Memorandum by the Local Government Association
(LGA) (HOM 62)
1. The Local Government Association (LGA)
was formed on 1 April 1997 and represents the local authorities
of England and Wales—a total of just under 500 authorities.
These local authorities represent over 50 million people and spend
around £78 billion pounds per annum. The LGA exists to promote
better local government. We work with and for our member authorities
to realise a shared vision of local government that enables local
people to shape a distinctive and better future for their locality
and its communities. The LGA aims to put local councils at the
heart of the drive to improve public services and to work with
government to ensure that the policy, legislative and financial
context in which they operate, supports that objective.
2. The LGA welcomes the opportunity to give
evidence to this enquiry.
3. Local authorities have a statutory duty
to help homeless households in their areas and therefore have
the Local Government Association and its member authorities have
an interest and in and therefore can make a major contribution
to this enquiry.
4. Housing is an essential part of any individual's
life and can have an impact on your health, education and social
prospects.
5. Homelessness is complex and can arise
for many different reasons. When we consider homelessness generally
we think of people who are sleeping rough on the streets. However,
these are only the most visible homeless. A wide variety of people
who approach their local authority as homeless will meet the criteria
in the legislation and be assessed and registered as homeless.
These include people who are roofless, people living in temporary
accommodation provided for homeless people, people living in other
insecure or temporary accommodation, for example tenants who have
been given notice to quit, people living in "intolerable"
circumstances, for example overcrowded or unsafe housing and people
involuntarily sharing accommodation long term, for example those
living on friends' sofas or with extending family. All these people
are owed a duty by the council to find them suitable housing.
6. Homeless applicants can also have multiple
reasons for presenting themselves as homeless and as a result
cases can be very complex to deal with. As cases homelessness
are complex there are a lot of agencies that can have an impact
in assisting the local authority housing department to in its
duty towards homeless people. These agencies include housing associations
(as partners and housing providers), other statutory agencies,
such as social services and health (in the assessment of and treatment
of problems), the voluntary sector (particularly homeless charities),
and the private sector (businesses such as builders and as private
landlords providing accommodation for local authority tenants
use).
7. In 2003-04, local authorities accepted
responsibility for housing 137,000 homeless households. This was
an increase from 130,070 in 2002-03. This increase could in part
be explained by the extended priority needs categories and the
new duties imposed on local housing authorities by the Homelessness
Act 2002.
HOMELESS POLICIES
8. Under the Homelessness Act 2002 all local
housing authorities had to produce a homeless strategy for their
area that had a five year plan as to how they would tackle homelessness.
All 376 local authorities in England and Wales with a responsibility
for housing produced a strategy. In the autumn of 2003 the LGA
undertook a survey of local authorities to find out how they had
approached their strategies and what the impact of these were.
The Association had 227 authorities respond to this survey, giving
us a return rate of 60%. It was clear from the responses that
local authorities gave us that whilst they welcomed the experience
of working on the strategies only 45% of authorities believe there
has been increase in budget allocations for homelessness strategies
since they created their strategy.
9. For some authorities there has been an
increase in budget to enable them to meet the B&B target and
the rough sleeper's target and there is real concern that once
the additional funding that has followed the creation of strategies
runs out there will be difficulty for these authorities to sustain
the targets. The LGA was opposed to the creation of a statutory
instrument for B&B use, whilst we agree that local authorities
should minimise the use of B&B the point has to be noted that:
— Whilst it is appreciated that B&B
accommodation is not the ideal situation for children to be placed
in, the LGA commends local authorities for the efforts they have
made to limit it's use, and notes that B&B is used because
of a lack of alternatives.
— The Association recognises that not
all B&B is of a good standard, but we feel that the standard
blankets all B&B and does not acknowledge that some B&B
accommodation is of a better standard, more hygienic, healthier
and provides mechanisms of support for vulnerable people which
a lot of the private rented property that homeless households
could be placed in does not.
— Making it illegal for councils to
use B&B for families for longer than six weeks is perverse.
It puts very high demand authorities in an untenable position,
allows no flexibility for individual cases of for circumstances
outside local authorities' control. Authorities meet the B&B
target last March. However, this may be partially attributable
to the additional resources made available by central government
and to a flattening of the housing market in some areas. The unintended
consequence of the proposed legislation could be a tightening
up of the criteria for accepting homeless applicants and an increase
in the number of intentional homeless decisions made by authorities.
This goes against the intention of the homelessness legislation.
