The chief executive of the Generation Rent ginger group has called on his former employer to make a case against landlords, who are accused of discrimination against care leavers.
Generation Rent boss Ben Twomey was, until earlier this year, a senior figure in the National Youth Advocacy Service.
Now the NYAS and Generation Rent have made a joint attack highlighting what it calls “the discrimination that is prevalent in housing” - specifically, care leavers and the challenges they face when they leave care and begin independent living.
Care leavers told NYAS and Generation Rent that landlords are often not willing to rent homes to them once they learn of their time in care.
One unnamed care leaver said: “It was quite hard to actually get a landlord that would accept a care leaver because of all the things said about are leavers... [the landlord] wouldn’t deal with care experience.”
A joint statement from Twomey’s past and present organisations says: “The care leavers NYAS and Generation Rent engaged with as part of this report we spoke to also voiced their difficulties in finding someone to act as a guarantor for them. While local authorities in both England and Wales have corporate parenting responsibility to care leavers up to the age of 25, there is currently no statutory duty on them to act as a guarantor.
“Data from the Care Leaver Local Offer has shown that only 38 per cent of local authorities with children’s social care departments will, in principle, act as a guarantor for care leavers.”
Care leavers in England are entitled to a grant of £2,000 as part of the ‘Setting Up Home Allowance’, which can be put towards household items or rental deposits, but the two organisations claim that care leavers often find themselves in rent arrears or facing eviction.
The Basic Income Pilot in Wales also offers financial support, granting care leavers £1,280 each month for two years after their 18th birthday to pay for bills or household items, though this is only available for those participating in the trial.
Joshua Williams, the current head of policy and communications at NYAS, says: “Too many care leavers have told us that they cannot access safe and secure housing when they leave care because of discrimination and not having someone who can act as a guarantor for them. We are calling on the UK and Welsh Government to remove these barriers through improved housing support and placing a statutory duty on local authorities to act as guarantors for all care leavers."
And Twomey himself adds: “The cost of renting crisis is driving care leavers into poverty and homelessness. It is unacceptable that care leavers are also facing discrimination when looking for a home. As one in three care leavers across England and Wales experience homelessness in the first two years of leaving care, the UK and Welsh Governments need to act urgently to give better support and protection to these young people.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
“One unnamed care leaver”. That will be Ben Twomey then!
How long before the care leaver starts citing they have depression, can’t work and can’t pay their rent? Then they have ‘breathing space’ etc. Then legal aid if you can get them out.
Or they have anxiety. Sleep disorders. Fatigue. Back pain. Leg pain. Failing eyesight. All end of excuses that seem acceptable today. Where will Ben be once any of this mess starts happening? NOWHERE.
Add substance abuse.
Surely there should be more Social Housing provision for young people. Something similar to student halls for any young people who need to leave home. Maybe care leavers, maybe teenagers who need to leave home for personal safety reasons, maybe 16 year olds who are causing their parents rental property to be deemed to be overcrowded.
Something with on site staff and security cameras at a reasonable rent. Certainly not below LHA but no more than 50% above LHA.
There's a definite need for safe accommodation for teenagers but with dozens of applicants for every room it's highly unlikely a landlord would choose someone under 22 for non student housing.
I actually left home at 16 myself for personal safety reasons and managed to find a real flea pit bedsit with a landlady who was willing to rent to me. However, that was way back in 1981 when the world was a different place
Yes, there should be, but there hasn’t been for some time. Nearly forty years ago I employed a young man who had been in care. As soon as he turned eighteen they didn’t want to know. Fortunately for him, they had managed to find him a foster home just before he came of age. Those foster parents stood by him and supported him. He needed that because, apart from other problems, his biological father put him through am emotional rollercoaster over a period of six months. Social services were useless.
There should be or could be a lot more of all types of housing. But resources are limited and there just isn't enough to go around. The government doesn't help with their planning rules either.
