Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Sheltered housing developments ‘shelved due to benefit cuts’
Thanks Paul, it looks like NHF is starting a campaign on the issue from the article in inside housing which you posted. It directed me here after a bit of linking http://startsathome.org.uk/
Thanks, hadn’t seen this.
The Housing First “model” is well known, it crops up in many guises. This seems to be taking HF one “scientific” step further by prioritising housing for those that are likely to be future recipients of high cost services, that is if immediate housing was not provided eg Hospital admissions, prison etc . The hope is by doing this you of course make savings.
Their might be some that think it is a tad unfair that an offending, drug and alcohol abuser new to the streets, takes rehousing priority over a healthy law abiding long term rough sleeper. But heyho….. Pecunia non olet
Just to pick up on the points about dodgy schemes.
I have done appeals and other work for a number of exempt accommodation schemes - none of them dodgy, if not always very well set up.
The exempt accommodation rule is far from perfect and was a quick compromise back in the 1990s when there were changes to the registration schemes for supported lodgings which had negative benefit implications.
The combined effects of de-institutionalisation, long term restrictions on social housing capital finance and the ending of Supporting People have been major drivers in the growth of exempt accommodation.
Local authorities have been up in arms about exempt accommodation because of the subsidy problems and as we all know, it is far too easy for those administering benefits to not see the whole picture and to see shadows which don’t exist. I have resolved a number of cases where LAs have behaved outrageously accusing providers of variously hiding information or making things up when there has been nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, such moans from LAs get a ready ear within DWP policy circles.
Where there are scams going on, there are already a host of avenues open to LAs to restrict or even refuse HB - contrivance, non-commerciality, unreasonable rent increases, unreasonable rents in comparison, excessive service charges, etc.
I don’t doubt that there are scams and also that there is a small minority of questionable advisers, but you don’t solve the problem by wholesale, but gradual, wrecking of the supported housing sector which is what there is now a real risk of. LAs should tackle any scams by using their extensive existing powers,
We all know from experience that cuts in benefits are invariably preceded by DWP Press Office inspired stories (usually direct as sympathetic media outlets) about abuse and fraud in order to manipulate public and political opinion and it feels like we are in the early stages of something similar around exempt accommodation - highlight a few bad quality schemes in order to justify cutting exempt accommodation and giving the money to LAs to commission services instead, which of course will probably not be ring-fenced, and over time subject to cuts via freezing and being absorbed into mainstream local authority NHS funding. LA commissioned services are no guarantee of quality - ask those people who get fleeting visits from poorly paid, minimally supervised carers working for profit making companies.
Some people need to be careful what they wish for.
[ Edited: 5 Jul 2016 at 10:07 am by neilbateman ]Well said Neil.
If you’re interested, Lord Freud’s speech to CIH is now available here
Doesn’t really say a great deal tbh, finishing with:
For me, answering the question of long term reform also offers us an opportunity to think about how this crucial sector operates. For example:
* What can we do to ensure that quality and an outcomes focus are at the heart of what we do?
* How can we ensure that the system allows for and indeed drives innovation to build on what we know already works?
We all know these are not simple questions. That is why we are working quickly to understand what the evidence is telling us.
Building on this review, we will work with you to put in place appropriate protections. So that those who need supported accommodation – often the most vulnerable in our society – have appropriate and sustainable housing.
Blimey, didn’t see that one coming.
Ministers plan to extend an exemption for supported housing from the ‘Local Housing Allowance cap’ as they seek a long-term solution to the problem.
Inside Housing can reveal the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is expected to announce a ‘medium-term’ solution to the benefit change, to shore up housing association confidence and unfreeze stalled developments.
The DWP had previously suggested boosted Discretionary Housing Payments may help pay for supported homes, but it is understood this is no longer being considered. It is unclear whether the exemption would be open-ended or for a fixed term.
That is very helpful. Everyone has been at cross purposes since the social sector LHA plan was announced - I am sure that supported accommodation just wasn’t even considered at that time, but instead of saying “don’t worry, this is entirely separate from the supported accommodation review” the government allowed the two issues to be conflated and even started to talk as if the policies had merged. So this clarification is long overdue:
- social sector LHA is an issue for general needs tenants, mainly single people under 35.
- entirely separate, and predating the LHA malarkey, the way supported accommodation is funded by HB both in and out of the regulated social sector is the subject of a much wider review. The idea that supported accommodation would be left to survive on LHA rates plus maybe DHPs was never seriously under consideration and the government should not have allowed that idea to thrive for so long. I think a lot of the problem might have been the cross-departmental issues that no single minister properly understood - Brandon Lewis had to do a lot of the talking about five minutes after he was appointed.
Long term that still leaves some uncertainty about exactly what will come out of the review and I agree with Neil that ringfencing is a very important part of it. I hope that funds will be guaranteed and ringfenced so that authorities cannot raid them for other purposes, but if there is a ringfence I think we might see it placed around supported accommodation and other things as well so that commissioning can be “joined up” devo-Manc style.
