New homeless rules a ‘profound and astonishing’ shift in housing policy

sophie - 26 October 2012 02:09 PM

Guardian professional article highlights that from 9 November, the responsibility of councils to homeless households will change @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/oct/26/council-homelessness-rules-housing-policy?INTCMP=SRCH

Folks might be a bit confused by this.

If you are helping a homeless family you will still be contacting the council for assistance.

The council will still be assesseng them, in the IDENTICAL fashion to see if they have a duty to rehouse.

If the LA does have a duty to rehouse. the LA will, from 9th November, have the OPTION of either providing temporary homelessnesss accommodation (with a view to an eventual allocation of social accommodation) OR providing SUITABLE private accommodation, at least a 12 month let. 

So the PROFOUND shift is simply if the homeless family refuses a Private AST of 12 monthes, the LA will be able to treat this case as aid refused…...

Or put in another way an accepted Homelessness application will no longer always result in an eventual offer of council accommodation, if the LA advises the applicant they are going down the private route.

THe consequences of this are difficult to predict, in areas with long waiting times it will probably be good news for folks in high bands, who currently lose out to families in homeless temps, poorer news for families in insecure privately rented accommodation.

What is the link, if any, between “suitable” and “affordable”? 

With the changes to local housing allowance, both those already introduced as well as the change to CPI uprating next year, and the benefit cap, would this mean that a homeless family could be placed in private accommodation that has rent levels higher than their overall benefit entitlement?

Paul Treloar - 29 October 2012 01:10 PM

What is the link, if any, between “suitable” and “affordable”? 

With the changes to local housing allowance, both those already introduced as well as the change to CPI uprating next year, and the benefit cap, would this mean that a homeless family could be placed in private accommodation that has rent levels higher than their overall benefit entitlement?

Affordability is one element of suitability.

The govt has introduced a new statutory instrument, more guidance is on its way.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2601/made

The cap is £26000, or £500.00 per week.

I dont think you will find many authorities placing at those sort of rent levels.

Its more a question of will a family be able to feed and clothe the kids etc and pay the rent.

So I guess your real question is say how would a London LA discharge a homeless duty to a man woman and six (not working, no disabilities)

The cap means they are not entitled to housing costs as they get 26K in other benefits.

As the LA is not going to get rent free accommodation…some London LAs are saying that they will place outside of London as rents are cheaper.

The question is how will that impact on childrens schools etc. (another form of suitability)

There will be a glut of caselaw on this, as families argue that they have a need for reasonably priced accommodation in areas where they have support netwoorks.eg still in London.

Allocations guidance attached.

nevip - 29 October 2012 02:25 PM

Allocations guidance attached.

This is the governments Housing Allocations guidance, it deals with the allocation of social housing via the Housing List. (the “council waiting List”).  Its guidance covers the allocation of housing under the 1996 Housing Act part vi

The Homelessness part of the legislation is under the 1996 Housing Act part vii.

Two related but seperate pieces of legislation.

THe change in legislation means that an application accepted under Homelessness partvii will no longer have to result in an offer made under part vi…....as the LA will be able to discarge its part vii duty into the private sector….

Doh!!

Personally I cannot see this in any way as a “profound & astonishing” change.  Guardian columnist with a political slant, perhaps?

I certainly know of LAs where what is apparently now going to be legal has in effect been going on for a long time (albeit by short circuiting the process), so perhaps it’s more of a recognition of the reality - namely that in some areas there just is not anywhere near enough social housing so there is no alternative but for some people presenting as homeless to be offered private sector accommodation.

Derek - 29 October 2012 05:32 PM

Personally I cannot see this in any way as a “profound & astonishing” change.  Guardian columnist with a political slant, perhaps?

I certainly know of LAs where what is apparently now going to be legal has in effect been going on for a long time (albeit by short circuiting the process), so perhaps it’s more of a recognition of the reality - namely that in some areas there just is not anywhere near enough social housing so there is no alternative but for some people presenting as homeless to be offered private sector accommodation.

It is difficult to judge.

My own view is that all these changes “the so called biggest changes in 60 years” need to be considered as part of a package.

They look to me (i am a tad cynical) as an acceleration of polices which have been implemented over the last 30 years rather a directional change…...

“How local authorities are discharging their homelessness duty by being able to place homeless households in private sector housing”.

