2The draft Homelessness Reduction Bill
Clause 1: Definition of homelessness and threatened homelessness
4.Clause 1 of the draft Bill amends section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, which provides that a person is threatened with homelessness if it is likely that they will become homeless within 28 days. The Clause extends this period to 56 days. It also makes provision for a person to be considered homeless upon expiry of a notice from a landlord who wishes to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy (known as a section 21 notice). Under the Bill, an applicant would be deemed homeless from the date that the section 21 notice expired.
5.Assured shorthold tenancies are the default legal category of private sector residential tenancies in England, with most having an initial term of six or twelve months. Landlords are able to choose whether or not to extend a tenancy beyond the initial term and can also terminate the tenancy by serving a section 21 ‘no fault’ notice of seeking possession, which can require a tenant to vacate the property at the end of a given period. On expiry of the section 21 notice, if the tenant does not leave, the landlord can apply to the courts for an eviction order. Under the provisions of the draft Bill an applicant seeking homeless support would automatically be judged to be homeless once the period specified in a section 21 notice expired. This provision reflects the finding in our homelessness inquiry that the termination of assured shorthold tenancies has become the single biggest cause of homelessness. We found that many people lose a tenancy and then simply cannot find anywhere affordable to live. We also found that households threatened with eviction—and thus with homelessness—were regularly advised by local authorities to exercise their right to remain in occupation beyond the expiry of the section 21 notice and often until the landlord had obtained a court order for eviction and bailiffs arrived.
6.Kate Webb from Shelter told us that:
It helps reiterate that this is about a cultural shift in the way we help people who are facing homelessness. Even though local authorities should be assisting someone within 28 days, we know at the moment … that that often still means waiting until it is a real crisis situation with the bailiffs coming. By further extending that time period, you reiterate that the intention should be about prevention rather than intervening at the point of crisis. Beyond that point of principle, it makes a meaningful difference because it gives you more time to resolve issues like benefit delays and rent arrears, which are so often at the heart of a problem, and more time for mediation.1
7.Matthew Downie from Crisis agreed:
The prevention activities you need to undertake sometimes take longer than 28 days and sometimes longer than 56 days, but it gives us a better fighting chance, particularly in those situations where somebody has been issued or threatened with being issued with an eviction notice. If you think about those activities where it is about intervening with landlords or making provisions for alternative accommodation and not having to wait until somebody is at the door of the council office with their suitcase, we can do something that is more meaningful and will cost less for everyone involved.2
8.Giles Peaker from the Housing Law Practitioners Association welcomed the provisions of Clause 1 and the acceptance of section 21 notices as evidence of homelessness. He told us that “We routinely see homeless people being effectively told, either by the local authority or by advisers who know what the local authority will tell them, to remain literally until they have an eviction notice. This means they also incur the court costs for a possession order, effectively for no reason.”3 Chris Norris from the National Landlords Association explained that landlords would also welcome Clause 1’s provisions:
The research that we do in-house tells us that one in five of our members has had a tenant who has received a valid Section 21 notice and who has been advised by their local authority or an advice service to stay until there is an order or even until the bailiffs turn up to end that tenancy. On the flipside of that, when we asked tenants—we run an independent tenants survey—49% of those tenants who had received at Section 21 had been told to stay put, whether they want to or not … It is just prolonging the period of instability4
9.Mr Norris also told us about the costs of the prolonged period of instability:
