edition of Housing magazine. It was subsequently republished on the Housing Excellence website, 11 May 2016

Living in the future of retirement

Silver chic in the world of tomorrow

Unless the Reaper picks us off early, we’re all going to grow old, writes Mark Cantrell, so we need to spare a thought to how we’ll live in those senior years to come. But no matter how well-informed we are, second-guessing the future is notoriously difficult; fertile ground, then, for a vivid imagination

This article first appeared in the February/March 2016 edition of Housing magazine

FUTUROLOGY is fraught with difficulties – we’re still waiting for those flying cars (which is probably just as well) – but even if our predictions amount to little more than science fiction, that hardly makes it a frivolous pursuit. Tomorrow, after all, is an undiscovered country we can’t afford to leave unexplored, especially when it comes to coping with advancing age.

There are some things we know. Our society is growing older. There are already more than 11 million people aged 65 or over in the UK and the number of senior citizens are only forecast to grow. By 2033, it is projected there will be 3.5 million extra older households in England alone – 60 per cent more than exists today.

What’s more, to add a further twist to an already bitter and cruel housing crisis, there’s a serious shortage of housing suitable for an older generation, whether that be the kind that provides care and support to those that need it, more general retirement housing, or just smaller properties suitable for older people to downsize to (thereby freeing up larger homes for young families).

We can also add that, barring some kind of societal catastrophe, the future of housing – for oldsters and youngsters alike – is going to feature an array of smart technologies. Quite how that will shape up is anybody’s guess, for all the hype – technology is notoriously fast-moving and fickle.

Undeterred by all the inevitable uncertainties, in December last year the housing provider Anchor presented its Silver Chic report, written by journalist and policy consultant Sonya Sodha. The think-piece document dares to envision what retirement housing may look like 50 years from now. With its vision of 3D holographic computers and virtual pets, it is clearly having some fun with futurology but for all that, the report has a serious message.

“There are a number of very significant issues facing the retirement sector in the coming decades and we will need new, innovative forms of retirement housing and care services to respond to these trends,” said Howard Nankivell, Anchor’s director of operations. “Good quality housing that meets the needs of the end user has huge potential to help people live happy and healthier lives, delaying the need to move from independent living into residential care.

“This is turn helps reduce the ever-increasing pressure of our ageing population on the NHS, as well as unlocking valuable housing stock at the top end of the market. Innovative and thought-provoking designs, such as these [in the report], are just some suggestions of what could and need to become a reality in the future if we are to try and tackle the issues facing older people.”

The report is calling for greater action from both local and central government to create the conditions to grow a “flourishing” retirement market, with enough suitable housing to cater for the growing numbers of older people. It outlines three key measures: the introduction of a national taskforce on retirement housing; exemptions from stamp duty for older people; and reform of the current planning system.

As for its vision of the retirement home itself, well it certainly looks like the set of a near-future science fiction movie, but that’s partly the point – to challenge thinking and encourage innovation today.

The house would be built in a manner that can be adapted and customised to the buyer’s requirements, allowing them to shape both internal and external space and layout. It even rotates on a turntable, offering both sunlight and shade at the resident’s request. The homes in this tomorrow-land are arranged in a village-like cluster, linked by bridges. This will foster a sense of community, it says. Furthermore, covered winter gardens and parks allow the residents to be out and about with their neighbours, no matter the weather, encouraging a healthier and more active lifestyle.

Internally, integrated smart technology allows ambient monitoring walls, which keeps an eye on the occupant’s health and wellbeing. High speed internet, a virtual fridge, and a host of apps and functions are available at the touch of a button. The coffee table, meanwhile, offers a 3D hologram computer, controlled from the comfort of the sofa, which can create an “augmented reality” within the home, regulate lighting and sound, and even generate virtual pets. Presumably, you can still use the table for its traditional purpose too – just don’t forget a coaster to avoid coffee rings.

This high-tech habitation sounds frightfully expensive, it must be said; techno-homes for the more affluent of pensioners. With current Government policies casting real doubt on the future of general social rented housing, and concerns over the ability of social care services to cope with an ageing society today, let alone tomorrow, you have to wonder where the average pensioner resides in Anchor’s vision of tomorrow.

Well, the answer isn’t Anchor’s alone; responsibility for that one belongs to all of us, citizens and policymakers alike. But Nankivell suggests the tendency for technology to become cheaper will go some way to extending the reach of its vision.

