The Guild’s housing strategy has faced criticism after advertising private halls, which cost upwards of £185 per week, as an affordable option on the Guild Facebook page. This has raised questions about the Guild’s inclusion of luxury accommodation in their housing campaigns, as well as questions about the way that advertising is labelled on Guild social media.
The post advertised the halls as costing “just £185 per week”. It was raised by Shadow Council that the total sum over a year represents more than the average student loan, thus making it not affordable.
Concerns were raised previously that a letting agency was telling students at the accommodation fair – which was held in late November – that they would not find accommodation if they didn’t find anything by the end of the week.
It was also raised that the difference between the Guild’s endorsements and paid-for advertising on their social media was not clear enough.
Kat Karamani, VP Welfare and Diversity, also mentioned that she had been in talks with the University and that progress had been made towards limiting the cost increase of on-campus accommodation at inflation – as opposed to plans to increase rent a further 1%.
Kat denied that these adverts were legitimising the prices charged by private accommodation providers. She said that there was no Guild policy to prioritise either revenue-generating adverts or helping students find affordable housing, saying: “It’s not just the advertisements that affect housing, or accommodation, as we prefer to call it, there are also pop-ups, there were flatmate finders, there were other events going on during the time. And it’s not like the fair is the only thing, or the advertisements are the only thing, and I don’t think that that reflects a policy.”
She also said that companies paid £800-1,000 for this advertising. When asked whether private landlords also had this opportunity, she said that they did, but the cost was not always worthwhile. “Generally, they can’t afford [advertising in the same way as private halls] – it wouldn’t make sense for them if they had one or two properties.”
The Guild’s “Advertise with us” page lists a presence at the fair as costing £200, presence at a January accommodation fair as £250, and a one-week social media campaign as costing £160. A combination of presence at the accommodation fair and other adverts would cost £3,000.
One first-year Classical Studies student told Exeposé at the accommodation fair: “I think the Guild do a lot towards flats like Collegiate and Kingfisher and places like studios. But more help could be put into independent landlords or work to make [housing] accessible.
“A lot goes to luxury accommodation, rather than to £100 a week. And that’s what I’m looking for, not £140. I can’t afford that. I think the people that are going for luxury accommodation are going to find it.”
A Student Idea asking for the Guild to “stop advertising outlandishly expensive private accommodation on official sites” is currently live, and closes on 14 December. At time of writing, it was on track for a passing score.
A recent study by StudentTenant found that Exeter is the fifth most expensive city for student housing in the UK, ahead of Sheffield, Huddersfield, Worcester, Portsmouth, and Manchester; but behind London, Bristol, Bedford, and Cambridge. They found the average rent in Exeter to be £462 per month.
The Students’ Guild said: “The Students’ Guild shares the concerns of many Exeter students that affordable accommodation is in short supply.”
“Our sponsored promotional activity which funds campaigns, like the Accommodation Campaign, is under a process of continual review.”
“The Accommodation Fair was open to landlords with one property through to larger providers with hundreds of rooms, and as such, the landlords who filled their properties then left; the Fair exposed students to the range in options for accommodation and our online portal provides all the information needed for students to make an informed decision.”
Exeposé has reached out to the mentioned advertising accommodation providers for response.
