More than 40 years since its introduction in the Housing Act 1980, the right to buy scheme may be halted, after the deputy prime minister Angela Rayner suggested government would put restrictions on new social homes in England. A consultation is expected to launch on this very issue later this year. Key stakeholders are articulating their position on right to buy, Kate Henderson National Housing Federation chief executive noted “We support people’s aspirations to own their own homes, but that can’t be at the expense of social housing. The biggest issue is that the homes that have been sold should have been replaced. We’re in a time when demand for social housing is growing, so we do think it’s time for a rethink of Right to Buy.” [1] Housing campaigner Kwajo Tweneboa describes the scheme as “the most damaging policy introduced in respect to social housing”.[2] Successive Conservative prime ministers have extended the controversial scheme, which has led to nearly 2 million homes being sold. Initially, the policy was praised by some, lauded as a landmark policy that would increase rates of home ownership amongst working class people. For Margaret Thatcher, the idea of a wide-reaching property-owning democracy was a ‘crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation’, and right to buy was the principal arm of this crusade. [3] The focus on housing as a catalyst for other issues within society is a growing one, Vicky Spratt, the writer of Tenants and a Housing Journalist consider how the home ‘is the base from which we engage with society, with our community’.[4]Was this a boon for working class people, or has it instead widened the problem of homelessness, and further shaped concerns in communities?
Financial costs and implications for social housing
Since the scheme has been in place, it has proved a challenge and has seen an annual net less of 24,000 social homes since 1991.[5] Only about one third of homes lost to right to buy have been replaced since 2012. [6] This is set within a backdrop of a total spend on homelessness now reaching nearly £1 billion in 2025-2026, as Rayner launches an emergency £10 million fund to protect rough sleepers this winter.[7] This has proved difficult for not only the rise in homelessness (insert here) but also for allowing for the deepening of the crisis in councils finances. These issues do not exist in a vacuum. After emerging news of the state of council’s finances, first with Northamptonshire council declaring bankruptcy, then Nottingham and then Birmingham, which is the biggest unitary authority in Europe, policymakers are interested in understanding what further deepens the financial strain of local authorities.[8][9]
Councils are reportedly spending £1.74 billion annually on temporary accommodation, according to new figures this year from Crisis, this amounts to a record £2.29billion a year to house homeless individuals, most of whom would be in social housing that has now not been replaced since it has been sold off. [10] Right to buy also has another perverse effect, as metro mayor of Merseyside Steve Rotheram has suggested, saying that registered social landlords (RSLs) have inherited some of the problems that came with right to buy.[11] Tenants of RSLs can buy homes under ‘preserved’ right to buy, if they lived in their homes when the council owned them. Once someone has lived in an RSL property for three years, they can then apply for the Right to Acquire. Rotheram notes “You are not going to build a lot of houses for someone to come along in three or four years and buy it below market value”. Previously, only 50% of the money received from a RTB sale could go towards building or buying a new house, but as reported by the BBC, in future they will be able to use all that money, and put money received from private developers handed over as part of planning agreements. The problem with right to buy is, as one source has said “the policy has never achieved anything like a one-for-one replacement ration”.
‘The everything crisis’: Effects of right to buy on anti-social behaviour
This not only creates a scenario in which councils are plunged into financial difficulty and are having to divest or halt non-essential spending but one in which there is a cost of wide-reaching initiatives that can help improve community safety and help prevent anti-social behaviour. The widening homelessness crisis, and the subsequent growing emergence of temporary accommodation, that is often unfit and tenuous at best, also has consequences for community safety.
Those living in temporary accommodation, are not only more vulnerable that the rest of the population, as evidence from Justlife suggests, but also experience a variety of other issues. This is even more insidious on our young people, who typically can show symptoms and feel effects that if not tackled, can culminate and mature in their adulthood. For example, it can disrupt education for families, frequent moves between accommodations, and therefore schools, can lead to gaps in learning, making it difficult for children to keep up with their peers.[12] This can therefore lead to lower educational attainment, and this culminates in a higher than likelihood that they will absent more often than other pupils, which also means they are likely to perpetrate anti-social behaviour, and also be a victim of anti-social behaviour.[13] We know early intervention is key in tackling anti-social behaviour, young people represent the greatest cumulative effects of early intervention and tackling homeless and temporary accommodation is therefore a key priority. Therefore it is welcomed to tackle the housing crisis, by also welcoming the prevention of more homes being lost to social housing, in order to tackle all the other web of issues that are, by their very nature, connected to housing.
[1] https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/interview/2024/11/raising-roof-kate-henderson-housing-crisis
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/07/new-council-housing-in-england-may-be-removed-from-right-to-buy-scheme#:~:text=In%20May%20Andy%20Burnham%2C%20the,get%20%E2%80%9Cworse%20every%20year%E2%80%9D.
[3] https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106498
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/24/tenants-by-vicky-spratt-review-empty-rooms-and-empty-promises
[5] https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/social_housing_deficit
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m216p60xo
[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/emergency-fund-launched-for-rough-sleepers-this-winter#:~:text=An%20emergency%20%C2%A310%20million,a%20safe%20and%20warm%20bed.
[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-67053587
[9] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/29/tory-run-northamptonshire-county-council-bailed-out-by-government
[10] https://www.crisis.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/council-spending-on-emergency-accommodation-tops-22bn/#:~:text=Local%20authorities%20in%20England%20are,today%20(Thursday%2029th%20August).
[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m216p60xo
[12] https://www.justlife.org.uk/our-work/knowledge-hub/how-does-temporary-accommodation-impact-peoples-health-and-wellbeing
[13] https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/s0lfpfka/antisocial-behaviour-report-v2.pdf
