PRS critical HFI report – A Time for Good Homes

"This changed after 2002 with a sustained growth in private rented housing. The result is that proportionally there are 2.4 million fewer households with access to a Good Home than 15 years ago. This is the Good Homes Gap and it affects around 6 million people.”

By a complete coincidence the increase in population between 2002 and 2017 was just over 6 million people.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/2013-12-17

and https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/ukpopulation2017

My own properties are all to a good standard of repair, with CH, DG, etc. including EPCs. yet are blithely classed as 'unsatisfactory' by this opinionated lady. She is obviously completely deluded when asserting six million people have been disadvantaged by the PRS, providing poor quality homes at greatly inflated rental charges. All PRS properties are 'bad', all social housing is 'good'. What arrant nonsense!
How does such an ignorant person manage to have her views published?

It’s a shame that she attacked the PRS with imbecilic assertions that every social house and flat is a Good Home and no PRS housing is, or that the growth of the PRS has reduced labour mobility (page 17, in bold), or that the level of owner-occupation has declined to 1985 levels. (In England in 1984 there were 11.0m such households; in 2015/16 there were 14.3m, an increase of 30%, not a decline).

It’s a shame because no-one will take the discussion paper seriously. If she had reined in her blatant prejudice and merely extolled the benefits of owner-occupation, people might have ploughed through to her recommendation - lend 10% deposits to the 4 million people in the social and private rental sectors who she says expect to be home owners. We might as well add the million people who are living with relatives but who want to buy, according to a recent survey.

Adding 5 million people to the effective demand for properties would give prices a welcome boost, finally allowing me to off-load my properties, pay my CGT and retire. What a wasted opportunity. Such a shame.

Reply to the comment left by John Walker at 02/08/2018 - 14:25
I have visited quite a few socially owned homes which do not meet the decent homes standard. While they are adequately heated and structurally sound, the decor is often extremely shoddy - tired paint work, plaster falling off walls, broken floor tiles, out dated and broken kitchen units, no shower and only one tiny low level bath with a tiny washbasin (and these were installed in 2017).

One social management company even ignored repeated requests to come out and check an inlet cover which had fallen away and had broken in two on the ground; a sign on the back of the cover states, "Warning, asbestos".

Reply to the comment left by Mandy Thomson at 05/08/2018 - 11:11Although your post confirms anecdotal evidence I've heard from people with relatives in social homes, your eyes must have deceived you because the "discussion paper" clearly states that social rented homes are good and privately rented are bad. Next you'll be telling us that homeownership has declined, despite the figures quoted above by Appalled Landlord! However, these inaccuracies will be seized upon and disseminated by the press and all the anti-landlord groups and activists with the result that the public will be confirmed in their prejudices and calls for more controls and regulation of the PRS will increase. I don't agree with John that the fact that it's clearly not true will prevent it being taken seriously because what matters to politicians is the public perception, because that is what influences voting patterns.