Presentation given by Swa Silkens, VOB, Belgium at a FEANTSA conference on "People who are homeless can be housed: An insight into successful practices from across Europe", Cardiff, Wales, 2008

1. Sociaal Verhuurkantoor
Social Renting Office
in Flanders

2. The Flemish housing market
- Property of the occupant
- Property of a private landlord
- Social Hiring Company

3. Social Hiring Companies
Regulated legislation
Possibility for homeless
Limited offer (5%)
Wait at least 3 years
Renting price & income
Livelong lease

4. Private landlords
• A disregarded market
• Legislation based on liberal principles
• Small number of houses / landlord
• Renting price ≠ quality house
• Problems for those with a small
income

5. Side effects
• Only for those who can't buy a
house
• The risks increase, the market
shrinks
• Landlords refuse ‘risky’ tenants
Looking for new systems

6. The task of the SRO
• To rent houses, to let these
• Accompany the tenant
• Cooperate with social welfare
Guarantees in exchange for a
reasonable rental price.
+ extra incentives

7. Results
• 10 years = 4.000 houses
• Each year: + 10%
Possibilities increase:
• Subsidy that grows with the offer
• New instruments for
the landlord

8. For the tenant
• Ordinary house in a ordinary street
• Rent not so cheap (except with a
housing benefit)
• Tenant accompaniment

9. To assign the house
Objectively and controllable assign
Specific: a point system
- Income (20)
- The need for a house (20)
- Children (6)
- Mutation (3)

10. The SRO-tenant
New tenant:
• 50% absolute minimum, 75% a
replacements income
• 10% had no home before
Leaving tenant:
• 1/3 go to social housing company
• 1/10 because the SRO
stopped the contract

11. To end: is this the solution ?
• Needs for more of everything: social &
private houses, payable and quality
• More relief in the social welfare
• Seek for new perspectives
Is a qualitatively house for everyone
an illusion ?