The “vulnerability” question

Social landlords and tenants are in a long-term relationship underpinned by a clear legal contract. The tenancy agreement, and the Landlord and Tenant acts which lie behind it explain very clearly the obligations and rights of the two parties.

In summary, the landlord provides a home which must be safe and of a satisfactory quality, and the tenant pays periodically for the facility. Of course, sometimes the property fails and the landlord must take steps to sort it out reasonably quickly, and sometimes the tenant cannot pay their rent, and they must take steps to inform their landlord and sort this out as soon as they can. Failures like this can create tension in the relationship, but it should be possible to address these issues when both sides use their best endeavours.

Some of these problems however become intractable. This can be because the property has a backlog of repairs that cannot be easily overcome, or if there are issues within the community that impact on the enjoyment of the home, or if the resident is involved in crime or deliberate non-payment, for example.  A social landlord will have to do their best to address these issues with persistence and understanding, but as we know, housing management and maintenance can be challenging especially when it is chronically underfunded.

This remit is growing, and a landlord is now expected to have an intimate understanding of every tenant’s “vulnerability”. It is a fact that disabilities and sometimes age can absolutely affect tenants ability to use their home, their bathroom or garden, for example, and this is why “disabled facilities grants” have been available for years, not just in the social sector. But the current emphasis on vulnerability is worrying me. It begins to look like a different kind of stigmatisation. Social landlords are being encouraged to capture and list vulnerability, raising all sorts of issues about assumptions, labels, confidentiality, and dependency.

As social services, the police, mental health services and youth work cut back more and more there is an expectation that the landlord will step in. And we often do – giving tenants money, food or nappies, school uniforms, floor coverings, cookers  or bunk beds, for example. This sort of thing is part of being a caring and empathetic landlord. But m     ore and more emphasis on making reasonable adjustments for each tenant can create an insurmountable burden for social landlords. Greater needs as result of vulnerability create an expectation that the landlord must prioritise these cases and find extra resources to meet the specific requirements.

I don’t think this is possible with the resources available to Housing Associations, and I don’t think we should be trying to delve into tenants’ lives in this way. If we focus on getting all our homes up to a high quality then people with personal, health or social problems will be safely housed. Setting one high standard of home condition for everyone strikes me as the best answer to this tricky issue. What do you think?