had exclusionary impacts, first by deterring housing providers from entering into some markets (for example PRS landlords refusing to let to those in receipt of benefits), and second by deterring individuals from being able to claim the rights to which they were entitled. This was compounded by the loss of specialist housing advice services. The sense that we were living through a ‘housing crisis’ underpinned conversations about who should be responsible for meeting housing need, who should be prioritised, and how we think about ‘need’ in a context of acute shortage. Those issues all play out in a mixed economy of local provision, with negotiations between different provider types, with different legal responsibilities, and yet also a sense of shared responsibility for providing access to housing in local areas. However, many participants described a range of newer mechanisms in the social sector through which to assess the riskiness of tenants, financially or behaviourally. In some cases this may lead to exclusion from some types of housing, until potential tenants could mitigate this ‘risk’ and evidence the sustainability of the tenancy. Mechanisms of exclusion Some of the precise mechanisms through which individuals may experience exclusion from housing differ between the social housing and private rental sectors, largely because of nominations agreements and choice based lettings systems. There were more parallels between the two sectors in relation to the use of landlord assessments of affordability, with participants emphasising space for interpretation and discretion
during the lettings process, and acknowledging the complexity of making assessments about individuals’ lives at a single point in time. Whilst the level of understanding or compassion varied, it was clear that landlord lettings practices are driven by macro-level factors, including financial risk assessments by mortgage and other lenders, as well as the availability of social support services. Challenges There was a striking degree of commonality in the recommendations provided by respondents for tackling housing exclusion. These mirrored recommendations to emerge from other recent CaCHE research projects focusing on the private rented sector (see: The ‘Frustrated’ Housing Aspirations of Generation Rent) [https://bit.ly/2TRLAFs] and the future of social housing (see: The Impact of Welfare Reform on Housing Associations) [https://bit.ly/2x41GCE]. These reforms were recognised as running counter to engrained processes of deregulation, privatisation and reduced state spending within the English housing system. However, it was suggested that lessons for increasing social housing supply, reforming the private sector, and re-reform of welfare policies may be drawn from devolved nations, particularly Scotland and Wales, in which key policies are already underway. “Forms and mechanisms of exclusion in contemporary housing systems: a scoping study”, is authored by Jenny Preece, Emma Bimpson, David Robinson, Kim McKee and John Flint. The report is available at: housingevidence. ac.uk.
The challenges of an ageing population Professor David Robinson outlines a framework for guiding efforts to improve the housing options of older people Population ageing is an established trend in the UK and is forecast to continue for many years. It is estimated that by 2043 16% of the population will be 65 years old and over, compared to 12% in 2018 (ONS, 2019). This shift in population toward older ages is a result of improvements in life expectancy and a decline in fertility. The increasing number of older people in society is prompting demand for an array of new and extended services capable of meeting their diverse needs and preferences. A prime example is housing. People often need to make adjustments in their living environment as they age. Traditionally, in the UK, this has involved older people either staying put and trying to make do in their own home, or moving to some prepackaged option, such as sheltered housing or a care home. However, population ageing is driving demand
for a wider range of housing options. This reflects both the shifting aspirations of older people, and a change in emphasis of health and social care policy away from high-cost, reactive, bed-based care and toward proactive, preventive care in, or closer to, the home. There has been lots of discussion and debate about what a more age-friendly suite of housing options might look like. Research has cast light on the preferences and experiences of older people who stay-put and those who move to more appropriate housing. Parliamentary inquiries, charities and campaign groups, practitioners and policy-makers across the four nations of the UK have explored how housing policy and practice can promote independent living and healthy ageing. Something resembling a consensus has emerged from these debates, centred around five fundamental principles or priorities: 1. Housing support and assistance services – repairs, maintenance and adaptations are critical to ensuring that older people who stay-put in their own home are living in safe, appropriate housing that promotes independence and well-being. 2. The accessibility and liveability of new housing – new housing should promote independent living in older SPRING 2020 |
EVIDENCE - 5
