mirror, signal, manoeuvre

February 2011

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre: our drive to provide more social housing

Family Mosaic: an introduction

We’re one of the largest housing associations

in London and Essex. We provide affordable

homes to rent, and buy, as well as services

to people who may need extra support.

We have over 23,000 homes for rent. We serve

over 45,000 residents. And we support over

4,000 people with additional services to help

them live independently.

We’re driven by our customers. We want to

offer them more control and choice. We can

do this because we are financially strong,

and because it’s part of the way we work.

This means we can reinvest our surplus into

our existing housing stock. It means we can

finance the construction of new homes. It

means we can help people get the most out

of their local community.

It means making them feel valued in

everything we do for them.

Contents

Summary 3

1 Why Family Mosaic believes this 4 research is important

2 The impact on rents 5

3 The impact on our tenants 9

4 The impact on the public purse 13

5 The risks for Family Mosaic 15

6 How do we go forward? 17

Appendix one 19

www.familymosaic.co.uk

In October 2010, the Government announced a new approach to the development of social housing: housing associations are to be encouraged to charge all new tenants an Affordable Rent. This was defined as being linked to a percentage of market rents up to a maximum of 80%.

As one of the leading developers in London and

Essex, Family Mosaic wanted to understand how

this new model would impact on our existing client

groups, as well as on our development programme.

Family Mosaic knows it needs to continue building

desperately needed new homes and make them

available to those in greatest need.

As we move into a new way of working, we see

this report as part of a “Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre”

exercise. The report examines what this new model

will mean to our residents. Its conclusions signal

a possible new direction of travel for us, enabling

us to move forward with our social purpose and

providing good quality, new homes for those in

greatest need.

This research is based on an evaluation of how an

increase in rent to 80% and 60% of market rent

would impact on 50 new tenants. The research

sample included a range of our properties,

including different types, sizes, location and

tenant circumstance. The research was carried

out by Mark Lupton, a leading independent

policy analyst, in December 2010.

The research demonstrates that:

• setting rents at 80% of market rent would increase our clients’ requirement

for housing benefit by 151%;

• even at 60% of market rent, there would

be significant increases in rent levels,

leaving a large proportion of tenants

unable to retain enough income to

pay their rent and live according to

government standards of affordability;

• the impact on our tenants will vary by

location, with those living in inner London the

hardest hit: for most of those in Essex, social

rents are already at 60-80% market rates;

• for those tenants receiving benefits, the proposed new affordable housing model creates, or worsens, the poverty trap, acting as

an additional disincentive to gain employment.

We know there is no new money available. We are

convinced that the future new supply of affordable

housing at reasonable rent levels will depend on

housing associations and local authorities working

even more closely together, maximising our efforts

for the good of local communities.

summary Mirror, signal, manoeuvre

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre: our drive to provide more social housing | 3

When the Government announced in October 2010 that capital grants were going to be cut, it came as no surprise. The cuts were deeper than many anticipated, but we had been expecting fundamental change. The question, for us, is whether the new model is purely a development solution, or one that helps us achieve our social objectives.

After all, that is the core of our work: the provision

of affordable housing for those in greatest need.

We’re proud of being a social landlord. We welcome

the new model, as it provides us with the freedom

to determine our own rents. This new model might

also result in a greater diversification within those

who make up the social housing sector, which

could be a good thing for housing. Our way isn’t

the only way.

Our primary concern with the new model, however,

was with the 80% figure: instinctively, it felt that

this would be too high for the people we want to

house in London. We believed that we might be able

to make the new model work at 60% of market rent.

Over the past five years, we’ve developed over 4,000

new homes. We now serve over 45,000 residents,

and support over 4,000 with additional services to

help them live independently.

Our surpluses are growing because of efficiencies

we’re making and we want to invest these in our

homes and communities. Our intention was to

develop over 1,000 new homes, while continuing

to provide all our customers more involvement and

greater choice. And we know that our land

buying, procurement and partnership skills will

have to adjust to the new model and create

even greater value.

The new model announced by the Government,

however, challenges these plans. Would we

continue to be able to provide social housing to

those in most need? Or would we be forced to

let homes to a new client group? Would the new

model, as some suggested, spell the death of social

housing? Whatever, the need for 90% private

finance limits our capacity and our new programme

will be much smaller.

