Enter the 2011 policy child: London Affordable Rent (or LAR). This was meant to bridge the gap between social rent and the terrifying market. It’s set at up to 80% of the local market rent—which, in a city where a shoebox costs £1,500 a month, is still eye-watering. Wait, so it’s “affordable” but actually costs more than Social Rent? Yes. Yes, it does. You’re catching on.
The logic, if you can call it that, was to let housing associations charge higher rents to fund new builds. “But won’t that price out the very people it’s meant to help?” you ask. Bingo. You’ve just spotted the elephant in the living room. A one-bed in Zone 3 might be £1,000 a month on LAR, while the social rent for the same flat would be £600. That £400 difference is a monthly grocery shop for a family.
Weekly Update From Councillor Guy Lambert
But Wait—There Are (Some) Protections
Here’s the irony: both Social Rent and London Affordable Rent are technically “regulated.” You can’t be evicted without a legal battle, and your rent rises are capped. But the devil’s in the starting number. With Social Rent, you start low and stay low. With LAR, you start high-ish and still get annual rises (usually CPI + 1%). Over five years, that gap becomes a chasm.
Also, who actually qualifies? Both schemes use the same maddening points system based on income, household size, and how many times you’ve been homeless. But because LAR is pricier, you might be just too poor to afford it—while being too rich for Social Rent. Classic London: the middle is a myth.
