Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
The ‘ideal’ homelessness law
New article in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law - The ‘ideal’ homelessness law: balancing ‘rights centred’ and ‘professional-centred’ social policy -
‘... sets out proposals for the ‘ideal’ legal framework to address homelessness in Great Britain (GB), with potential lessons for other countries seeking to pursue rights-based approaches in this field. Exploiting the ‘natural experiment’ conditions generated by post-devolution divergence in key aspects of homelessness law, the paper draws on legal and social scientific learning from England, Scotland and Wales, as well as internationally, to formulate proposals for the optimal rights-based model. We argue that an ideal statutory homelessness system, situated in a less than ideal welfare and housing context, requires a balance to be struck between a robust set of individually-enforceable entitlements, on the one hand, and scope for pro-active, flexible approaches on the part of housing practitioners, on the other. The ten core principles we advance would therefore aim to combine the best of ‘professional-centred’ and ‘rights-centred’ social policy approaches.’
They want to do away with local connection rules, but (err) not for hard pressed Authorities. No duty about where a local authority can place, so familes can present anywhere but can also be placed anywhere, other than in those hard pressed Authorities. These sort of rules will no longer prioritise women and men fleeing DV that actually need to move out of area, with those that just want a switch of area. This is not ideal.
Compare this with the common sense of Karen Bucks bill……
This private member’s bill, sponsored by Karen Buck, would place a duty on local authorities to ensure that persons for whom a homeless duty has been accepted are accommodated in the local area, including on discharge into private rented accommodation; and would require local authorities to publish annual reports on steps relating to housing demand and supply taken or intended to be taken to meet that duty. The bill had its first reading on 8 March 2021 and is due to have a second reading.
They want to do away with local connection rules, but (err) not for hard pressed Authorities. No duty about where a local authority can place, so familes can present anywhere but can also be placed anywhere, other than in those hard pressed Authorities. These sort of rules will no longer prioritise women and men fleeing DV that actually need to move out of area, with those that just want a switch of area. This is not ideal.
The issue with LC has always been the cover that it provides for gatekeeping by certain LAs. We get so many enquiries which are on the theme of “I have approached LA X for assistance but they turned me away because I have no local connection”.
I had a case recently where the client was trying to flee violence and had approached LA1 for assistance but had been turned away and advised to speak to LA2. She contacted LA2 who then also turned her away and advised her to contact LA3. She finally contacted LA3 who advised her to contact LA1. None of the three authorities took a homeless application from her and she was left in the property where she was at risk. When she took advice and we insisted that LA3 take an application, I got an irate phonecall from the manager of LA3 on the subject of my temerity in insisting they deal with the application and with demands to know why we were not pursuing LA1 or LA2 instead.
I think that the idea of getting rid of LC would ring fairly hollow if the post-HRA relief stage referral process was uniformly being followed - because then there is an organised and streamlined way for the LAs to figure out who is going to pick the case up with review rights for the applicant and interim accommodation provided in appropriate cases - but the problem is that the statutory process is so frequently being ignored in favour of just bouncing the applicant away on the initial phonecall when some possibility of a connection to some other area is raised.
(Present company excepted from all of this of course)