I invest in a company which buys property to let out specifically to charities requiring homes for those less fortunate than most, including homes for care leavers amongst others. They fill this gap in the market where landlords are unwilling to let. All the leases are full repairing by the charities and annual increases are at the rate of inflation. Works better for me than BTL and as I sell up this is were I invest hands off for monthly income in my retirement and capital gains if I sell up my shares as well.
When there is a crisis in the PRS anyone who is not a perfect tenant in every way will find it hard to rent. This is not discrimination, this is reality. LLs are not social housing providers they are businesses & as such can choose who they rent to.
Incidentally I rented to a care leaver once, supported by a charity. All was fine until she upset the boyfriend who started trashing the property!
Totally agree, but we all know they think of us as social landlords, and are enacting legislation accordingly 🆘
No Simon, we think of you as hoarders of basic human rights, a scourge on society, not dissimilar to a parasite. Now you've been educated there's no need for you to make that mistake in the future.
Talking of parasites, look what just crawled out of the woodwork....
Well James we consider your sort to be the free riding scroungers in society living off the backs of the working tax payer, I think that makes your sort '' parasites''
Usually his type are claiming housing benefit or Universal Credit amongst other things. Not working hard. I've seen one video of one on a protest to allow more illegals in. When asked can they stay with you, he said no I rent :)))
@James Turner, oh dear, the ignorance is utter bliss!! Yes, just blame anyone apart from all the causes, silliness!!!
This is a crisis bourn from decades of failed short term government policies, but fool's like you are happy to blame who ever - even if landlords gifted all properties: there still would be a crisis, fact, coupled with another fact of how "FOR YEARS COUNCILS DO NOT WANT THE BURDEN OF SOCIAL HOUSING"...
Numpties as yourself cannot see this, happy to fault others when real reason is bad policies exacerbated by a Liebour 1997 onwards open border policy, one that we are still to fully recover from (& never will), made worse by current issues/boats, yet, ignorants as you choose to blame anyone/anything but the true reasons...
The Private Rental Sector is exactly what it states: private!
A sector that has truly helped society in many MANY ways, and what most/all countries cannot do without...
Absolute Nonsense from this Jockey of a pretend politician.
This is a little story of what happened to me recently
1. Contacted by a company wanting to rent my property with this very scenario, supported by the local council.
2. It will be rented to a couple of young adults coming out of care and integrated into society.
3. They will be working in jobs and supervised with twice weekly visits.
4. Been assessed thoroughly to ensure they will be safe to live on their own.
5. Being a nice guy I thought why not, lets help a few young kids get some help and a start.
The reality of it was this
1. Will be rented by foster kids coming out of care BUT......
2. Couple of young adults not from care in the UK but Swimmers (illegals).
3. Not in jobs but will be supervised with visits twice a week.
4. Assessed by who? Could not answer this?
5. So not young foster kids who have had a rough start to life and need some help but illegal immigrants who just need to be placed somewhere.
Needless to say no was my answer and being lied to by a third party instructed by the council tells me everything I need to know about Social Services, Local Council and Government. All to a man bloody pathetic.
And the rhetoric from the lefties is that illegals don’t impact housing 😂😂 well if these 2 had been successful that would be one rental property not available for non illegals !!
Why don't they build more homes for these people instead of expecting the private landlords to sort out their mess? We're private so we should be able to rent or not rent to whoever we like, surely?
They don't have the money.
Generation rent are so ignorant that they can not understand the difference between discrimination and assessment of risk.
The people talked about in this article are not generally capable of earning sufficient income to pay their own rent. They apparently get a grant that lasts for two years after which - then what? The articles states many can not get a guarantor - so anyone in this situation is not just a risk, but it sounds like a near certainty that before long their source of rent will run out and they won’t be able to pay rent. Why would a landlord accept this risk without support? And then there is the fact that these people are more likely to have mental health issues - which, while I sympathise - being realistic - does again increase the risk of damages. To call this discrimination rather than being honest about the fact that they pose a far higher risk of arrears, damages and difficulties - is an outright lie.
