Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Funding emergency accommodation during Covid-19 crisis
Dear All,
Trying to source information for the following scenario’s
People housed under the everyone in initiative can claim HB, and under some changes mean that they can escape the shared room rate.
What additional funds, if any have been made available to ensure those people place do not incur rent arrears?
What funds are available for those with NRPF who have been placed?
Many thanks
The majority of this is just the same as ordinary homeless provision (albeit with an instruction to approach the matter more generously), so it will usually be met by HB.
Councils have received additional funding which in some cases may have been used to commission additional services. There is information about this in various places including the letters from Luke Hall to LAs.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/letter-from-minister-hall-to-local-authorities
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892797/Letter_from_Luke_Hall_MP_Minister_for_Rough_Sleeping_and_Housing_to_LA_Chief_Execs.pdf
People who are ineligible for benefit, for example due to a NRPF condition, are generally also ineligible for homelessness assistance. Where they have been accommodated by the LA, the LA would need to fund it for itself under Localism Act or Care Act powers.
[ Edited: 5 Oct 2020 at 12:30 pm by Elliot Kent ]Elliott - many thanks.
This JR decision may be of interest
Only skim read it in a couple of minutes, but on first superficial impressions it looks like an endorsement of the approach taken by some very crafty local authorities. They were looking at ways of recouping as much of the costs of Everyone In through HB as they possibly could. I was able to advise on how to bring schemes within eligibility for working age HB, how to avoid restrictions on entitlement (ben cap etc) and how to maximise HB subsidy. However, because I am in no way qualified to comment on Part VII of the Housing act 1996, all the advice I gave was subject to a very heavy caveat that if the accommodation was being provided under Part VII there could be consequences on the HB subsidy side. These councils assured me they were comfortable that it was not being provided under part VII and that the alternative provisions listed in that judgment were enough to justify it. But the setting still attracted HB because it was “specified accommodation” (LA-run hostel with support on site). As a result, the councils were able to cover the full cost through HB and claim 100% subsidy. In support of the view that they were not providing the accommodation under Part VII, they actually cited the inclusion of NRPF rough sleepers: if Part VII applied they would not be covered, therefore clearly the accommodation was being provided under some other power, be that the Localism Act or emergency Covid legislation or anything else. It seems they are vindicated!