I do a lot of work with local authorities so I have probably seen an unrepresentative sample of poor quality and downright cynical providers, but I can assure you they are out there and from my experience the anti-abuse measures available under the HB Regs aren’t adequate. It takes up huge resources, not just in lost subsidy but officer time as well. I really do think there could be a way out of this that satisfies everyone except the villains.
I am waiting for a government announcement before I start throwing my cap in the air.
I guess a lot depends on “medium term” “long term”..... as this has been going on since 2011
Still, thank you Netters…. for all your ideas updates.
Keep it up.
National Housing Federation has sent this out below to various Housing Associations, which contradicts Inside Housing….not sure who to believe or what is going on .....
We’ve had some great news: we’ve secured an Adjournment Debate on the future funding of supported housing on Tuesday 12 July. This offers us a crucial opportunity to press the Government on the need to implement a sustainable funding model for these homes and services. We need MPs to demonstrate that they value supported housing, and tell the Government that they back the sector’s proposed funding model.
We have been working with Conservative MP Peter Aldous to secure this debate and are grateful to him for tabling it. The exact timing of the debate on Tuesday is not set in stone, as Adjournment Debates start when the House of Commons has finished its daily business.
A long-term solution is the only way to secure the future of supported housing. You may have seen a suggestion in Inside Housing that the Department for Work and Pensions plan to further delay a decision on the future funding model. We have no reason to believe that this is true, but this highlights the importance of continuing to press for clarity as soon as possible.
What you can do
Please help us make the most of this opportunity by contacting your MP, encouraging them to attend this crucial debate, and sending them the MP briefing that we have written for it.
You’ve all invested time in building relationships with your MPs over the past few months, inviting them to your schemes and showing the impact of the work you do within their constituency.
When you share the MP briefing, please add tailored information about your scheme. Let your MP know why the model we’re proposing would work for you, and what it would enable you to deliver within their constituency.
Please contact my colleague Barry Hartness if you receive any feedback or intelligence from your MP ahead of the debate.
Once again I’d like to thank all of you for shaping a really strong proposal, and for all the work you have done to showcase the impact of supported housing to your MPs. You have made a hugely positive impression on the key people we need to influence, who now have an important opportunity to advocate on your behalf.
We’ll keep you updated on this crucial area of work – please get in touch if you have any comments or questions.
Yours,
David Orr
Chief Executive
National Housing Federation
I am waiting for a government announcement before I start throwing my cap in the air.
Written answer from Brandon Lewis yesterday - says next steps will be announced ‘in due course’ so no news yet according to him - http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-07-04/41717
This is the link to the debate on the 12/7/16.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-07-12/debates/16071262000002/SupportedHousing
Cap still on head.
Yes, I’ve just been reading the adjournment debate and really, government responsde says the square root of f’all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones) Let me therefore set out what I believe must be the principles for a new long-term funding regime. It must protect the public finances—for the taxpayer, as well as for central and local government. It must also build in a rigorous approach to value for money. At the same time, to protect vulnerable and older people, now and in the future, it must be funded in a way that recognises the increased cost of supporting people in the community, as colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned.
I also want to ensure that a future funding model provides enough certainty to allow the development of new supported housing units. In particular, an ageing population demands that services and supply keep pace with our social care needs.
Welfare spending cannot be left to spiral out of control. It is also right that people seeking help with their housing costs should not get higher levels of housing benefit for the same property if it is in the social rather than the private rented sector.
However, it is clear that supported housing is different and should be treated differently. The Government recognise the higher costs associated with providing supported housing for vulnerable groups, over and above the costs of general-needs housing. That is why it is crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that we work across Government and alongside the sector and other partners to find a workable and sustainable solution.
Responding to the motion, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Damian Green said -
‘I understand the urgency of this matter. I have committed to making an announcement early in the autumn setting out the Government’s views on what the future funding solution should look like. That announcement will also set out plans for working with the sector and other key stakeholders to ensure a safe transition to the new model.’
It has been put back yet again…......
Independent reports that 15 charities have written to DWP with Mencap stating:
“The recent Government announcement of a cap on Housing Benefit rates for supported housing has created an uncertainty that has forced providers to put on hold plans to buy or build new properties, and which is likely to turn this pressure into a crisis.”
“It is now key that the Government does their part and offers the certainty the sector desperately needs. We urge the Government to provide this by removing the threat of the LHA cap and by creating a sustainable long-term funding structure for supported housing going forward, so people with a learning disability can live independent lives and access their community.”
Relating to the LHA Cap itself, and not the Supported Housing aspect of it, Lord Freud’s letter states that it applies to new tenants, tenants renewing a fixed term tenancy and tenants who move home.
It has been assumed that it applies therefore to tenants ‘transferring’ within landlord, which could include for reasons such as downsizing.
However there was a discussion among advisers yesterday as to whether an Assured tenant transferring actually retains the same tenancy although they sign a new agreement for the new address?
Can anyone advise from a housing/tenancy law perspective please?