New social housing system ‘must widen the net for all’
Wednesday 31st August 2011, 2:57PM BST.
Panel chairman Deputy Geoff Southern
THE criteria to receive States housing should be widened when a new access system comes into force, according to a Scrutiny review.
Housing’s new ‘gateway’ system, which will sort out access to all the 6,200 units of social housing owned by the States and housing trusts, has not yet been set up, but the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny panel say that it must make it easier to get into social housing.
The panel started their review expecting the consultation paper on the new system to be released in May or June, but it has still not been published. They have put out an interim report anyway, setting out several recommendations.
See Wednesday’s JEP for full report
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
I don’t object to this in principle but would like ongoing means testing to ensure that all in receipt of social housing are those in greatest need.
Lets ensure that none are paying subsidised rent after their circumstances have changed and they can well afford to rent in the private sector. It’s a safety net for the needy, not a discount housing scheme for those intent upon milking the system. Those in genuine need would have access to the housing they need more quickly while the serial abusers would be ousted.
Report abuse
The exisiting waiting list is desperately unfair because certain categories of people (eg. single people under 50 years of age without children and without a ‘disability’) are refused access to States housing no matter how dire their circumstances, nor how many generations of Jersey ancestors they can boast.
The private sector rent rebate scheme (now incorporated into Income Support) was designed to ensure that private sector tenants who could not access social housing were no worse off than States / Trust tenants. However, the reality is that private sector tenants have been suffering far higher annual rent increases than States/ Trust tenants and that those private sector tenants on rent rebate (now Income Support) have not been anywhere near properly compensated in States subsidies for these rises. They are footing the bill themselves.
The proof: between quarter 1 of 2008 (when Income Support was introduced) and quarter 1 of 2011, average flat rents from new consents rose by 19% according to the Jersey Private Sector Rental Index. The figures can be viewed on page 9 of this document from the Jersey Statistics Unit:
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20HousePriceIndexQ22011%2020110817%20SU.pdf
Now compare the level of Income Support’s Accommodation Component for a one-bedroom flat (effectively, what the States regard as the ‘fair’ rent level). This was £143.50 per week at the start of Income Support in January 2008. Last year it did not rise at all and from next month it will rise by just 2.5% to £156.31 per week, to cover for 2012.
So in the first four years of Income Support, private sector tenants with one-bedroom flats have seen a rise of just 9% in the fair rent subsidy level, yet average rents for flats in the private sector rose by MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT in just 3 years.
In fact private rents rose by as much as 6.7% in the year between quarter 1 of 2010 and quarter 1 of 2011. By comparison, the average price of dwellings sold (Jersey House Price Index) increased by less than 3% during the same period and the All-Items Retail Prices Index for Jersey rose 2.3% in the year to December 2010 and by 3.1% in the year to March 2011.
Private sector tenants need to use this election to pressure politicians into correcting these blatant injustices- and the proposed changes to the waiting list outlined above would be a major step forward, so vote for candidates who openly declare that they will support these plans.
Report abuse
@2 Jerry Gosselin
“Blatant injustices” you say…
How about those who work hard, do not receive any income support, pay higher income tax, and suffer the same rent increases in private sector… Will you call this ‘blatant injustice’ – or this is what left wing calls ‘fair system’ ?
Report abuse
Slawek (3) (or should that be Hyacinth Bucket?): So you’re telling me you’re a private sector tenant who is also suffering rent increases, only you don’t think this is the fault of landlords or the States. Rather you consider yourself a BREED APART from other tenants because you apparently work harder than them and the proof of your diligence (you claim) is that you “pay higher income tax”. I’ll have to trust you on that work harder bit as the link with income tax payments is a bit spurious, at best.
Does this mean that the famous Sage of Omaha, Warren Buffett, the world’s richest person in 2008, is a bit of an idler? After all, he recently admitted that he should be paying a lot more in tax then he does!