Do these charities have no morals? That they’re content to lie and misrepresent people to make some sort of point that isn’t even true? they should be ashamed of themselves
They could instead be arguing to get more suppor for landlords so that landlords would be prepared to take them on - that would be a far more useful, sensible and realistic approach - but they just can’t help themselves to insult the people they hate even if they have to lie to do it.
It'a all PR. It's socially acceptable to blame landlords for everything. They are 'charities'. They are seen to do no wrong. Especially the likes of Shelter where old people leave money in their will to 'help' the homeless :)))
I will rent to whom I choose. Enough said 👍🏻
Sadly with the current system there will be groups of people who are deemed to risky by most private landlords. These are surely the people who need some sort of social housing? Successive governments have failed to address the issues which have caused massive housing shortages across the board.
A while back I had nice tenants who decided to move to an area where there was mainly social housing (it's all run by a housing association locally) to be close to an elderly relative. They told me they were shocked to be asked lots of searching questions including whether they had any drug or alcohol problems! Clearly the housing association didn't want any problem tenants, which made me wonder who is supposed to house them?
That’s why tents are appearing everywhere 😱 no one is willing to house them.
I'll choose who I think will pay the rent, look after the property and not cause me endless problems, if that makes me distriminatory then so be it, business is all about minimizing risk, which is what I do with the hindsight of past experiences, we live and learn
Yes Andrew, we all make mistakes, but making the same mistake twice is not conducive to good business.
I rented property on two separate occasions to tenants of a particular origin and both let me down and failed to pay, resulting in my having to evict them.
I didn't stick to my rule there, but I certainly won't make the same mistake a third time.
John, I rented to people of a particular origin. Had mould, lots of costs to fix, solicitor's compensation letter to defend and eviction costs. NEVER AGAIN.
"Discrimination" its a big word banded about all to easily and too frequently. LL's are running a business not a charity, we don't get donations to keep us in business. Taking on a high risk potentially problematic tenant with no guarantee you'll get paid is really bad business, you would be a very foolish business person to take this on.
Assuming you ask an insurance company, if they will provide rent guarantee cover on one of these tenants, the answer will most probably be NO. Its not discrimination its simply too high a risk, not good business logic, the insurance company don't want to take on a policy that is at a high risk of a claim, if they did they would put themselves out of business in very short order. So if a rent guarantee insurance provider won't back the tenant, why should the LL take on this risk.
Maybe Generation Rent, Shelter, Local Authorities or the Government should stop discriminating against these tenants themselves. Assuming they want private LL's to house these high risk tenants, the answer is really simple, REMOVE THE RISK TO THE LL's , provide an iron cast rent guarantee to the LL's, who'll then have a much batter business case for renting to the tenant.
They don't want to guarantee anything. Just pin all the s**t on the private landlord. They probably refer to it internally as 'outsourcing'.
Andrew, Great post 100% spot on.
It's inevitable in a supply crisis that landlords are going to want to protect their interests, and pure wishful thinking that they should take on unnecessary risk.
The only way these people are going to get equal access to housing is by having a means to equalise the risk by having a dedicated service or charity such as the one that William Williams mentions. Trouble is, there is likely to be limited funding for this kind of work.
Housing charities can do their part by investing their money in these charities and by lobbying the government for more money for those that successfully manage the transition for the homeless and care leavers. Local government should also have a vested interest as it is surely cheaper than temporary accommodation?
It is not the responsibility of landlords to house anyone who is vexatious,troublesome or a potential problem.
It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that population growth is matched by suitable housing.
Throughout my lifetime we have been subjected to open borders and now to boat people plus too many old and entitled pensioners .
The figures are frightening with population growth of 650 ,000 people a year and a new build rate of 150,000 a year.