Our members told us that the typical cost of one of those tenants or one of those households being told to stay amounted to around £3,700 if there is no damage to a property. Quite often when the relationship starts to break down, other things tend to occur, and there is damage or more wear and tear, and that increases that cost by another £2,000. On average it takes 17 weeks to get from service of a notice through to possession in most cases, although you only have to look at the Ministry of Justice figures to see that when those possession cases go to court, it takes an average of 45 weeks to regain possession. If the relationship has disintegrated, it is very unlikely that the rent is being paid during that time and it is quite unlikely the property is being taken care of. Things turn sour quite quickly, and that can lead to a great deal of problems for landlords.5
10.In our homelessness inquiry, we found that private landlords are becoming less willing to let to tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit and are even less willing to let to homeless households. The National Landlords Association explain that “There are numerous reasons why a landlord might be reluctant to let their property to such households, but in the NLA’s experience they can generally be summarised as “risk”.”6 The measures of Clause 1 can therefore been seen as a positive move to reduce the risk to which landlords are exposed, and therefore increase landlord confidence to let to vulnerable tenants. Accepting an expired section 21 notice as a trigger for a local authority’s homelessness duties could however have the unintended consequence of reducing prevention work. Neil Wightman from the Association of Housing Advice Services told us that when a section 21 notice expires, it is often too late to take effective preventative action:
it is very difficult for landlords and applicants to think about preventing homelessness at that point. We would prefer that the applicant, the person or the household approaching the local authority triggers the 56-day period for prevention of homelessness. If that is at the expiry of the notice, that is fine, but many people come to us very late in the process; they do not seek advice or come and approach us. At that point it is well beyond the expiry of the notice, and so we are into the homelessness duty. We would find it very difficult.7
11.We also note the concerns expressed by local authorities about acceptance of section 21 notices as a trigger for a local authority’s homelessness duties. For example Harrow Council explain that:
If applicants are to be considered as homeless as soon as they receive a notice, then local authorities are not going to be able to prevent homelessness … There are at least 14 reasons why a s.21 notice can be invalid and homelessness can be prevented even after a court order using the legal processes and negotiations with a landlord.8
12.Clause 1 seeks to resolve the crisis-driven approach to homeless support that we found in our earlier inquiry. We welcome the extension of the period that someone can be considered to be threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days. We believe that the longer period will enable more effective work to prevent instances of homelessness from occurring.
13.We welcome the focus and priority given to earlier intervention and efforts to prevent instances of homelessness from occurring. Similarly we welcome provisions that would ensure that households facing homelessness are able to receive support before facing the stress and indignity of being forcibly evicted by bailiffs. We recognise that some local authorities already act as early as possible to prevent homelessness—Lindsay Megson from the National Practitioners Support Service for example described a council that had had positive results by beginning prevention work at the 90 day mark9—and would like to see an early intervention approach standardised across the country. However we also acknowledge that section 21 notices cannot always be definitive evidence of homelessness. As Neil Wightman told us, many landlords used to issue section 21 notices at the commencement of a tenancy as a matter of administrative expediency (this now cannot be done for any tenancy that started after 1 October 2015),10 and the existence of the notice might not always mean that the tenant is in practice likely to become homeless. We believe that local authorities are well-placed to determine this. We recommend that Clause 1(2) of the Bill is revised so that it is clear that an applicant for support need not remain in a property where possession proceedings are underway for the local authority to treat such a person as homeless.
Clause 2: Duty of local housing authority to provide advice
14.Clause 2 of the draft Bill amends Section 179 of the 1996 Act to clarify and strengthen the duties placed on local authorities to provide advice on preventing homelessness, securing accommodation and signposting other help that might be available. In our homelessness inquiry we heard how the advice given to homeless applicants often amounted to little more than a list of letting agents and even that was frequently out of date. We therefore welcome the provisions of Clause 2 and the emphasis it places on services preventing homelessness from occurring.