So the several thousand private tenants who WORK (take note!) and whose incomes are low enough that they can claim private sector rent rebate (now re-named Income Support) don’t deserve political support because the ones who are really suffering are the higher earners like you? And anyone who points out the injustices of the current social housing regime is ‘left wing’? As Harry Hill would say, “Good Luck with that one!”
Further to my previous post above, I failed to mention another reason which is also going to add inflationary pressure to private sector rentals in the near future: the decision by the States in July to approve by 46 to 2 and 47 to 1 the new Housing/ ID Cards/ Population Register laws. A side-effect of this will mean that henceforth, essential employees (‘J Cats’) will be able to compete with locals (‘A-H’ Cats) for A-H accommodation. This will particularly hit those occupying flats in the rental sector, as this is where most of the remaining A-H accommodation is situated.
How many tenants will be taking this up with their local election candidate when he/she knocks on their door later this month?
Report abuse
@4 Jerry Gosselin
I didn’t write who I am or where do I live or whether I am high earner suffering from rent increases or not. You presumed way too much.
I asked simple question. Let me rephrase: would you call blatant injustice or rather fair system the system where person A is forced to subsidize some unknown and unrelated person B only because B earns less than A?.
Those who earn more pay more tax (higher rates), and this tax is used to pay income support to those who earn less. So those who earn more work to provide for themselves AND for others. Would you call it fair if someone came and ask you – have you finished you work ? yes ? good – now finish mine. Does this differ from the case when you are forced to pay (directly or indirectly) someone’s rent?
Amounts received as Income Support are not taxed. £143.50 per week received as Income Support is equal to £179.38 per week which must be earned by the tenant not receiving income support. 20% of £179.38 (£35.88) goes to States and is used to pay someone’s rent.
Remaining £143.50 can be used by the not-on-income-support-tenant to pay his rent.
Not-on-income-support-tenant is forced to pay 25% more just by the fact he/she pays using already taxed money. Is this blatant injustice in your opinion or fair system (which must be widened) ?
I am not calling ‘left wing’ everyone who ‘points out the injustices’ in the social system rules.. It is about how one define ‘injustice’
Let me ask your question:
So the several thousand private tenants who invested in themselves and work hard enough (take note!) so their earnings are high enough that they cannot claim private sector rent rebate (now re-named Income Support) don’t deserve political support because the ones who are really suffering are those whose income is a bit lower, low enough that they can claim Income Support ?
Why don’t you call to include rents paid to the landlords in tax relief ? After all this money will be taxed anyway – landlord will pay income tax on it.
Rental prices are high because people CAN afford them. J-Cats are not to be blamed. I would rather blame rent rebate/Income Support – the money going straight to landlord’s pockets. You apparently must represent landlords or be one of them if you opt for increasing of private rental rents camouflaged as compensation of private rental tenants on income support.
Living on Income Support should not be one’s life style choice. Access to it should not be widened, and handed amounts should not be increased. Instead tough rules of social housing should be implemented and enforced like:
- minimum one person per one room (no single persons living in 2 or 3 bed flats). I would say even studio flat would be enough.
- no sub-renting – people caught should automatically loose their right to states subsidized accommodation.
- 3 bed flat as maximum size of the states subsidized accommodation: breeding dozen of off-springs should not be rewarded.
- strict control of personal circumstances (every 6, or perhaps 4 months)
- limited time (2-3 years) of how long one can live in states-funded (fully funded) accommodation – to create strong incentive for unemployed living in states flats to find any job (Some exceptions here perhaps for people with special needs)
Report abuse
Jerry –
Further to my previous post above, I failed to mention another reason which is also going to add inflationary pressure to private sector rentals in the near future: the decision by the States in July to approve by 46 to 2 and 47 to 1 the new Housing/ ID Cards/ Population Register laws. A side-effect of this will mean that henceforth, essential employees (‘J Cats’) will be able to compete with locals (‘A-H’ Cats) for A-H accommodation. This will particularly hit those occupying flats in the rental sector, as this is where most of the remaining A-H accommodation is situated.
