Another steal from
Red Brick
"Poor old Dot Branning is facing the loss of her council house in EastEnders.
Having left the property for several months in the hands of more than
one lodger, none of whom paid the rent, she has returned to find
herself in arrears (more than £4,000, which seems a lot for six months
away). In one slightly bizarre scene she was interviewed under caution
by Council Fraud Officers about her lodgers. She has not made an
arrangement to pay off the arrears so the Council is taking her to Court
for possession.
The storyline isn’t about housing management procedures, but about
the devastating emotional consequences of Dot potentially losing her
long-term family home. There are some minor deficiencies in the story
(she appears not to have a housing officer, so her first contact is with
the Fraud Officers, and I can’t recall a notice of seeking possession
being served or her), but my main observation is that Walford Council
can only end the tenancy by going to a Court to obtain possession. That
is the real meaning of security of tenure.
(
As an aside for EastEnders aficionados, Dot’s supposed long
occupation of the house seems a bit odd because she hasn’t always lived
there and I’m sure the property was once owned by another character, but
let’s not get picky about continuity).
It appears that the good burghers of Hammersmith and Fulham have not
been moved by Dot’s story because they have scrapped security of
tenure for future social housing tenants. New tenants will get a two or
five year tenancy depending on their age and behaviour. Under their
policy Dot Branning presumably would have been moved on years ago as her
fixed tenancy came to an end.
The Council’s cabinet member for housing says the ‘tenancy for life’
is unfair and antiquated, that it creates ‘disadvantaged communities’,
and he described council housing as ‘
a welfare benefit in the form of a heavily subsidised house’. He said ‘we want to create neighbourhoods where a broad mix of social households all live side-by-side.’
We will excuse the cabinet member for his ignorance in not knowing
that council housing is no longer subsidised, indeed makes a profit. But
anyone with experience of some of London’s Tory councils will be
sceptical that they want to create broadly mixed neighbourhoods.
Since
the days of
Lady Porter phrases
like that have come to mean selling off homes and estates,
gentrification, and getting rid of the poor in favour of higher income
groups who might, coincidentally, be more likely to vote Tory. H&F
certainly likes
selling off estates.
Language and imagery is important in politics. The term ‘bedroom
tax’, which so annoys Cameron, is a recent example of winning an
argument via a brilliant slogan. ‘Lifetime tenancies’ is an earlier
example, invented as an adjunct to the campaign to
demonise the poor as undeserving scroungers.
There is of course no such thing as a ‘tenancy for life’, but it has
gained such currency that it has entered common usage, even in the
Guardian Housing Network. Tenancies
with security of tenure are an entirely different concept. A tenant can
only stay if they continue to qualify, if they do not breach a wide
range of tenancy conditions, if they have not been awarded an
introductory or a temporary tenancy in the first place, and if the
landlord does not otherwise have a ground for possession.
People opposed to the whole concept of social rented housing used the
term to make it seem unreasonable that a tenant should have security,
and to give the impression that no-one ever got removed, no matter what
they did. Far from it: tenants can be removed for arrears, domestic
violence, neglect, misrepresentation, overcrowding, major works, and
under-occupation on succession.
It is the existence of such wide grounds
for possession that made the argument for removing security such a
sham. Identified issues can be tackled by amending the grounds for
possession rather than ending security – for example where there is
under-occupation but subject to a test of reasonableness and the
availability of suitable alternative accommodation.
We should watch the development of the Dot Branning eviction story
with interest. They don’t usually get housing-related stories right on
EastEnders. Maybe they will this time. One thing is for certain: as the
Government’s policies force more and more tenants into arrears, Dot will
not be alone.
