For a private rented tenants movement

The beginnings of the tenants movement was in opposition to slum housing, owned by private landlords, and the fight for better housing conditions. The tenants movement needs to return to these roots in private housing, to once more become a powerful force for progressive social change.

In recent years, there has been an increase in the numbers of people in the Private Rented Sector (PRS). The right to buy has in many areas led to a large increase in private rented housing, and as a result of the recession, greater numbers of people are now unable to buy a home due to lack of income or credit. Nationwide, the larger private landlords are buying up homes that people can no longer afford and are cashing in on the increased demand.

Stock transfer, and the right to buy have severely weakened the tenants movement as an influential force in politics. The tenants movement is an ageing population, and does not represent many people outside of social housing, such as those in the private rented sector. Private tenants not only need the support of the tenants movement more, due to a greater level of exploitation and insecurity, but they are also potentially the solution to the demographic problems that are facing the tenants movement.

In recent decades, the tenants movement has been facing similar challenge to the trade unions. The unions are struggling in the private sector, where there are lots of migrants and younger people with insecure contracts, while the majority of their strength is in the public sector. Similarly, people in the PRS have far more insecure tenancies are less well organised than people with secure ones, such as council tenants.

Since the demographic of the PRS is largely younger people and migrants, if the tenants movement was to organise and campaign around issues confronting these tenants, this would provide an opportunity to rebuild and develop a younger generation activists. Something which the tenants movement sorely needs.

To bring this about, Tenants and Residents Associations, and their federations, need to make a special effort to connect with the issues that affect private tenants such as criminal landlords, illegal charges, repairs, stolen deposits, and insecure tenancies. Some tenants federations have begun to do this. For example, a new group has been started called Edinburgh Private Tenants Action Group, which is supported by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation, and the Scottish Tenants Organisation.

EPTAG aims to organise private tenants around the issues that affect them, such as campaigning for the de-registration of criminal landlords, against letting agency fees, and more generally for greater rights for private tenants, and for increased security of tenure.  One of the aims of this group is to engage with, and re-vitalise the wider tenants movement, so that it is once more an influential force for progressive social change.

It is too soon to say whether this group will meet the challenges of the private rented sector, and fulfil its aim of rebuilding the tenants movement. But some things are clear. There has been a recent trends towards growth in the PRS following the right to buy and the recession, a housing sector rife with insecurity and exploitation that is largely not organised by the tenants movement. Also, the demographic decline of the tenants movement could be countered by organising these, generally much younger, private tenants. It therefore seems certain that returning to the private rented roots of the tenants movement will be an essential part of any strategy for its revitalisation.

Rent control for a living rent.

Rents in the private rented housing market are becoming extortionate, with many tenants falling into 'rent poverty'. The Governments response is making the situation worse. What is needed is a way of bringing rents under control, without punishing tenants – what is needed is rent control.

Due to the recession, people can't afford to buy a home any more, and social housing is in what seems to be terminal decline. So, for many, there is no alternative but the Private Rented Sector, and landlords are taking full advantage of this situation, by increasing the rents.

The Conservative Government argued it could reduce rents and the welfare bill by capping the Local Housing Allowance, reducing the amount of money paid out to those private tenants on benefits. However, instead of rents coming down, LHA cuts have begun to displace tenants and have increased homelessness rates.

It is not just those on benefits who are suffering from these high rents – people who receive no benefits are also paying very large proportions of their income on rent, with one study showing that rent is costing nearly half of the average British family's monthly earnings (1).

Huge numbers of people in the UK are suffering from 'rent poverty' – and it is clear that what is needed is a fairer way of controlling rents, that does not punish tenants.

What is rent control?

Rent control amongst 'free-market' economists is a taboo subject. Any interference in the housing market is said to cause distortions that result in a decline in investment in the sector. This opinion is largely based on some of the rent control programmes of the past, and on free market dogma. (2)

When many rent controls were introduced early last century, they were effectively 'rent freezes' that led to a fall in real rents and to a rent level that was far below the market level. These controls protected tenants from high rents, and from any rent increases. It also meant the sector was seen as an undesirable investment. It tended to reduce private housing supply, and often led to landlords to neglecting their properties by cutting corners on repairs and maintenance.

These forms of 'first generation' rent control were generally implemented due to the demands of strong private tenants movements, and the need for governments to make concessions during and in between world wars to stave off civil unrest. Rent controls lasted in many countries for decades, for example in the UK where they persisted until the 80's. (3)

While rent controls in many countries were abolished, the places which continued with controls evolved 'softer' forms than those described above, sometimes called 'second generation' rent control. There is a large amount of variation in these controls, and so it is difficult to generalise, however they usually allow some limited rent increases based on certain criteria. For example: to keep rents in line with inflation, following upgrades, or due to  increased maintenance costs. Some allow rents to rise unrestricted in between, but not during, tenancies. Such rent regulations are usually administered by local authorities, through rent boards or similar institutions, with recourse to appeal for both tenant and landlord.

Some economists are now arguing that well managed rent controls can be beneficial to the private rented sector, leading to steady investment, greater protections for tenants against unjust and unaffordable rents, increasing security of tenure. Even increased levels of community activism has been noted, due to more stable communities.

Rent controls are also essential for any credible security of tenure. You might have various rules for protecting a tenants right to stay in a property, however this would not stop 'economic eviction' by rents being increased beyond the means of the tenant. Rent controls would prevent this situation.

Examples of 'second generation' rent control can be found in many countries worldwide, most notably Germany, where the PRS accounts for 60% of housing stock, security of tenure is very strong, and unlimited tenancy durations are commonplace. (4)

For a living rent

For the increasing number of households living in 'rent poverty', paying large proportions of their income in rent, forced into overcrowded flats and suffering from financial hardship, something urgently needs to be done. The government's response to high rents has been to cap the LHA, but this has actually made the situation worse with families being displaced, and people made homeless.