Jerry, this seems self explanatory but can you confirm and expand. Are all J Cats now entitled to rent and buy in the local A-H market the same as locally qualified people? if so has the division between A-J and A-H now disingrated.
If so I am very concerned that those J cats who are on renewable licence ( never neding providing they continue to perform ) are effectively the same as locals and will be buying A-H properties. Given that it is known that many J Cats who work in finance live rent free then they would be in a position to save for a few years and buy a house with the money not spent on rent, giving a clear advantage over a local. This really would be placing locals below J Cats and would hit many average A-H people hard both because it would push up property prices and rental prices also.
Report abuse
Mulvie (6): The first thing to say is that although the Draft Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- was adopted (ie. approved) by the States on 6th July, it is not yet IN FORCE as the law of the land, because it is currently “submitted for confirmation by Her Majesty in Council”. However, within the next few months it will have received that confirmation and then we will all gradually begin to see the effects of the new law as a flurry of subordinate legislation (Orders and Regulations- the ‘small print’ of the law) comes into force.
Here is a direct quote from page 8 of the original proposition (P. 37) upon which I relied when making my claim about the merging of A-H with A-J housing:
“The current a-h, a-j and Regulation 1 housing categories will be replaced with a single, simpler Qualified category. All other property will be Registered.”
The above seems clear enough. Also on the same page I found the following 2 extracts:
“All new residential units and all existing units currently controlled by the Housing Law will become Qualified, available to be leased or owned, and occupied, by any Entitled or Licensed person.”
“All existing unqualified units, such as lodging houses, will be classified as
“Registered.”
I also quote this extract from page 10:
“Other means of acquiring Entitled status and so gaining immediate access to qualified
housing will continue in a similar way as now, for example, due to hardship, essential
“Licensed” employment, or by paying an agreed minimum amount of tax.”
On page 17, I found an explanation of Article 19, which confirms that the current condition that a licensed (ie. essentially employed) person must buy property through a company is to be removed. However, it says that the other restrictions will continue, namely that a licensed person “can only purchase a property if it is to be their principal place of residence” and “must vacate and sell that property on ceasing to be employed as a Licensed person.”
It then says the following:
“However, the ability to condition a licence issued to a business so that a Licensed
person can only lease a property has been included. This provision will cater for
examples where a Licensed post is awarded for a short-term project, and so the grant
of full housing rights would not meet the criteria of being in the best interests of the
community.”
On page 21, I find an explanation of Article 27. Here is a relevant extract:
“The Law also sets out examples of the sorts of conditions that can be attached to a business licence, such as specified accommodation to be occupied by Licensed persons or only allowing Licensed persons to lease, and specifying named individuals who may work for an undertaking. These conditions are similar to those which the Minister can apply currently to licences issued under the RUD Law, where it is common to name employees on the face of the licence.”
So in short, I think that the general intention of the new law is to enable essentially-employed (‘Licensed’) persons to automatically qualify to lease and buy property UNLESS specific conditions are attached to the licence by the Minister, under his powers in article 27, for example, to restrict the licensed person to “specified accommodation”, to restrict them to leasing property only and to place limits on the period of time the licensed person may work for the undertaking.
If the issue of housing rights for J-Cats becomes a contentious issue at the forthcoming hustings, I am sure the candidates who voted for this law or who support it (in effect, nearly every candidate in Jersey) will try to calm electors’ anger by referring to the Minister still retaining his rights to impose conditions on licences under article 27. However, the question which cannot be answered is what proportion of licences will the Minister eventually end up imposing conditions on? We don’t even know who that Minister will be, let alone what his political stance on this is.
However, my answer is this: if the general intention of the law, as approved by nearly all States Members, was to grant full housing rights to J-Cats UNLESS a condition has been imposed to prevent this, then the most likely and obvious outcome is that the MAJORITY of essential employees will gain the right to lease and purchase and only a minority will be prevented from doing so.
I hope this answers your question to some degree, but only members of the Council of Ministers themselves really know how they intend to enforce this law, and they certainly won’t be giving away very much to the likes of you and I.
Report abuse