Is one of the things to be looked at by the Commons Select Committee.  Personally, I won’t be holding my breath.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/private-rented-sector/

The Homelessness Suitability of Accommodation Suplementary Code of Guidance has now been issued

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/2251395.pdf

interesting guardian article by tenancy relations officer in london about what will make homeless placement (often in another area) legal -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/nov/13/housing-homeless-criteria-under-pressure

Here’s a Red Brick blog (described as ‘The place for progressive housing policy debate’) on the suitability of accommodation regulations.

Just as Grant Shapps wrote to 20 councils telling them they shouldn’t use bed and breakfast accommodation for more than 6 weeks whilst fully aware that many simply could not avoid doing so under current Government housing policies, Mark Prisk has signed this Order in the full knowledge that homeless households will be transported huge distances with the guaranteed disruption that his Order supposedly seeks to avoid.

The Government’s adoption of the title ‘Affordable Rent’ for its programme of unaffordable housing has rightly been called Orwellian by many.  One meaning of Orwellian is ‘denial of truth’.  A homelessness policy where the Government does exactly the opposite of what it says it is doing is fully deserving of that description.

For the whole article, see Hypocrisy and doublespeak

In my opinion if the LA shows that it has “taken into consideration” the suitability guidance…you are going to be dependent on “force of argument” “goodwill” or you will need to show Wednesbury unreasonableness to challenge.

Nearly Legal has this, among other things, to say on Andy Gale’s proposals.

“This appears to be advocating gatekeeping, pure and simple. It is not lawfully open to an Authority to offer a housing options ‘deal’ before taking a homeless application. It is not lawful for an Authority to send away those who appear to be homeless, eligible and in priority need to ‘stay with relatives or friends’ while they look for their own accommodation. The s.184 duty is triggered on presentation to the Authority, not at whatever point housing options decide that the applicant isn’t going to accept the ‘deal’.

Yet here is Andy Gale, policy adviser at the CLG (Department of Communities and Local Government – my insert), advocating just that as a model for housing options practice.”

So there we have it.  A senior government adviser suggesting that LA’s across the land deliberately flout the law.  Astonishing.

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2012/11/homeless-legislation-a-thing-of-the-past/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Nearlylegal+(nearlylegal)&utm_term=feed

To clarify

Gatekeeping in the sense of refusing to entertain homeless applications is illegal, it is also the oldest trick in the book, eg: in days of yore, your “hardworking tax payers” used to remove paupers to a neighbouring borough.

To summarise the new legislation, is slightly different in that it will allow all Local Authorities to “gatekeep” their social housing stock…by offers of private sector accommodation…..

I agree.  But how many applicants, instead of being allowed to make a proper homeless application will have option a) ‘thrust upon them’.  Social Services departments do this sort of thing routinely.  Instead of carrying out a proper community care assessment as required by law they simply give many applicants a list of care agencies and tell them to make their own arrangements.  Of course, if new legislation allows for option a) to be ‘thrust upon ‘ an applicant to get round the requirement for a proper application then we will have just sunk to a new low, even for the Tories.

From Nearly Legal;

The ‘Alternative Prevention Route’ means that a household has
the choice of:

a) remaining with relatives or friends and finding PRS accommodation themselves in their own timescale backed by any deposit or Bond guarantee scheme
b) Remaining with relatives and friends and receiving 2 or several offers of accommodation through the private sector access team
c) If they are physically homeless and have no relatives or friends to stay with the PRS access team can make one immediate offer of PRS accommodation of their choice depending on the availability that day.

Those that take a prevention option which is outside the district could be allowed to remain on the Council’s Housing Register (although of course they will not be granted reasonable preference for being homeless). This will allow households to seek social housing through work in the district, or some other locally set criteria.

nevip - 13 November 2012 02:26 PM

I agree…..From Nearly Legal;

The ‘Alternative Prevention Route’ means that a household has
the choice of:

a) remaining with relatives or friends and finding PRS accommodation themselves in their own timescale backed by any deposit or Bond guarantee scheme
b) Remaining with relatives and friends and receiving 2 or several offers of accommodation through the private sector access team
c) If they are physically homeless and have no relatives or friends to stay with the PRS access team can make one immediate offer of PRS accommodation of their choice depending on the availability that day.

Those that take a prevention option which is outside the district could be allowed to remain on the Council’s Housing Register (although of course they will not be granted reasonable preference for being homeless). This will allow households to seek social housing through work in the district, or some other locally set criteria.

