The public supports stronger tenant rights. The government needs to act

How terribly kind of you. Image: Getty.

More than half of the population (53 per cent) do not think that renting privately works fairly for tenants, according to a recent report from the IPPR.

It is easy to see why. Limited protection from eviction, rising rents and poor conditions all impact on the public's perception of the sector. Hardly surprising then that 61 per cent of people do not think that the sector provides tenants with a long-term, stable home and 59 per cent say it does not provide affordable homes.

As part of our research, IPPR conducted focus groups across the country with tenants and landlords, aiming to understand more about people’s experiences of the tenure and what they would like to see done to reform it.

Through our in-depth conversations with tenants we found that many remain very concerned about the insecurity of private renting, worrying about having to move at short notice and putting them off complaining about repairs or poor conditions for fear of appearing as a nuisance. The high cost of rents, fees and deposits contributed further to this insecurity and caused hardship for a number of those we spoke to.

Experiences with poor conditions were commonplace, as were difficulties in getting landlords to complete repairs. Moreover, tenants often did not feel at home in the sector, with limits placed on them by landlords – preventing them from decorating for example – making them feel as though they didn’t have control over their home.

From the landlords’ perspective, many were concerned about welfare reform, which made them reluctant to let to those in receipt of housing benefit; reforms and reductions to tax relief on private landlords, which had reduced their income; and the legal system, which many felt was too slow in the rare cases where a tenant was not paying rent, exposing them to many months with no rental income.

Our research also found that tenants and landlords share some key issues. They both lack knowledge on their rights and responsibilities, undermining their ability to exercise them and meaning that tenants cannot assume lawful treatment by default.

They both felt the other party had greater power in the system. Tenants feel that they lack power in the system as a whole, resulting in mistrust, while landlords have expressed frustration at a lack of power in key parts of the process, principally at the end of a tenancy.


Finally, both tenants and landlords have limited trust in the system and the ability of government to reform it, demonstrating that reforms will need to build confidence in the sector if they are to be successful.

However, it was not all doom and gloom. We also found support for reform amongst landlords. Many recognised the impact a lack of security had on tenants, particularly those with children, and expressed a willingness for extra security to be offered to renters.

The government is making positive, though tentative, steps in reforming the sector – banning letting agency fees, consulting on the introduction of longer tenancies and exploring court reform. But, as in so many areas, this important area of domestic policy risks being starved of attention in the face of dealing with Brexit.

Failing to address the issues with the private rented sector would be a major own goal for the government given the widespread support for reform: 72 per cent of the public think government should be more involved in improving and regulating the private rented sector. Moreover, analysis conducted by the housing charity Shelter has shown that in marginal constituencies, private tenants make up a significant block of voters.

That 4.7m households have limited access to a stable home, are more likely to suffer poor conditions and lack control over their home are fundamental issue of justice. But as our work has shown, tackling these issues wouldn’t just ensure that the sector was more just: it would be hugely popular with tenants and the wider public, too.

Darren Baxter is a research fellow at IPPR.

 
 
 
 

Does it matter that TfL are renaming White Hart Lane station Tottenham Hotspur?

New White Hart Lane. Image: Getty.

Pretend for a moment that you’re travelling in the London of 1932. You’re taking the Piccadilly Line northbound and alight at Gillespie Road station. The name should be obvious: it’s inscribed in bespoke brown tiling on the platform.

But that 31 October, following an intense campaign by the eponymous football club, the London County Council changed the station’s name to Arsenal (Highbury Hill). The area’s growing association with the name “Arsenal” ended in a lengthy negotiation that changed maps, signs and train tickets alike. Football had acquired so much power that it changed the name of not just a Tube station but an entire suburb, even before the era of Wenger or the Emirates.

Now the spectre of name changes is on the horizon once again. As Tottenham Hotspur FC inches closer to completing its new stadium, the club is clamouring for a renamed Overground station. Despite the fact the new stadium is located on almost exactly the same site as the old just off White Hart Lane, and fans have long been calling the scaffolding-laden mess “New White Hart Lane”, the club’s executive director is adamant that the station’s existing name cannot stand. White Hart Lane station, on the Overground line leaving Liverpool Street, is set to be renamed “Tottenham Hotspur”, at a cost to the club of £14.7m.

Little has been made of the fact that this peculiar PR kerfuffle is tied to Spurs’ failure to convince Nike to sponsor the venue. Some sources have even claimed that the sponsorship is yet to be finalised because it is somehow contingent on the renaming of the Overground station; beyond the ridiculous Johnson-era vanity project that was the Emirates Air Line, it seems improbable that TfL will allow any more corporate-flavoured information pollution. There will be no “Nike Stadium” station on the way to Enfield, much as there is no “Emirates” on the way to Cockfosters, especially if public consultation gets a look in.

The scene of the crime. Image: TfL.

But there’s a problem with the new name, all the same. “White Hart Lane” already means “football stadium”, in the same way Loftus Road or Stamford Bridge do. Changing it to “Tottenham Hotspur” risks opening the floodgates to an “O2 North Greenwich” or a “Virgin Euston” at some point in future, names as banal as there are dystopian. The Greater London Authority has promised to spend the £14.7m fee on community programmes in the local area – but that’s not much money to set the precedent that a private company can mess about with the Tube map.


What’s more, as CityMetric has often observed, there are plenty of station names across London that could do with a tidy up. Picking one that’s perfect already and asking for £14.7m to change it is adding insult to injury. How much would it cost a community group if they asked to change the name of Goodge Street to Fitzrovia? Why does a vast corporate entity backed by international sponsors and thousands of season ticket holders get to set the standard?

Back in Arsenal’s day, changing names on the Tube must have been easy; changes could be accommodated gradually without bothering the every day traveller. But in our world of online information, maps and apps, name changes are rather more complicated.

The question is – if TfL can bring itself to balefully accept this particular proposition, why can’t it accept ours? Why sort out a single non-issue on the Tube Map when you can catch lots of real ones in one go? A day’s pandemonium might just be a price worth paying to fix the Bethnal Greens problem once and for all.