Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment

Ch-ch-ch-changes

Manifesto series (in order of publication)

Conservative

Lib Dem

Green

Labour

Labour

I’m deputising for J on the last of the manifesto posts, and (because it was the last published) it is Labour’s.

As before, I’m not going to be commenting on the planning/housing crossover, as planning law is outside our territory, save to note that on compulsory purchase rules, the manifesto says

We will take steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission.

This is the elimination of hope value, and would indeed likely result in cheaper CPOs on unused property.

However, the emphasis on social housing is notable

Labour will prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock by reviewing the increased right to buy discounts introduced in 2012 and increasing protections on newly-built social housing.

Sure, ‘affordable’ is still in the mix, but it is, shall we say, refreshing to see an outright prioritisation of social housing by a major party with real prospects of power. The failure to do so was a fundamental error of the 1997-2010 Labour governments and we would not be quite where we so disastrously are now if they had.

Also to be welcomed are the entirely sensible moves to a) protect new social housing from the right to buy, and b) ‘review’ the level of right to buy discount. It has to be a dead certainty that this would be a downward review, sufficient to make RTB a lot less attractive. Personally, I’d have grasped the nettle and ended RTB, as per Scotland and Wales, but it is obviously a politically sensitive move. And we know from 1997-2010 that reducing the discount works to dramatically reduce social housing being lost to RTB.

On to the meat of tenancy and leasehold reform. And this is largely ‘doing what everyone agreed needed to be done, but hasn’t been done properly’.

On private sector tenancies

We will immediately abolish Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, prevent private renters being exploited and discriminated against, empower them to challenge unreasonable rent increases, and take steps to decisively raise standards, including extending ‘Awaab’s Law’ to the private sector.

Some people have unfortunately misunderstood ‘immediately abolish section 21′ to mean a day 1 ban. This a) couldn’t be done, and b) would frankly be a horrible mess. I take it that what is meant is the urgent re-introduction of the Renters (Reform) Bill, presumably with tweaks and changes. I don’t know what ’empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases’ means, if I’m honest, but it clearly isn’t rent controls. (Perhaps understandably. I am personally not averse to rent controls per se, but in what form and what the trade-offs are is hideously complicated. It is something promised by parties who aren’t going to have to implenet it.)

Extending Awaab’s Law to the private sector makes obvious sense (though details will need to be considered). It is wholly illogical for the social sector to have a statutory timescale within which work to address defects must start, but not the private sector – either the works are urgently required, or they aren’t, it is not a tenure issue.

On leasehold reform

For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership falls woefully short of the dream they were promised. Labour will act where the Conservatives have failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We will enact the package of Law Commission proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. We will take further steps to ban new leasehold flats and ensure commonhold is the default tenure. We will tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges. We will act to bring the injustice of ‘fleecehold’ private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end.  

Well this is encouraging. Not so much the content, which has largely been Labour’s stated position for some time, but that it made it in as a manifesto commitment. Now obviously specifics will need to be filled in in time, but if done right, this is a strategy for effectively removing existing freeholders in favour of leaseholder ownership, and making commonhold not only a viable tenure generally, but the only tenure for new developments (subject to some possible small exceptions).

What a cap on existing grounds rents might be, we will have to see. Of course, if Labour were elected, any solicitors doing lease extensions and enfranchisement would see an immediate cratering in incoming work until a new Act was in force, followed by a likely glut of new enquiries afterwards.

On building safety

Labour will also take decisive action to improve building safety, including through regulation, to ensure we never again see a repeat of the Grenfell fire. We will review how to better protect leaseholders from costs and take steps to accelerate the pace of remediation across the country. We will put a renewed focus on ensuring those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right.

This is a bit vague, it has to be said. I think perhaps understandably so. It takes the resources and powers of government to work out what can be done, and how, and actually do it. It is at least an acknowledgment that the Building Safety Act has not achieved what it was supposed to do and that more is required.

On homelessness

The last Labour government made huge strides in ending homelessness. Under the Conservatives, that progress has been undone, with rough sleepers an all-too-common sight in our towns and cities, and a sharp rise in hidden homelessness. Building on the lessons of our past, Labour will develop a new cross-government strategy, working with Mayors and Councils across the country, to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness.

AKA, the return of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, if, as rumoured, this means a cross government task force under Angela Rayner. And it has to be said this would be a thoroughly good idea. It takes cross departmental work, funding and initiatives to reduce homelessness. The problems involved, from housing provision, legal duties, health care issues, to the crisis of affordability of temporary accommodation for local authorities are complex and frankly hideous. Anything that gives serious internal political clout to finding ways to help has to be a good thing.

Overall, this is broadly good stuff. 5 years ago it would have been seen as radical. Now, it is largely the new common-sense. Could the promises have gone further? Of course they could. But the point is that what is promised serious. And these would be fundamental changes to housing and leasehold law.

Exit mobile version