The way I read this, is some sort of document to be handed out as part of a presentation. I cant say I fully understand it…...

But it apperas that the speaker is saying that you should offer a prevention route, (staying with family friends)which involves EITHER a) a bond or deposit OR b) two offers of private accommodation .......OR c)a statutory route, one offer of accommodation. 

To my eyes what is disappointing is that there is no consideration at all whether this applicant needed social accommodation. Maybe they have had 5 ASTS’s in 3 years, the kids are tired of changing schools, losing their friends, the family needs stability etc  

AS I read it, it is not just an argument that SOME homeless families dont need social accommodation. Its an argument that NO homeless family is in need of social accommodation.

Just saying….

Martin

I think we are pretty much in agreement here.  My main concern is an impulse on behalf of government to push LA’s into evading their duties to make offers of any kind of accommodation at all, by encouraging applicants to arrange to stay with relatives and look for their own accommodation.  And if legislative change allows for this then I really do despair as I fear many LA’s will simply use this option routinely.

Patrick Butler of the Guardian has written a piece now on this issue, that incorporates much of the above (also note that the blog is subject to a complaint from the Department of Communities and Local Government as to the official status of Andy Gale). Also note that he still forgets that we, Lasa, were co-authors of the CPAG report grumble grumble…....

There’s a quote from a recent legal judgement affecting Waltham Forest:

It was… plainly unreasonable… for the Respondent [the council] to conclude that this young mother, who will be returning imminently to low paid part time employment, can either undertake this arduous journey 10 times a week for at least three years and pay the travel costs from her earnings or find alternative low paid employment locally and afford to pay commercially, from those earnings, for the childcare which her family would have provided free in Walthamstow. So focused was the HO [housing officer] on the difficulties facing the authority in finding suitable accommodation locally that it simply did not think through the reality of the property for this applicant in this case. In reality its decision was a huge disincentive for this woman to return to work, when the authority should be trying to encourage and support a person who actually wants to work – rather than to claim benefit – to be able to do so.

But also a conclusion that says:

One has some sympathy for local authorities, because this puts them, to quote the title of a recent Child Poverty Action group report on the subject, Between a Rock and a Hard Place. As Nearly Legal tweeted the other day:

As the housing officer said, it’s beyond cynical.

For the full piece, see ‘Beyond cynical’: ministers, housing benefit cuts, and homelessness

Just a Quick Recap….......

The supplementary guidance says that ‘in so far as is reasonably practical, secure accommodation within the authority’s own district’. Where that is not possible ‘the authority is required to take into account the distance of that accommodation from the district of the authority’. The accommodation is ‘not likely to be suitable’ if other accommodation is available nearer to the authority’s district.

Authorities are also required to:

•try to secure accommodation ‘as close as possible to where an applicant was previously living’
•take into account ‘the significance of any disruption’ to employment, caring and education and links to medical facilities and other support. This has to include consideration of the applicant’s need to reach their normal workplace, the education of young people especially at critical points like GCSEs.

Back to the future says Polly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/22/2013-boom-year-bailiffs-slum-landlords

The DCLG continues to get its knickers in a twist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2012/dec/13/housing-homelessness-politics-strange-tale-andy-gale

nevip - 17 December 2012 10:38 AM

The DCLG continues to get its knickers in a twist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2012/dec/13/housing-homelessness-politics-strange-tale-andy-gale

That really is a quite remarkable tale of backtracking, obsfucation and evasiveness.

Isn’t it?  This, particularly, caught the eye.

“Another source confirmed to me that Gale had very recently communicated with them on business matters using his DCLG email account (and showed me a copy of the email). So, while DCLG told me Gale had ceased formally being an employee of the department in 2008, it appeared not to have noticed that for the past four years Gale had been using an official government email address to conduct what it had suggested to me was his own entirely private business.

Two days after the piece appeared I emailed Gale at his government account. It didn’t bounce back”.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/government-axes-homeless-advisors/6526319.article

Interesting that.

This really needs an URGENT gov response. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/09/homeless-households-off-radar-public-services

It is simply no good the government providing guidance, or the LGA providing protocols.

The GOV needs to legislate NOW against LAs placing homeless families (with a local connection to their borough) hundreds of miles outside their boundaries, unless that is the client specifically requests this.

It is quite simple, this is a scandal that should not be happening.

Somebody needs to halt it.

Cathy is now shipped off to Birmigham…...