Councils tighten housing allocations as cuts hit

Charities warn of an increase in homelessness as councils tighten eligibility criteria for housing and benefit cuts hit.
Guardian article @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/12/councils-tighten-housing-allocations-cuts-hit

Just to make it clear, these are new powers given to councils to streamline/change their allocations polices. There are no requirements for councils to do this.

The most significant changes proposed are:

1)There will no longer be a requiremnt to have an open list.

So a LA like westminster might have a connection rule that you can only join the list if you have lived 10 years in the borough. 

Or you might give priority to those in work rather than benefit dependent.

2) The homelessness duty can be satisfied by an offer of private sector accommodation.

Its all about making it difficult for certain groups to get accommodation….. Its called “balancing” a community.

Nevip would call it something else.

Having lived on council estates all my life, I’d call it balancing.

I was born on a huge sprawling council estate, later lived in a council house with my partner for six years and for the last fourteen years have lived in a housing association property.  These communities have been largely white, British and working class.  Generally people have rubbed along together pretty well despite minor problems of anti-social behaviour and petty criminality.  However, I have no experience of living in communities facing far different pressures, for example significant immigration or serious gun or knife crime.

I have no idea how long the current waiting lists are or the extent of families living in unsuitable or board and lodging accommodation but I have taken a keen interest for many years in the history of housing in Liverpool (and elsewhere to a lesser extent) and the story is not a pretty one.  I have some sympathy for local authorities in the current climate of central government spending squeezing but many LA’s historical (pre-1980’s) neglect of their housing stock is inexcusable.  That said, the main problem is the lack of social sector housing, largely due to Government policy in the 1980’s which prevented LA’s from using the receipts from right to buy to build more homes.  As I’ve said elsewhere this was driven by ideological imperatives, namely to tip the balance of power in the landlord tenant relationship in favour of the landlord.  This was further driven by slackening the restrictions on rent control and security of tenure.

One of the new proposed measures is not a bad thing, i.e. strengthening the local connection.  This would be a return to history as it is a fairly recent change in national housing policy that such things as local connection were driven into the back seat as housing as of need became the prime mover.  Local connections drive social cohesion and continuity of community.  However, these things are not going to be achieved if they are surrounded by a lack of security of tenure, high rents and housing benefit caps.  And we also need to be careful that the local connection factor is not used as part of immigration policy.  We should also be very wary of criteria such as having to be in employment and other criteria which could result in the social engineering of community identity resulting in the marginalization of others.

Housing policy is an extremely complicated animal but it is not operated in a vacuum and it is far too important to be manipulated for wider political motives.  It is a trite observation to say that current government spending plans are a product of the recent failure of the banks and financial institutions, but it must not be forgotten.  The Tories have an agenda.  Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with having an agenda but we need to be aware and keep sight of just what that agenda is.  Re-arranging the furniture in the house is one thing but start taking bricks out of it and eventually the whole edifice will come tumbling down.

Thanks Nevip.

The only thing I can add is that this is a power. So as a LA you could strengten your local connection rules, or you might have no local connection rules at all. Its simply down to the LA. (Ok the LA has to consult).. Localism etc.

So for example if you wanted to change the complexion of an estate… you might. have no local connection,or say length of residence could be 1 day. You could also put a requirement that the applicant must have a permanent job.

The hope would be to attract in young upwardly mobile folk….  cracking.

Magn8 - 14 July 2011 11:34 AM

...The hope would be to attract in young upwardly mobile folk….  cracking.

Thanks for pointing this out.  I’ll summon the “disaffected” “vulnerable” and “needy” on my estate forthwith.  We can’t be having that.

No problem. Only goes to show the absurdity, of trying to create balanced estates, (whatever that means) againinst a backdrop, of shortgage of council housing, rental rises, massive cuts to LHA,  and increases in homelessness. 

LAs will initially try to place the vulnerable in the private sector…. but when there acceptances and bed and breakfast budgets rocket ....as private landlords switch to more lucrative forms of letting….......What will happen?

Yep LAs ......will emmm quietly go back to placing in council, as they will have no alternative.

The govt will then blame the LA for not giving enough housing priority to their local communities…...