Council claims selective licensing scheme will support landlords
11 months ago | 7 comments
London council offers lifetime tenancies for social housing tenants
12:01 AM, 11th June 2025, 10 months ago
8
A London council will ensure all of its social housing tenants receive lifetime tenancies in an initiative which replaces fixed-term agreements with secure, indefinite tenancies following introductory periods.
The council aims to foster enduring community ties and provide residents with unparalleled stability.
The policy shift by Westminster City Council was announced after a public consultation in March which gathered strong support.
It found that 86% of respondents endorsed lifetime tenancies.
Tenants can plan
The council’s leader, Councillor Adam Hug, said: “We’re giving our residents the long-term security they deserve.
“A safe, stable home is the foundation for building a stronger community – and this change ensures tenants can plan for their futures with peace of mind.”
He added: “There will be no changes to rent, tenancy rights or the services residents receive, and the council will work with tenants to ensure a smooth transition.”
Will boost confidence
Westminster is now encouraging other social housing providers in the borough to adopt similar measures.
Designed to boost resident confidence, the policy preserves existing rent levels, tenancy rights and housing services.
By offering a permanent home, the council says it enables families to forge lasting connections with local schools, neighbours and services and to build cohesive neighbourhoods.
Not everyone approves
Despite widespread approval, a small minority of 33 respondents, primarily homeowners, raised concerns.
The critics argued that lifetime tenancies could hinder mobility, exacerbate housing shortages and complicate addressing anti-social behaviour.
Some expressed unease that the policy might strain resources or reward those misusing the system, advocating for periodic reviews based on need.
Several respondents also questioned the broader strategy aims, with 4% opposing goals like ensuring residents feel secure or children grow up in stable communities.
Also, 8% disagreed with improving housing service satisfaction or tackling homelessness.
To address these concerns, the council underscored the need for transparent tenancy agreements and safeguards against anti-social behaviour.
Tags:
lifetime tenancies UK, secure tenancy, social housing policy, UK housing news, Westminster council housing, Westminster tenancy changes
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
Landlords urged to act early for the Renters' Rights BillNext Article
One in three Brits wants to be a BTL landlord
Member Since November 2017 - Comments: 261
10:12 AM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Am I the only one that recalls the concept of local council housing was to provide a home commensurate with the needs of the occupants? This policy is liable to result in a log-jam, with folks remaining in houses far larger than they need.
I seem to recall, a few months ago, the current government bleating on about how home owners where hanging onto their larger houses and denying growing families. Westminster councils ‘new’ policy is going to affectively do the same.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2188 - Articles: 2
10:33 AM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
“. . . indefinite tenancies following introductory periods.”
Isn’t this exactly what we have at present with ASTs?
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1431 - Articles: 1
11:19 AM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Tim Rogers at 11/06/2025 – 10:12
The concept of local council housing to provide a home commensurate with the needs of the occupants should be still in place.
The option of paying for an unused bedroom should also be removed.
I understand that whether rented or owner-occupied is someone’s home social housing is there to provide a need and if that need ie for a 4 bedroom property when children have left and are no longer there then a clause in the tenancy agreement should reflect this.
I believe that right to buy should be terminated immediately but sadly retrospective changes to those already bought under the right to buy, buyers cannot be made to repay the discount when they then sell the property.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 754
11:53 AM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
This policy is crazy – and in a high value area such as Westminster you can be sure there will be a lot of sublets going on.
It may be fine for current tenants but it reduces mobility by reducing the number of properties becoming available for new people and normal churn.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
11:56 AM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
We grew up (4 kids) in a large Thomas Cubitt Georgian house in the heart or London. When the leases expired, Grandad refused to pay the £6k for the lease on his home, and the street was bought by one of the early housing associations. After we all left home and bough our own homes, Mum was left rattling around in this huge house but she couldn’t be forced out. The housing association offered her a sizeable cash sum to vacate, which enabled her to become a homeowner for the first time at the age of 50.
Unless there are tight clauses covering exceptions, ASB, etc… I can see this policy being wide open to abuse.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
12:03 PM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 11/06/2025 – 10:33
definitely after the RRB yes.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
12:12 PM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
such ‘stability’ means inevitable social housing constipation. If all those tenancies moved to ‘lifetime’ overnight then the housing list implodes.
There is no where for lifetime tenants to go even if they wanted to ‘downgrade’ to a smaller property – ergo no release of any bigger accommodation.
Ensuring no one can be moved on when a house is not able to be used to its maximum occupancy potential means public housing will be underutilised – and yet again the public taxpayer is short changed. More will be left in temp accommodation unable to be moved on… while ‘lifetimers’ effectively sit put and bring the system to a halt.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
5:03 PM, 11th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Will these lifetime tenancies be regardless of income?
It is usual for families to start out in social housing, and as their income increases, they look to move on to home ownership. We did. But if they have a nice big house on a social rent, why would they want to move?
I remember one high profile trade union boss refusing to give up his London council house.