We are overpopulated to the tune of 45 million people with a housing shortage of 16 million.
We need a clearout of people here illegally and workfare for those pretending to be too ill or too depressed to work ,some 5 million people.
To deal with former housing benefit recipients and Adult Social Care recipients We need to build hostels ,ideally underground and beam in sunlight using Japanese sun pipes.
If the Chinese can 3D print a house in 1 day the same technology can be used on brownfield sites ideally in the North of England where few people live
People who refuse to integrate or learn the language should be deported .
Landlords should be left to get on with their lawful business and rent to reputable and creditworthiness tenants.
Troublesome and vexatious tenants deserve a tent and a sleeping bag or a hostel place.
Just an update on the story last week where the landlord was fined £485k for using his 2 storey house as 2 Flats and the single storey brick built flats in his back garden / so called beds in Sheds.
Now there are 3 new houses being built in the same back garden and well on the way with Planning Permission Granted. It seems the landlord didn’t do too much wrong previously but provided temporary housing in the meantime utilising good use of his large garden.
Better than sleeping in shop door ways
Reading these responses having gone through the farce of car insurance renewal quotes today made me realise the insurance industry has the answer.
Offer to insure/rent to anyone but dependent on their risk profile they pay more or less than the "average" renter. Why offer the insurance/property at the same price/risk when you can adjust it to suit the applicants profile? This is a completely acceptable practice we all endure so why not follow suit?
Yes, yes, I know it's pie in the sky thinking but entirely justifiable depending on the applicants history. Also the option to void the policy/tenancy if the consumer has lied at any point about anything.
I like the idea but the problem is you can't just stop renting to a tenant for a breach of contract or lack of payment. It's much easier for the insurance company to just say you're not covered any more, or not pay a claim. They don't have to go through the whole eviction process.
Another example of a Marxist, ideologically driven gobsh. te trying to palm off every problem that the Social Housing Sector should be solving onto the Private Sector which is actually nothing to do with it. Local Authorities & Housing Associations exist to help such people with this type of problem while we are the PRIVATE sector renting out OUR properties to who the hell we like. When will these misguided fanatics (Shelter, Generation Rent et-al) stop slagging off the wrong people & concentate their bigoted venom on the true culprits?
What amazing me about rough sleepers in London, about 10’000. it’s ridiculous anyway you look at it, if a landlord
House them and cause the House to be more than say the 5 allowed by HMO which is the usual requirement or if the House is not to new standards the landlord gets a big fine or banned. The 10’000, Sleeping rough in London in front of Town Halls, in door ways under any overhang or canopy they can find is OK with London Borough Council’s and the Mayor of London, not a problem because there is no one above the Homeless to fine it’s alright just leave them there. I think you should have a look in the mirror before handing out foreign aid
It is a sick wholly unfair irony that if those thousands of rough sleepers travelled to the south coast & floated around for a bit in a dinghy they would be housed & nurtured completely free of charge.
When all said and done people shouldn’t be sleeping rough exposed to the elements at this time of year. My Father rip wouldn’t leave an donkey out this of the time of year he’d house give him some hay. Cattle are not allowed to be wintered outside anymore so why does Government think its ok for human ? I wouldn’t wish it on anyone I know what it’s like, time for Government, Shelter, Generation Rent. Acorn etc to call off the wolfhounds, step up and stop prevaricating.
I can imagine how terrible it would be trying to sleep on the pavement in the cold - and being in danger, too.
As you say, time for the Conservatives, the Labour Party and local authorities to stop interfering in the private rental sector. Real rogue landlords should be dealt with by the police, not the local authorities.
Make all tenancies contractual, and many more flats will miraculously become available to everyone - and at lower rents, too.
Hi William Williams love your approach on leasing to Charities are you willing to provide feedback of your experience and provider as this is an angle I looking to take in me older age mate...thx Keith
Please login to comment