While others within the sector debated the potential

impact of the changes, we commissioned Mark

Lupton, a leading independent housing specialist, to

conduct research. His findings, which form the basis

of this report, are based on a sample set of people

who became Family Mosaic tenants in November

and December 2010. This enables us to determine

the real impact of the new model, and to propose

strategies to enable us to continue developing

affordable housing for those in greatest need. The

research methodology is set out in appendix one.

1 Why Family Mosaic believe this research is important

4 | Family Mosaic

2 The impact on rents

Open market rents

The first task was to consider the difference

moving from the current rent to a rent of 60%

of market rent (60% MR) and 80% of market rent

(80% MR). To achieve this we determined a market

rent for each property using the methodology

outlined in appendix one.

As might be expected the higher open market

rents were mainly for houses. They were also,

however, determined by location:

• the highest open market rents

were for a three bed house in Islington

(£576 per week) and a four bed house in

Lambeth (£532 per week);

• of the twelve properties with weekly rents above £300 per week, just two were flats:

one located in the City of Westminster (£458

per week), the other in Islington (£310

per week);

• all five properties with open market rents

of less than £120 per week were flats in either

Braintree, Basildon or Colchester.

The rise in rents at 80%

At 80% MR the breakdown of properties by rent

increase is:

• £1–50 increase per week

16 properties: 13 in Essex, two in outer London,

one in Inner London;


15 properties: 11 of which are flats in less

expensive parts of London, as well as houses in

Waltham Forest, Lewisham and Haringey;


10 properties, including five houses and five

flats, in Islington, Barnet, Lambeth, Southwark,

Lewisham and Hackney;


one house in Islington;

• over £200 a week increase

seven properties: six houses in London and one

flat in the City of Westminster.

See graph 1 on page 6 for full details

At 80% of market rent, all properties had significant increases of rent. In seven inner London properties, these increases were over £200 a week. Outside London, however, these increases were less than £50 per week. At 60% of market rent, all properties in London would have increases in rent. For five of these in inner London, these increases would be over £150 per week.


£50

£100

£150

£200

£250

£300

-£50

£50

£100

£150

£200

£250

£300

The rise in rents at 80%

Essex Outer London Inner London


Graph 1 Rise in weekly rent at 80% market rent

Graph 2 Rise in weekly rent at 60% market rent

The rise, and fall, in rents at 60%

Moving to 60% MR produced a significant

change for the properties outside London

(see graph 2 below). The rents on the

properties in Braintree, Basildon and

Colchester would reduce – although the

reductions are minimal.

For properties in London there would still

be significant increases at 60% MR:

£1–50 increase per week: 17 properties



Over £150 increase per week: 5 properties

6 | Family Mosaic

Rent changes by location

When we look at the average weekly rent by

location, we can see how tenants living in inner

London, in particular, will be affected by increases

to both 60% and 80% of market rent. For those

in outer London, the impact of a shift to 80% in

market rent is marked, while for those in Essex,

many will have a slightly lower rent if set at 60%

of market rent.

£99.01

£123.65

£92.74

£180.98

£101.57

£135.74

£253.67

£190.25

£106.18Current

60% MR

80% MR

Outer LondonEssex Inner London

Graph 3 Average weekly rent at current rate, 60%MR and 80%MR in Essex, Outer London and Inner London


Mark lives in a one-bed flat in Basildon, Essex. He is employed, taking home a weekly wage of

£230.76 per week. His current social rent is £89.36.

A 60% MR would result in a rent of £69, a fall of

£20.36 or 23% less than his current rent.

A 80% MR would result in a rent of £92, a rise of

just £2.64, or 3% more than his current rent.

Diane lives in a one-bed flat in East Ham, London Borough of Newham. She is employed and takes home £191.42 a week.

Her current social rent is £79.06.

A 60% MR would result in a rent of £101, a rise

of £21.94, or 28% more than her current rent.



Florence lives in a one-bed flat near Clissold Park, London Borough of Hackney. She is employed, taking home £346.27 a week.

Her current social rent is £103.27 a week.





£89.36

£69

£92

£79.06

£101

£135

£103.27

£138

£184

case study 1

Three single people, the real costs

Current 60% MR 80% MR

8 | Family Mosaic

3 The impact on our tenants

The affordability issue

To determine the affordability of these rents for the

same tenants we first looked at how many of them

would have to use more than 30% of their income

to pay the new rent level.