— This SI does not allow for local
authority autonomy and potentially criminalises authorities. It
is against the spirit of the legislation in which local authorities
are encouraged to provide the best advice and solutions they can
for homeless people and imposes an unacceptable reduction in local
authority's freedom to operate within the legislation. The consequence
of this is that local authorities will simply tighten up on acceptances
and may end up having to make unsuitable placements in the private
sector in order to reach this target. This could have the unintended
consequence of having an adverse effect on homeless people.
— There is a danger that to ensure
that targets to remove families from B&B are met, there will
be an increased use in this type of accommodation for single people.
Whilst the LGA agrees that housing people in B&B is not ideal
it is often necessary for authorities to place people in such
accommodation because of a lack of suitable alternatives.
— This has set an unwelcome precedent
whereby a target imposed on local authorities is enshrined in
legislation. The factors that impact on the ability to meet this
target are many and varied and are often beyond an authorities
control and imposes an unreasonable burden on authorities.
— It has to be recognised that this
target does not deal with the core problem of supply. Local authorities
are working hard to ensure that there is enough supply of accommodation
to meet Government targets and should be commended for their positive
approach to this issue. However, it is clear that some authorities
55% of authorities feel that there has been no increased budget
for this work and are having to managing from within existing
resources. If targets are to be sustained, the Government needs
to review the funding of homeless services and make additional
resources available for this work. This was a commitment that
they gave when they proposed the Homelessness Act 2002 and should
be kept.
THE EVALUATION
OF TARGETS
10. Whilst targets have been imposed on
local authorities ie the rough sleepers and B&B target. No
specific work is being undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness
of these targets. Has the reaching of the targets allowed for
value for money, or are local authorities paying out considerable
amounts of money on Private Sector Leasing (PSL) schemes that
do not represent an effective use of resources. The Association
would urge the ODPM to undertake proper evaluation of the targets.
This evaluation should include looking at the cost of types of
accommodation used and whether the PSL schemes that they are using
present people with good standards of accommodation. It is also
important that any evaluation of the target looks at the human
element of homeless services, by this the Association means that
the people accommodated are receiving appropriate support in their
private sector accommodation.
JOINT WORKING
11. People lose previous accommodation for
a number of reasons and to enable them to sustain their tenancies
some people will need support from other services (such as social
services or health) to ensure that they are not at risk of repeat
homelessness.
12. Joint working is key to addressing homeless
problems. The LGA research highlights this issue with 68% of authorities
report that creation and implementation of the Homelessness Strategy
has increased the need for cross-boundary co-operation between
neighbouring authorities.
13. Section 111 of the Local Government
Act 1972 provides local authorities with the power to do anything
"which is calculated to facilitate, or is conductive or incidental
to the discharge of any of their functions". The Local Government
Act 2000 gives local authorities the duty to promote the well-being
of their area. This duty allows local authorities the right to
work with others to deliver services.
14. The Homelessness Act 2002 placed a duty
on local authorities to consult all agencies that can have an
impact on them achieving the outcomes of their strategies. However,
it is clear from talking to housing authorities that they still
have problems getting care agencies to work seriously with them
on specific homeless cases. The most prevalent cases of sort are
with 16-17 year olds, where social care often places the duty
back onto housing agencies. However, if young people are to maintain
their licences it is essential that they get the correct support.
It is not just restricted to just young people but extends to
other social care cases. Care agencies should be reminded of their
duties to homeless households by the relevant Government departments.
There is also potential for further duties to be placed on care
agencies to ensure that they co-operate with housing authorities.
WORKING WITH
OTHER SOCIAL
HOUSING PROVIDERS
15. Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) have
a duty to work with local authorities to help them fulfil their
statutory duties. The Housing Corporation has reminded RSLs of
this duty in guidance to them. However, there is evidence that
there are still real issues about local authorities being able
to exercise nomination rights to RSLs. The ODPM are currently
looking at providing good practice guidance on this issue. The
Association would urge that this issue is addressed as a matter
of urgency as where nominations are rejected it is the local authority
that has to meet the cost of finding other suitable accommodation
for homeless applicants.
CONCLUSIONS
16. The LGA welcomes this consultation as
a positive step to evaluating the Homelessness Act 2002.
17. Believes that there should be a continuation
of the funding of homelessness projects.
18. Believes that the Government should
evaluate the cost of homeless services and make additional resources
available as they committed to do in the Act.
19. Believes that the B&B target and
rough sleepers target should be evaluated to ensure that the use
of private sector accommodation provides value for money, good
standard accommodation and suitable support for homeless people.
20. That joint working is key to solving
many homeless cases and that care agencies should be reminded
of their responsibility to work with housing agencies.
21. That the Government review nomination
problems with RSLs.
| 
