Secure Occupancy: A New Framework for Analysing Security in Rental Housing

Abstract

Unlike debates about security for owner occupiers which recognise that security is complex and multi-layered, security for renters is often presented as single dimensional and conflated with de jure security of tenure, deriving from a property rights perspective. This article proposes a broader concept of 'secure occupancy' to enable a more nuanced understanding of security for tenants. A new framework is developed to enable investigation of the dynamic interactions between legislation/regulation, housing market conditions, public policies and cultural norms around renting, which shape security of occupancy for tenants. The paper illustrates this approach, drawing on a study of the rental systems of nine developed countries, identifying key factors that appear to have a strong bearing on strengthening, and weakening, of security of occupancy for renter households. The article concludes that this approach has the potential to deepen understanding of security for renters and to stimulate new avenues for research.

‘Generation rent’ and the ability to ‘settle down’: economic and geographical variation in young people’s housing transitions

“…This aligns with Hulse and Milligan's (2014) argument that landlord actions can compromise tenants' experiences of security in the PRS. Moreover, to promote wellbeing, existing literature has highlighted the need for ontological security (Giddens, 1991) and the need to control who does and does not enter a property and the actions that take place there (Parsell, 2012;Hiscock et al, 2001).…”

“…If a household has few legal rights over its dwelling and is unable to fully assert control over its occupation and use of the property, then its members' abilities to benefit from the qualities of home may be compromised (Hulse and Milligan, 2014). In comparison to homeownership and social renting, private renting is the least equipped tenure to deliver security for tenants (Easthope, 2014).…”

“…Landlords are able to terminate the tenancy after the initial fixed term period has ended, without having to provide a reason. These contracts typically last for 6-months at a time and while the tenants can also end the contract, the ability of the landlord to do so means that many live with this threat hanging over them (Hulse and Milligan, 2014) 2 . In addition, tenants are often not permitted to decorate their dwellings and may feel that their privacy is compromised by landlord inspections (Hulse and Milligan, 2014).…”

“…These contracts typically last for 6-months at a time and while the tenants can also end the contract, the ability of the landlord to do so means that many live with this threat hanging over them (Hulse and Milligan, 2014) 2 . In addition, tenants are often not permitted to decorate their dwellings and may feel that their privacy is compromised by landlord inspections (Hulse and Milligan, 2014). This, along with the insecurity associated with the PRS, means that young tenants may be severely restricted in their abilities to establish a 'home' and experience its positive qualities, which has implications for their wellbeing (Easthope, 2014).…”

Renting with pets: a pathway to housing insecurity?

“…This paper begins to address this gap. Building on Hulse & Milligan's (2014) recent work in this journal, which developed the expanded notion of 'secure occupancy' in rental, it explores the ways that pet ownership shapes renters' feelings of housing security, particularly access to rental housing. Importantly, this discussion explores both de jure and de facto security, considering the impact of tenancy contracts as well as sociocultural attitudes and practices towards renting and pets that shape 'the degree of security experienced by tenants. '…”