This figure was chosen because it is typically

used as an ‘affordable’ proportion of income to be

paid as rent when assessing housing need. While

Communities and Local Government guidance

suggests 25%,1 the last definition of social housing

need based on income in the London Plan states:

Rent and service charges together should not

exceed 30% of net household income for a

household with an income of less than £18,100.2

With most of the properties in this study situated in

London, this confirmed our use of the 30% figure.

We also used an adapted Department for Work and

Pensions Tax Benefit model calculator to estimate

how much each tenant would have left to live on in

different income and rent scenarios. 3

Tenants and affordability

So what happens when we increase weekly rent

to 80% MR? Of the 49 tenants in the sample, just

three – all of whom lived in Basildon and were in

work – could afford the higher rent, and still have

70% or more of their income to live on.

Of the other seven tenants whose income was

above £18,100 per annum (as set out in the

London Plan), none would be able to afford the

higher rent, and still have 70% or more of their

income to live on.

The two graphs on the following page show the

affordability gap – the amount of extra income a

tenant would need to pay the rent – at 80% MR

and 60% MR.

Only three tenants – all living in Essex – would be able to afford to pay rents at 80% MR, and still have 70% of their income to live on. At 80% MR, 57% of tenants would be on full housing benefit. The remaining 43% would have to meet the increased rent at least in part from their own resources. At either 60% or 80% MR, tenants would become more dependant on housing benefit, reducing incentives to work.

1 Strategic Housing Market Assessments Practice Guidance (CLG 2007)

2 London Plan annual monitoring report, 05/02/09

3 http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=tbmt: These scenarios were based on information supplied by Family Mosaic from financial assessments conducted at the point of letting. Where necessary, estimates have been used to supplement this information.


-£100

£100

£200

£300

£400

-£100

£100

£200

£300

£400

At 80% MR, eight tenants would need to find over

£200 in order to pay the new rent. Over 50% of the

tenants in this sample would need to find an extra

£100 or more per week to pay the rent. One of these

tenants lives in Essex: the others live in London.

At 60% MR, five tenants would be able to pay the

increase in rent, and still have 70% or more of their

income to live on (the affordability test). Just under

a third of the tenants in this sample would still have

to find an extra £100 or more a week to pay the rent.

All of these tenants live in London.

Graph 5 The affordability gap: the amount of extra income tenants would have to find to pay weekly rent at 80% MR.

Graph 6 The affordability gap: the amount of extra income tenants would have to find to pay weekly rent at 60% MR.



10 | Family Mosaic

The result of the rise in rent to 80% MR would lead

to over 50% of the tenants in this sample being on

full housing benefit. The remaining 21 would have

to meet the increased rent at least in part from

their own resources.

Consequently, at 80% MR those tenants whose rent

is not fully covered by HB are paying significantly

more rent than they would on social rents.

These 21 tenants would be left with the following

amount of income to live on:

£s per week

Number of tenants

Household size

£100–199 6 5 single,

1 couple

£200–299 9 1 single,

1 couple,

6 households

with children

£299–400 6 6 households

with children

Notably, at 60% MR only six of these 21 tenants

would have significantly more money to live on

every week than if their rent was set at 80% MR.

These six are on higher incomes and medium rents.

For the other 15 tenants there is no change on

what they have to live on despite the decrease

in rent. If you have low income or high rent you are, in effect, stuck.

Increased dependency

The inevitable result of an increase in rent to

these levels would be an increase in applications

for, and payments of, housing benefit. The next

section of this report explains how the increases

to 60% and 80% would increase housing benefit

payments to these tenants.

One result would be that increased dependency on housing benefit would have a negative effect on work incentives. It is outside the scope of this

analysis to quantify this but work conducted by

the Department for Work and Pensions shows how

much extra a particular family would need to earn

to increase their ‘take home’ income by much more

than its current level.

As an example, for gross pay of £300 per week,

their ‘left to live on’ amount would be £311.01,

but for gross pay of £400 per week their ‘left to live

on’ amount would be just £315.51. Earning £100

more per week, then, results in just £4.50 more

to live on.

Moreover, on £300 gross per week, the rent they

pay needs to be below £65 a week for it to make

any difference to their left to live on amount, as

any rent higher than this is covered by housing

benefit. On the other hand, a rent of £200 per

week extends their ‘poverty trap’ up to a gross

income of some £700 plus a week.

