Home truths about ownership

‘Home’ is such a simple word isn’t it – and yet it hangs heavy with a depth of meaning that has for years slowly eroded the status of renters by becoming associated with ownership. But we’ll look at that a bit later.

Are we really a nation of homeowners?

It’s a good question! Looking back towards the end of the First World War there are various assumptions made about the level of home ownership in the UK. The most often quoted number is 10%. E.J. Cleary’s calculations in “The Building Society Movement” (1965) were based upon data from the Departmental Committee on Valuation for Rates 1939. From which he concluded that ownership was less than 15% and could easily be less than 10%. But Swenarton and Taylor (1985) argue that his approach was flawed and omitted a significant number of households. So, given the lack of empirical data we can’t be certain. Whilst a figure of 20% can’t be fully endorsed, it would seem to be a fair assumption.

But 20% ownership following the First World War doesn’t historically make us a nation of homeowners. Given that the level of social housing at this time was virtually nil, that supposes that 80% or so were reliant on the private rented sector. So what changed all that?

Homes fit for heroes

Following the war, popular Liberal Lloyd-George promised the returning soldiers a ‘land fit for heroes’ and he charged Christopher Addison with delivering the Housing & Town Planning Act 1919 which introduced subsidies for local authorities to build new homes. However, despite delivering a substantial number of good quality homes, this was not aimed at home ownership. Around the same time, there were serious concerns that the rise of Bolshevism could spread to the UK, and so it was felt imperative to imbue the middle and working classes with a stake in the country. What better way to do that than to promote the idea of home ownership? Initially, this was not as simple or as attractive as we would think today. ‘Ownership’ at that time was also seen as something of a millstone.

However, at the same time, private landlords were also seen as something of a scourge and there was a distinct impression that they were profiteering from the misery of war. And so we arrived at an interesting and unusual position where both politicians on the right and on the left, saw ownership as a positive outcome: the right, because it gave those who could own a financial stake in the country and created ‘mini-capitalists’ (and presumably Conservative voting); and the left, because it removed workers from the clutches of rogue landlords.

‘Home’ – the ownership message

The UK in the 1920s was essentially a conservative society with what we would today describe as ‘traditional’ values. Women’s magazines of that time – Women’s Weekly, Good Housekeeping etc – were full of content that gave advice on homemaking, cooking, children, husbands, decorating, furnishings and appliances. Everything, in fact, that promoted the idea that ‘home’ meant ‘ownership’. And by the late 1930s ownership and those paying for ownership (mortgagees) had doubled. Of course, by promoting ownership as desirable, aspirational and positive, it had an inverse, negative  effect on other tenure forms.

Politically, this was expedient and promoted a settled society. Not only was home ownership rising, but the huge push into building social housing had seen widespread slum clearance and a better quality of living.

But had we inadvertently created the rental stigma? Perhaps, but it’s my view that this was much more a post Second World War phenomenon and one more associated with the 1960s, which became rather unfortunately associated with Brutalist estates.

Today’s language of tenure

You don’t have to look far to find negative references to rental. Theresa May, at the Tory Conference, said: “For too many people the dream of homeownership has become all too distant.”  

Liz Hamson, in Property Week, commented: “While BTR (Build to Rent) advocates maintain rental is a positive lifestyle choice, the reality is that most people would rather not toss up to half their earnings into the rental black hole.”  

It doesn’t matter what you read or where you read it – on the left, right or centre, Daily Mail or Morning Star – propaganda from the 1920s, driven home by past generations, colours our understanding of rental as a tenure. It’s often a throw-away comment and is rarely challenged.

Build-to-Rent: the challenge

To reach this point without mentioning BTR is something of a record for me since it’s ‘my’ sector and it’s all I (mostly) write about! The challenge we face is more than creating beautiful structures in brilliantly convenient and desirable locations, managed by wonderful, innovative operational management. It’s about reversing 90 years of deeply ingrained thinking, and challenging the default position of ‘owning good, renting bad’.

So how do we challenge this view? It’s clear the sector doesn’t have the same support from government or the media, as was the case in the 1920s. And when industry professionals also promulgate the status quo it’s clear we have a tough job on our hands.    

BTR has to be consistent in delivering messages of change. It must be true to its principles, it must focus on being a catalyst for creating a new renting paradigm and for that to be seen as a positive experience. It must represent and embody great service, convenience and security. It should enrich the lives of our residents and represent value.

But most of all, we must be both patient and persistent. We will change our bit of the rental world, but not in a day.

Richard Berridge is director of MLH Investments