► Accomodation in London

01/02 Policy

Valid AULUC 2007

 

ACCOMMODATION IN LONDON

Proposed By; Chris Piper, King’s College London

Seconded By; Clare Taylor, London School of Economics

 

THIS UNION NOTES

 

That one of ULU’s Priority Campaigns is that on accommodation.

 

1.          That the aim of ULU’s Accommodation Campaign is ‘to ensure that students living and studying in London have access to an acceptable standard of affordable and safe housing’.

2.       That London has amongst the highest rents in the country and some of the poorest quality houses.

3.       That the current levels of London Weighting are not adequate to deal with the costs of accommodation.

4.       Many students live in Houses of Multiple Occupation which according to the latest NUS briefing having the following issues;

 

a]                The risk of fire is ten times greater.

b]                20% of HMO’s are below the legal standard for human habitation.

c]             40% of bedsits are unfit for the numbers of people living in them because they often have inadequate fire escapes.

d]             Tenants in an HMO are six times more likely to die from a fire than in a conventional home.

 

5.       That a private members bill entitled ‘Home Energy Conservation Bill is likely to become law shortly and will require the Secretary of State to make regulations within a year prescribing schemes for the regulation and licensing of HMO’s.

6.       Under the bill, a HMO is any house occupied by three or more people, who are more than two families.

7.       This will place the licensing in the hands of local authorities.

 

THIS UNION FURTHER NOTES

 

1.       That King’s College London has started selling off its Halls due to its poor finances. 2.    This will mean a net loss of 200 bed spaces by 2002-2003.

3.       That other institutions have already started this trend such as LSE and Goldsmiths and this will push more students into the private sector.

4.       That King’s College London will have a shortage of bed spaces of some 500 notwithstanding the planned sales this year by 2005 and this is likely to be replicated elsewhere.

5.       That UL students will be therefore less likely to get a space in halls and this will impact most greatly on first years who enter through clearing, returning students and all postgraduate students.

6.       That other institutions such as LSE, Goldsmiths and Queen Mary have tried to resolve this crisis by increasing rents by as much as 12% a year and/or selling off the halls to a private company as well as building halls under PFI arrangements.

7.       That PFI arrangements have often been detrimental to students in that democratic control is lost, rents are set for profit and that the new management teams are often either unsympathetic of students or simply ignorant of the student market.

8.       That under the traditional arrangements whereby Halls are controlled directly by the Colleges, the member Unions ‘bargain’ for the rent levels. At King’s, the Union have got inflationary rent increases for the past couple of years as opposed to some of the Colleges elsewhere.

9.       King’s College London is considering ‘privatising’ the Halls in the future.

10.     That the Colleges of UL charge some of the highest rents in the country for their halls.

 

THIS UNION BELIEVES

 

1.       That housing is a fundamental necessity and students should not be forced to live in squalid conditions.

2.       That students should equally be able to live in affordable accommodation.

3.       That HMO’s should face being registered and be regularly inspected to ensure that they meet standards of safety and habitation.

4.       That ULU is an ideal position to work with member Colleges, other London Universities, the NUS, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the UL Accommodation Office, the GLA and the various London Boroughs in securing a unified and winnable campaign.

5.       That especially with HMO legislation placing the onus on licensing with the local authorities, ULU is in a vital position given its working relationship with the GLA and the London Boroughs.

 

THIS UNION FURTHER BELIEVES

 

1        That selling off halls to pay for current debts is very short-term and will lead to future problems in terms of a shortage of bed spaces and a lack of spare capital to sell off and reinvest in the residential stock.

2.       That PFI arrangements are detrimental to students and should be opposed by the Union especially if this stops constituent Unions from being able to ‘bargain’ for future increases in hall fees and if democratic control is lessened.

3.       That the future shortage in bed spaces at some UL Colleges is a worrying development. This will force yet more students to find accommodation in the private sector with the problems as specified in the motion.

4.       Any further pressure put on the UL Halls will harm the independence of the smaller Colleges as they are less able to build new Halls to meet demand from first year students and make them less attractive to prospective students.

5.       That UL should investigate the possibilities of building more halls to alleviate some of the strain upon the existing Colleges.

6.       That ULU should work with the constituent Colleges in fighting to have realistic levels of hall fees, which reflect the range of student budgets.

 

THIS UNION RESOLVES

 

To mandate the entire Executive Committee of ULU to;

 

1.       Continue to lobby the Government to ensure that the Home Energy Conservation Bill reaches the statute book and that its sections on HMO’s are not diluted in the Committee stage of Parliament.

2        To work with relevant bodies to try and ensure that registration of HMO’s takes place and that students are aware of their rights as a tenant whether in a HMO or not.

3.       To monitor the situation with regard to student accommodation and respond where necessary.

4.       To actively support and assist all constituent Colleges where the College is planning to dispose of student accommodation and where this is detrimental to the students based there.

5.       To lobby UL to look at the possibility of building new halls in conjunction with the constituent Colleges.

6]       To involve the Institutions outside of UL in any campaign.

 

PASSED: 18^th March 2002