Our concern is that raising rents to 80% MR – and

thereby increasing the affordability gap – will

result in greater dependency on housing benefits,

and impact negatively on work incentives. We

know welfare reform will change this position.

This is discussed later in the report.


Nadine lives in a four bed house in Lambeth,

with her daughter Win, and three grandchildren,

Marcus, Malcolm and Kai. Nadine lives on an

occupational pension and is not currently in

receipt of housing benefit.

Her income is £580.95 a week, of which £133.31

is currently spent on rent (23% of income). This

leaves her with £447.64 a week.

If her rent was increased to 60% of market rate,

it would rise by £185.84 to £319 per week.

At this level, she would be left with

£261.95 a week to live off.

If her rent was increased to 80% of market rate,

it would rise by £292.69 to £426 per week.

At this level, she would be left with

just £154.95 a week to live off.

At 80% MR, she would have to apply for housing

benefit. This would be paid at a rate of £301 per

week. After other housing costs, she would be left

with £394 per week to live off.

At 60% MR, she would also have to apply for

housing benefit. This would be paid at a rate of

£193.81 a week. After other housing costs, she

would still be left with £394 per week to live off.

Her current annual housing benefit bill is nil.

At 60% MR, the annual cost to the taxpayer of

housing benefit payments would be £10,271.93.

At 80% MR, the annual cost to the taxpayer of

housing benefit payments would be £15,652.

0 £5,000 £10,000 £15,000

Social rent

Rent at 60%MR

Rent at 80%MR

Annual housing benefit cost

case study 2

Granny, daughter and two grandchildren in inner London

Current rent is 23%

of income

At 60% MR, rent is

55% of income

At 80% MR, rent is

73% of income

12 | Family Mosaic

4 The impact on the public purse

Based on this research, at 80% MR the weekly housing benefit bill for these tenants would rise from £3,155 to £7,911, an increase of 151%.

Based on this research, at 60% MR the weekly housing benefit bill for these tenants would rise from £3,155 to £5,286, an increase of 68%.

Based on this research, at 80% MR, the yearly housing benefit bill – just from these 50 properties – would increase from £164,060 to £411,372.

Rents at 60% market rate


£9,939

Social rents

£5,159

Social rents£164,060


£411,372

£7,454


£274,872

Graph 7 As the rent on these properties

increases, so the proportion paid by housing benefit rises: at current social rents, housing

benefit covers 61% of total rents; at 60% MR,

this increases to 71%; at 80% MR, housing benefit covers 80% of rent.

Granny, daughter and two grandchildren in inner London

Graph 8 Accordingly, the annual cost to the

taxpayer of housing benefit from these

properties also increases.


Gemma and her three children – Maya, Bobby and

Alfie – live in a three-bed house in Holloway, London

Borough of Islington. She is currently out of work,

living on a combination of Income Support, Child

Tax Credit, Child Benefit and Housing Benefit. The

first three amount to £162.56 a week, while the

latter – £120.29 – covers the cost of her rent.

If her rent was increased to 60% MR, it would

almost triple, to £346 per week. As a consequence,

her housing benefit bill would also increase: we

estimate to £346 per week or £17,992 a year.

To cover the cost of her annual rent at 60% MR –

£17,992 – and have at least £200 a week for her

family to live on, she would need to find a job that

paid £28,392 a year. This is above the median annual

pay for full–time employees in the UK (£23,348).

If her new rent represented 30% of her income – the

affordability income – she would need to find a job

that paid just below £60,000 a year (net). Even if

her rent represented 50% of her income, she would

still need to find a job paying £35,984 a year (net).

If her rent was increased to 80% MR, it would

rise by almost 400% to £461 per week. As a

consequence, her housing benefit bill would also

increase: we estimate to £23,972 per year.

To cover the cost of their annual rent at 80% – £23,972

– and have at least £200 a week for her family to live on,

she would need to find a job that paid £34,392 a year.

If her new rent represented 30% of her income – the

affordability income – she would need to find a job

that paid her just under £80,000 a year (net). Even

if her rent represented 50% of her income, she would

still need to find a job paying £47,944 a year.

case study 3

£6,255

£17,992

£23,972

Annual housing benefit bill at current rent

Annual housing benefit bill at 60% MR

Annual housing benefit bill at 80% MR

Mother and her three children

14 | Family Mosaic

5 The risks for Family Mosaic

At 80% of market rent, Family Mosaic would collect an additional £4,780 in rent every week just from these properties. At 60% market rent, the additional income would be £2,295 per week. Increasing rents to 60% or 80% MR will increase our dependency on housing benefit.

