Precarity in the private rented sector: A framework for considering mobility and security Darren Baxter Doctoral student, SPSW/Centre for Housing Policy, University of York

Todays presentation My focus generally is on involuntary mobility – How to define it – What causes it – And, how it is experienced? Today – focus is on forced exits from the private rented sector

Background Security and mobility in the PRS is of increased relevance in England (and the UK more generally) – Policy and campaigning – Its growing – ‘Generation Rent’? But empirical base lacking – particularly around mobility So will look at some figures on the incidence and patterns of moving due to forced exists from the PRS

This presentation will consider… … the concept of precarity as it applies to the housing market – How does it apply to the PRS – How does it relate to mobility – Some preliminary findings

What is ‘precarity’? Butler (2010:26) - precariousness is a “shared condition” whereas ‘precarity’ is politically induced. Etlinger (2007:321) – it is engendered by production systems. Politically induced removal from or of social and economic safety nets Relates to the notion of the risk society - Beck (1992a, 1992b, 1994, 1995), Giddens (1991): – Interested in shift from modern to post-modern society – Distinction between risks and hazards Hazards are natural threats – disease, injury, etc. Risk generated by societal and economic processes Risks– hard to calculate, uninsurable and detached from time and place of origin

Precarity in the housing market Housing might mitigate the effects of ‘precarity’ – Low cost housing – owned outright or subsidised (i.e. housing benefit) But housing also likely to be impacted by ‘precarity’ primarily in terms of access – Fluctuating work – difficulty in securing a mortgage, low priority on a social housing waiting list, problems with claiming housing benefit – arrears, worsened work disincentive But these are still related to labour market. Housing may induce precarity in terms of a lack of security of tenure – Assured shorthold tenancies – Flexible/introductory tenancies in the SRS – Property guardianship

The case of the assured shorthold tenancy Establishment of Assured Shorthold tenancies – Housing act 1988 No security after an initial term if not renewed Landlords decision whether or not to offer security Can be ended without legal grounds – i.e. non payment of rent Premised on the need to boost PRS (although one stage in a long history of attempts) – Landlords argue needed to manage tenants Campaigners argue it has negative impacts, i.e. revenge eviction Some strategy to add security – Coalitions sample tenancy agreement – flawed for many new entrants – Labour extended tenancy agreements – doesn’t cover many reasons for ending tenancies

What is the relationship between precarity and mobility? Risk of mobility is an element of precarity (due to lack of security of tenure). – Does it create mobility? – What sort of mobility? Will look at English Housing Survey

What proportion of moves are forced exits?

What are the reasons for forced exits?

So who cares? If only a small proportion move in this way why look into it – Human impact/ social policy perspective – Accounts for a large chunk of mobility – Regional variation – Concentration of moves

Accounts for a large chunk of mobility

Regional breakdown

Reason by region

Concluding remarks Evidence that a relationship exists between precarity and mobility Accounts for a large amount of mobility relative to other forms of reposession The relationship between precarity and mobility differs regionally – More of a southern issue?