“This project is about pushing the boundaries of innovation and design and creating a vision for the future of retirement housing in England,” he said. “Initially, this solution would be more relevant for the private market, but as the technology becomes more readily available, it will also become more affordable. By providing more choice over house design and using modular, customised and adaptable living space, it means that higher density housing can be built providing more cost-effective options for people across a range of socio-economic groups.”

Another pertinent question exists over the ability of older people to get to grips with a technology unfamiliar to them from their younger years – especially for those slipping into cognitive decline. Even for today’s tech-savvy youngsters, the pace of change is surely set to shift from exhilarating to bewildering as they advance in age. It’s the nature of this fast-moving world we now inhabit; the answer, suggests Anchor, lies in the increasing sophistication of the technology itself.

“As technology advances, so will usability; for example, voice activated commands will be important for older people who are using 3D hologram computers in the future,” Nankivell said. “We will also be able to monitor people in non-intrusive ways, such as ambient monitoring and wearable technology, although technology must augment rather than replace relationships.

“It’s also possible to ensure that the correct environment is in place to aid use among older people. For example, Anchor is pioneering the use of iPads in care settings and we know that having the right font sizes, brightness, longer idle times before screensavers appear all make a difference for older people. The more the technology advances, the more user-friendly it becomes.”

Anchor’s work using iPads to improve the quality of life for older people is perhaps all the more remarkable in that it is dealing with people you might at first consider are well beyond the reach of modern tech – those living with dementia. But according to a study it conducted with the University of Worcester’s Association for Dementia Studies, that perception does not necessarily hold true.

The findings were released last year following an eight-month study. Anchor provided tablets to 75 per cent of its 63 care homes across the country and their impact was assessed. It found that in 98 per cent of cases, the iPads were used to create new activities or develop existing ones, suggesting the technology was doing rather more than simply “digitising” what the care homes were already doing.

Apparently, the iPads were allowing greater interaction between residents, with 56 per cent of staff able to involve 10 or more residents in activities at one time, with relatives also cited as a key benefit – 46 per cent of staff involved family members through the use of iPads. In essence, the research identified a range of positive outcomes for residents with dementia, including increased interaction, greater inclusion, and improved communication with relatives.

“This is the first time we’ve seen iPads introduced within care settings in this kind of comprehensive, considered way and at this scale,” said Dr Simon Evens, principal research fellow, who led the study. “Central to our findings is that just having the technology present isn’t enough. The key is how the iPads are introduced and used and the training and support provided to staff to make the most of their potential to enhance quality of life.

“If used in the right way, iPads make a big difference to people living with dementia. This represents an innovative and significant step in understanding the role technology plays in improving quality of life and wellbeing.”

Anchor isn’t the only organisation that’s been exploring the ways in which digital technology is helping the older generation; Sanctuary Housing has been putting iPads to work too.

“We are living in an increasingly digital world and, although this has transformed almost every aspect of people’s lives, it’s important to recognise others may need a little extra support,” a spokesperson said. “For older people in particular, having digital skills can open up a whole new world of possibilities, creating connections through social technology, reducing isolation and loneliness, and increasing the sense of belonging to a community.”

Sanctuary has formed a partnership with Bristol-based charity Alive! to help bridge the so-called digital divide. In a year-long programme, the two organisations are using technology to bring residents of the housing provider’s Beach Lawns Residential & Nursing Home in Weston-super-Mare together with pupils from the nearby Bournville Primary School.

The so-called iPals scheme sees resident and pupil getting to know each other by using picture collages on iPads. The iPals offer each other encouragement and support, with residents learning to search for their favourite songs or films, and using Skype to speak with their loved ones.

At another of its care homes, residents have been encouraged to use the technology to get back in touch with hobbies and memories, exploring them through a variety of apps. Evidently, the technology is kind of bringing them back to life.

“Despite technology being perceived as the domain of the young, Sanctuary’s residents encourage us by showing that you are never too old to learn something new,” the spokesperson added. “Recognising the benefits of modern technology gives access to new opportunities, new ways of connecting, communication and ensuring people feel part of the digital age.”

Tablet technology is certainly more here and now than holographic computers, but for somebody whose formative years long proceeded this age of silicon, it must still seem like living in a science fiction future. The rest of us, meanwhile, had better get ready to start living the sequel.  

This article first appeared in the February/March 2016 print edition of Housing magazine. It was subsequently republished on the Housing Excellence website, 15 March 2016