Income generated from these 50 properties

for Family Mosaic:

The current rental income: £5,159

Additional income generated

by moving to 60% of MR: £2,295

Additional income generated

by moving to 80% of MR: £4,744

The move to the new rent would

therefore generate 92% extra rental

income for the association at 80% MR

and 44% at 60% MR.

While the organisation would clearly

benefit, the two losers would be those

new tenants and the taxpayer. Housing

benefit would be needed to cover the

majority of this increase if let to our

current client groups (see last section).

£5,159

£9,939

£7,454

Additional weekly rental income

Graph 9 Weekly rental income at current, 60% MR and 80% MR


The risks of housing benefit

If rents are raised to 80% MR, Family Mosaic will

become increasingly financially dependent on

housing benefit. Simultaneously, a number of

the changes to the benefit system that are being

introduced will make it more challenging for Family

Mosaic to collect rents from its current profile of

tenants. This raises identifiable risks and numerous

uncertainties to our business and all those we serve.

There are four changes the Government is proposing

to housing benefit rules that may make it difficult

for some tenants to continue to recoup the extra

rent costs, and therefore pay their rent to us.

The overall benefit capThe move to limiting total benefits is clearly a

potential difficulty for some tenants given the

high rents in London. The proposed benefit

caps are:

• £250 for a one-bed property;

• £290 for a two-bed property;

• £340 for a three-bed property

• £400 for four-bed and larger properties.

Using an early version of a spreadsheet the

Chartered Institute of Housing is developing,

we calculate that an increase to 80% MR would

result in eight of the cases in this research being

affected by the benefits cap. All are located in

inner London.

If rents were raised to 60% MR, then only two of

the tenants in the sample would be affected.

The 10% reduction in JSAFamily Mosaic has attempted to quantify the

potential consequences to tenants when this is

introduced both in terms of rent loss and the need

to give support and advice. The proposed change

will affect those who have been in receipt of

Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) for over a year.

Family Mosaic visited a proportion of its tenants

on full housing benefit to identify those who were

also receiving JSA. This suggested that about 15%

of people on full housing benefit are also of working

age and on JSA.

Six of the tenants in this survey were claiming JSA.

The increase in non-dependent deductions Family Mosaic estimates that 542 of its tenants may

be affected by this measure. They estimate that this

could lead to a potential rent loss of £478,000 per

year, with a high risk of about £306,000 bad debt.

Two tenants in this study had non dependants.

Limiting housing benefit to property sizeAnother proposed change is that housing benefit

is to be limited for working age claimants so that

it only covers the property size deemed needed for

the household.

The tenants in this study were all new lettings where

the size of property is more likely to meet household

requirements at time of letting. This may, however,

change in the future. We do not therefore have

sufficient information from the sample to take an

informed view on this.

Family Mosaic has, however, estimated that

over 1,000 of its tenants may be effected by this

provision with a potential rent loss of over £1m.

16 | Family Mosaic

Changing the tenant profile

This exercise has focussed on continuing to house

the same client group. The alternative is to move

to a different tenant group who are less dependent

on housing benefit to afford the rents. Whilst

the Government has said it is looking for housing

associations to house the same sort of client group

as at present, there have been suggestions of a

degree of flexibility in relation to this.

In London, the high housing costs mean that in

most boroughs it is hard for people on salaries

of less than £40,000 to find a property they can

afford. This leaves a wider gap of income ranges

unable to gain affordable housing.

There is also an issue about what proportion

of income households can afford to spend on

housing costs. In this research we have used

30% of income. There is, however, the view that

it is not the percentage which is important but

the amount the tenant has left to live on.

That people are spending a higher percentage of

their incomes on housing costs can be seen from

research conducted by Savills. This considers the

4 - research prepared by Savills Residential Research

5 – http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/us/current-work/squeezed-britain-low-middle-earners-audit/

percentage of households in London against

the income bands for particular tenures. The

research indicates that many households,

particularly those in the £15,000–£40,000 income

bands, are paying significantly more income to live

in private rented or owned property. 4

So whilst the poorest are unlikely to be able

to pay more than 30% of their income on rent,

higher income groups may be able to pay more.

