1 year ago | 23 comments
Families could face a 100-year wait for social housing in London, new research warns.
Data from the National Housing Federation reveals that in Westminster, some families are facing waits of up to 107 years for a three-bedroom social home.
Housing charity Shelter is urging the government to tackle the crisis by committing to build 90,000 social homes a year for the next decade.
According to the National Housing Federation, the number of families on waiting lists in England has increased by 37% since 2015, six times the rate of the waiting list overall.
In 32 local authorities across England, the wait is now longer than an entire childhood (18+ years), with the worst three councils, all of which are in London (Westminster, Enfield and Merton), having waiting lists exceeding a hundred years.
Local authorities across England have placed people into temporary accommodation to keep waiting lists down.
According to the latest government figures, a record 164,040 children are homeless and stuck in damaging temporary accommodation, double the number in 2012, and one in every six children is living in an overcrowded home.
Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, says the long wait time are a “national scandal”.
She said: “The fact that families in so many parts of the country face waiting lists for an affordable home longer than their children’s entire childhood is a national scandal.
“Security, stability and the space to learn and play is vital for a child’s development, yet we are allowing hundreds of thousands of children to grow up in damaging temporary homes, in cramped and poor-quality conditions and with little privacy. This is no way for a child to grow up and these children deserve better.
“The social housing sector has faced years of withdrawal of vital funding. The upcoming Spending Review is the opportunity for the government to rebuild the capacity of the social housing sector and commit the investment and the change that is needed, creating a better future for our children and ending homelessness for good.
“This means delivering coordinated homelessness and long-term housing strategies which include a package of measures to support the social housing sector to recover and crucially a big boost in funding to build new social homes.”
Shelter claims to meet demand more than 90,000 social homes would need to be built each year to meet demand, more than ten times the current rate.
Mairi MacRae, director of policy and campaigns at Shelter, said: “Decades of failure to build genuinely affordable social homes has left our housing system in tatters and trapped families in a relentless cycle of insecurity and homelessness. No child should grow up without a safe, stable home, but today, more than 164,000 children are spending their formative years in damaging and often dangerous temporary accommodation.
“Every day our frontline services hear from desperate parents forced into impossible situations. Families squeezed into single room temporary accommodation, with nowhere for children to play or do homework. Key workers uprooted from their jobs and communities because there are simply no homes they can afford nearby. Childhoods are being lost to homelessness and it’s costing the country billions.
“The June Spending Review is the government’s chance to right this wrong. By committing to serious investment in social housing – building 90,000 social homes a year for a decade – we can end the housing emergency, save public money, and give every child the foundation they need to thrive.”
According to Shelter, social rents are 69% more affordable than private rents, with social tenants in England paying on average £947 less per month in rent than private tenants.
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
1 year ago | 23 comments
1 year ago | 5 comments
1 year ago | 12 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2016
4:36 PM, 22nd April 2025, About 12 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Northernpleb at 22/04/2025 – 11:35
There is a press release out today saying that:
“….government figures show there are 34,000 council-owned homes lying empty around England, plus a further 55,000 run by social housing associations.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/second-homes/89000-council-properties-empty-second-homes-tax-raid/
The article is mostly targeted at the 100% premium that councils are now allowed to target at second home owners and claims that nationwide, 2/3 of councils have introduced this premium. The article claims that “..In total, 87 English local authorities have more than 100 empty council homes on their books. Southwark, with 1,238, leads the way, followed by Ealing (1,230) and Birmingham (1,057). All three have introduced the second homes premium”.
The article also claims that: “Adam Hug, of the Local Government Association, said councils are facing “significant financial pressure” and struggling to afford the cost of materials for refurbishing existing stock.”
So if there’s such a shortage of residential accommodation and councils can’t do the job that they are supposed to do, why attack landlords from investing in property? And why force landlords to meet EPC band C?
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 81
8:08 AM, 23rd April 2025, About 12 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 22/04/2025 – 16:10
Good question. Just high salaries it seems.
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 81
8:18 AM, 23rd April 2025, About 12 months ago
I have long thought that for some charities – larger ones heavily funded by large organisations especially, that it is a form of welfare system for the middle / upper class who are not capable of holding down real, actual jobs. Also, it is in their interest not to solve issues as it puts them out of a job.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2197 - Articles: 2
8:29 AM, 23rd April 2025, About 12 months ago
I have long thought that the officers running charities should do so without remuneration. The workers, telephonists, typists, cleaners etc should be remunerated as normal.
Member Since May 2016 - Comments: 1570 - Articles: 16
11:06 AM, 23rd April 2025, About 12 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Raz at 22/04/2025 – 15:55
The defintion and restriction on ‘ so-called charities ‘ operating as a business, needs to be redefined. !
Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 204
7:07 PM, 23rd April 2025, About 12 months ago
I believe that it was organisations like Shelter complaining that landlords were renting out too many properties that spurred the government to take action against landlords in the first place.
Now they are complaining that there aren’t enough properties to rent!!!
At least I don’t have to worry about where my next tenant is going to come from any more, as I have people asking me when I will have a place free for them to rent.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1640 - Articles: 3
8:16 PM, 23rd April 2025, About 12 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 23/04/2025 – 19:07
I haven’t had to find a tenant for 7 years, but my final tenant vacated last week, and left the place in a real mess. She isn’t contesting my claim for the entire deposit. I guess if was easier for her to leave it as it was rather than make good.
I will be interested to see how many applicants there are.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2197 - Articles: 2
8:51 AM, 24th April 2025, About 12 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 23/04/2025 – 20:16
Make sure you are not crushed by the throng.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2016
2:37 PM, 24th April 2025, About 12 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 23/04/2025 – 11:06
I think that’s probably true.
I do know of some charities that do a good job but it isn’t always easy to get information on whether a charity is achieving its objects (the number of people it houses for example), using the resources it has been gifted efficiently or not over-paying members of staff including the chief executive.
Businesses that aren’t charities have to pay tax or corporation tax. Charities and ‘not-for profit companies’, e.g. not-for-profit companies limited by guarantee don’t have to pay tax. These businesses compete against private business without having the burden of taxation. This being the case they really SHOULD achieve something tangible….e.g. if a charity has (a) achieved a surplus of £X K and (b) accumulated reserves of £Y M, how many people should it be expected to house (and at what standard)? If it doesn’t manage to house anybody then surely it would be better if that business was just obliged to compete against everybody else in the market and contribute to general taxation when it made a surplus. The rest of us have to pay tax and we can’t even offset our finance costs against rents any more.