The criticisms of rent control are based largely on 'first generation' rent control, and free-market dogma, and controls are successful in many countries around the world, leading to affordable rents, and greater security of tenure. There is really no reason why they couldn't be part of the solution for the UK's current rent crisis.

Decent, affordable housing is a human right, but the PRS is unable to meet this obligation, and so intervention is required.  The tenants movement of the past fought for, and won, significant reforms. To protect peoples right to affordable housing we need to follow in their footsteps, and demand rent control.

=======
(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgages/families-now-spend-half-their-income-on-rent-2372563.html
(2) There is a great deal of academic literature on this topic, involving economic modelling and comparative analysis. For some neutral discussion of rent control:
Richard Arnott, 'Tenancy Rent Control', Swedish Economic Policy Review 2003, 10, 89-121
Hans Lind, 'Rent regulation: A conceptual and comparative analysis', European Journal of Housing Policy, 1 (1), 2001, 41-57  11.
(3) Before the 1980's, rent controls and the decline of the PRS in the UK actually went hand-in-hand with the tenants movements demands for social housing in the UK. This led to the construction of large numbers of council homes that have lower rents and greater security of tenure than the PRS. Due to the 'right to buy', demolitions and stock transfer policies this sector is now declining and being replaced by the PRS.
(4) Kath Scanlon and Ben Kochan (eds.) Towards a sustainable private rented sector: Lessons from other countries. LSE London 2011

A community strategy to beat austerity

The attacks on our standard of living as a result of the economic crisis and the  neo-liberal cuts agenda are currently being fought against by single issue campaigning groups and coalitions, without strong roots in communities. Lessons from the Poll Tax struggle show us that this is a strategic mistake, and a missed opportunity to re-build and re-vitalise the once the once-powerful tenants movement.

One of the main reasons that the government is able to impose these cuts and privatisations, is that traditional working class organisations have long been in decline, and are far less influential than they were. In the past, the tenants movement, along-side the unions, have been incredibly important in fighting for progressive changes to the way this country was run. From the Red Clydeside and the rent strikes, to fighting for post-war social housing and decent public services, the tenants movement has been significant force for progressive social change.

These days, following de-industrialisation and the privatisation of council housing, the tenants movement, like the unions, have lost much of their strength – but they have not lost their potential.

If we recognise that the decline of these traditional organisations have in many ways created the opening needed for these kinds of neo-liberal reforms, re-building them must form part of any strategy.  Any fight against these cuts  must also attempt to strengthen these traditional working class organisations that can ensure that we are in a stronger position in the future.

There are two strategic disadvantages to the way the anti-cuts struggle is currently being organised. The first is related to their 'single-issue' focus, and the second is their 'centralisation', and the huge areas these groups are supposed to cover. Both of these issues suggest that reviving the tenants movement is now more important than ever.

Single issues

There are a huge number of cuts that are affecting our neighbourhoods, which Tenants and Residents Associations (TRA) could be involved in. However, the majority of campaigns against these cuts and closures in our communities are single-issue campaigning groups. They are either focused on a particular asset that the community wants to keep, such as a community centre or library, or they are broad anti-cuts campaigning groups, opposing individual cuts, and building for national demonstrations.

Whether the campaign is successful or not, the single-issue campaigning group, its contacts, experience and momentum are largely lost. An example here is the Poll Tax movement. There were large federations of neighbourhood level organisations with a single purpose, to oppose the Poll Tax. After that struggle was won, the Poll Tax groups all but disappeared, and with them, the networks, experience and resources were largely lost.

Centralisation

The second issue is that these single-issue anti-cuts groups tend to cover very large areas. For example, in Edinburgh there is North Edinburgh Fights Back, which covers most of the Forth ward, which is roughly 30,000 people. The Leith anti-cuts group potentially covers the council wards of Leith Walk and Leith, which contain 18,000 people, and 25,000 people respectively. This indicates a high degree of centralisation, and a lack of engagement with the grass-roots.

This is another lesson we can learn from the anti-Poll Tax struggle. While it was national demonstrations making headlines, the real backbone of the movement was in the grass-roots. People were organising with their neighbours to set up local Anti-Poll Tax Unions, to support one another, to resist sheriff officers, and build for those impressive demonstrations. There were twenty-five Poll Tax groups in Edinburgh alone, and three in North Edinburgh. These groups even had block coordinators on most streets, knocking on doors, publicising meetings, and delivering leaflets to their neighbours. The way it was organised built strong networks of local activists and a sense of community.

The potential of the tenants movement

So with those two points in mind, it makes more strategic sense to use the anti-austerity struggle to strengthen long term community organisations like Tenants and Residents Association. There are around 50 Tenants and Residents Associations in the Edinburgh Tenants Federation which could be re-invigorated, and there are many areas where there are none. These are organisations which can carry on after the cuts struggle, whatever the outcome might be. And since these organisations are decentralised and rooted in our communities, they could take on the critical role that the local Poll Tax groups did, in building and sustaining a successful national campaign.

As the Poll Tax struggle shows us, Tenants and Residents Association's may well be exactly the kind of organisations that are needed to beat austerity. This struggle presents an opportunity to revive and revitalise the tenants movement, and to more generally reverse the decline of working-class self-organisation that presented the opening for these kinds of neo-liberal reforms in the first place. Neighbourhood-level organisations such as Tenants Residents Associations and the federations there-of could once more become an influential political and social force, involved in community planning, local democracy, and fighting for progressive change.