Letting to these slightly higher income groups

might lead to less risk of them being affected by

the housing benefit changes. However the effect

of other benefit changes on these groups – in

particular low-income workers – may also hamper

affordability. These can be seen in the Resolution

Foundation finding that “major changes to tax

credits that by 2012 will hit working families hard”

and the concerns expressed in their recent report

Squeezed Britain. 5

6 How do we go forward?

To mitigate this risk we could change the profile of our tenant group, and not let new properties to those most in need: this, however, goes against our core principles. Our preferred option is to work even more closely with local authorities to ensure a continued supply of housing for those in greatest need.


Better advice and support

One consequence of higher rents and greater

financial risk is that associations will have to think

about how they can be more active in helping

reduce poverty amongst their tenants at a time of

rising rents and reduced benefit payments.

Family Mosaic is already changing how it targets

its advice and support services more effectively,

regardless of what the final impact of benefit

changes may be particularly in relation to:

• welfare rights advice to help tenants

cope with rent payments;

• employment advice and support to

help them to come off benefits.

Given the need to maintain sustainable tenancies

in this changed environment associations might

need to be more pro-active in helping tenants

keep their costs down. This might include, for

example, spending increased rent income on

retrofitting to help lower tenants’ fuel bills and

thus reduce financial pressures. Or it could mean

supplying micro-loans to tenants to help them

reduce dependence on doorstep lenders.

The new world presents many challenges for those

on low incomes and housing associations trying to

meet those needs.

Working together

So is the new affordability model proposed by the

Government an opportunity or a threat? We want to

continue to develop desperately needed new homes.

Family Mosaic CEO Brendan Sarsfield says,

“We are determined to deliver more homes, but

this look in the mirror tells us that the new model

creates problems for our residents.

Market rents per se are not the problem – we have

used them in temporary housing for many years.

The challenge now is can we make higher rents work

as a long-term solution during welfare reform and

public spending constraints.

This report does not provide all the answers: that,

after all, was not our objective. Looking at the

impact of the new model through the eyes of

our residents, however, will inform how we

manoeuvre towards providing affordable social

housing in the future.”

“The challenge now is can we make higher rents work as a long-term solution during welfare reform and public spending constraints”

18 | Family Mosaic

This research was based on an analysis of the impact of how the rent paid by 50 new Family Mosaic tenants would change as a result of setting the rents at 80% and 60% of market rates. The sample of tenancies was based on a cross section of our properties with different types and location of properties, as well as of tenant circumstance.

Setting market rates was a key element of the

research methodology. Indeed, if landlords are to

adopt a pricing policy based on a percentage of

market rent then they will need to consider how

they gain information. Some associations have

considered setting the percentage against average

market values. Yet if associations are to manage

their assets effectively they should be setting rents

for each property on the basis of its open market

rental value for that particular type of property in

that location.

It is important that associations do not just look

at regional or local authority figures but consider

localised housing submarkets. Associations need to

be able to ensure they know their local markets and

can conduct robust analysis on a localised basis.

Getting robust information on market rents is

not easy. This is principally because most private

landlords are small scale and localised. Housing

associations as major landlords working across

a range of markets and sub-markets need more

detailed information.

It is possible to get local authority wide

information. This does not, however, reflect the

markets which operate within and across local

authority boundaries.

The Housing Minister has announced that the

calculation of market rent will need to be based on

a residential lettings estimate compatible with RICS

recognised methods of valuation. Methods to do this

are currently being developed.

For this report we have used the Find a Property

website, which gives localised private sector asking

rents, using a geography of rental submarkets. It is

based on extensive data, and uses a sophisticated

methodology devised by Calnea Analytics. 6

Asking prices are not necessarily realised, however,

and rent levels may be affected by variations in

the quality of properties coming on to the market.

Markets are also dynamic and therefore subject

to change. Rental prices using an RICS approved

methodology may be different to these free market

asking rents.

appendix one Research methodology

6 – http://www.findaproperty.com/rental-index.aspx


Credits

Original research by Mark Lupton and Bob Line

Edited by Matthew Grenier

Designed by Andrew Kingham

For further information contact Joanna Coyle:

T 020 7089 1046

M 07960 821 007

E [email protected]

mirror, signal, manoeuvre

Documents

new tenants

new model

market rent

new approach

construction of new

affordable rent

new money available

new way of working