15.Paragraph 4(4) of the new Section 179 requires local authorities to ensure that services meet the needs of groups at particular risk of homelessness. Such groups include, but are not limited to,
- people leaving prison or youth detention accommodation,
- young people leaving care,
- people leaving the regular armed forces of the Crown,
- people leaving hospital after medical treatment for physical injury or illness or mental illness or disorder as an inpatient,
- people with a learning disability, or
- people receiving mental health services in the community
During our homelessness inquiry we spoke to young people leaving care and also heard about the particular challenges for people with multiple complex needs. We welcome the requirement that consideration be given to how best to serve these vulnerable groups, but believe that those who have experienced, or are at risk of, domestic violence should also be included. Agenda, a charity representing the interests of women and girls at risk, explained that:
It is clear that women who have experienced interpersonal abuse and violence are at particular risk of homelessness and as such we strongly believe that they should be included in the Bill. We are concerned that if they are not included [in the list of groups at clause 2(4)], local authorities may be less likely to think about them in service planning around advice and assistance … Women who are homeless often have particularly complex needs, with extensive experiences of abuse and violence and very high levels of drug addiction and poor mental and physical health. Their needs tend to be even more complex than those of homeless men.11
16.We recommend that those who have experienced, or are at continued risk of, domestic violence and abuse should be included in Clause 2(4), to reflect their complex needs and increased vulnerability.
Clause 3: Mandatory code of practice
17.Clause 3 of the draft Bill introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide a code of practice for local authorities that specifies how their homelessness services should operate. The code of practice would, among other things, include details on the content and standards of staff training, the minimum service standards expected under the duty to provide advice and the duty of care that local authorities owe to homeless people. In our report on homelessness we recommended that the guidance given to local authorities be strengthened because we heard that services could be hostile and at times discriminatory. We called for a code of practice that:
outlines clearly the levels of service that local authorities must provide and encourages regular training of staff to ensure a sympathetic and sensitive service. Services should put users first with a compassionate approach that gives individuals an element of choice and autonomy.12
18.Our recommendation was that the code should highlight and capture examples of best practice as a means of raising standards across the country. Matthew Downie from Crisis told us that a similar approach in Wales had been effective:
we have not seen an unveiling of vast reams of extra regulation and prescription for local authorities—there are minimum standards—but, as we hear it, the big difference has been made by a culture shift on the ground: a move away from this idea that it is an adversarial applicant-against-local-authority relationship where the local authority has its checklist of things that might rule you out; and towards the idea that local authority staff are trained and supported to be the people who look for the opportunities to prevent and resolve people’s homelessness.13
19.The existing Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities14 was published in July 2006. It contains advice on the decision-making process but does not specify service standards or desired outcomes. This guidance would need revision as a result of new duties introduced in the Homelessness Reduction Bill. We believe that it should either be combined with or complement a new statutory measure of service standards. We note the concerns raised by Homeless Link and agree that they should be addressed:
Homeless Link thinks the focus should be on ensuring that any current or updated guidance is followed correctly. Our members are more concerned about ensuring implementation of what is in place rather than any large-scale extension. Feedback has been that the Code of Guidance is not always followed and homelessness agencies have struggled to know how to respond to this.15
20.We welcome measures to address unacceptable levels of service at some local authorities. However we also appreciate concerns expressed by witnesses who feared that a mandatory code of practice could be overly prescriptive and stifle innovation.16 The London Borough of Wandsworth argued that “A mandatory code of practice is likely to be either so woolly as to be meaningless or so prescriptive as to be unworkable. It would not and could not take into account local context, pressures and factors.”17 However it remains the case that service standards vary across local authorities and examples of poor service are not monitored. A mandatory code of practice for local authorities, alongside a clear explanation to applicants of the service levels they should expect to receive, need not be overly prescriptive, and could improve what is now an often hostile process. Such a code of practice however will only achieve its aims if it is monitored so that non-compliance has consequences and action can be taken to deliver improvement. Monitoring of compliance with the code is an issue for the Department to address in implementing the Bill.
Clause 4: Homelessness reduction duties
21.Clause 4 of the draft Bill places three new duties on local authorities: the duty to assess, the duty to prevent and the duty to help secure accommodation. Clause 4 also specifies how an authority should secure or help to secure accommodation.
Duty to assess
22.The Clause inserts a new Section 184A into the 1996 Act, which would require local authorities to carry out an assessment of an applicant’s case if they were homeless or threatened with homelessness. The existing Section 184 of the Act requires councils to make inquiries to ascertain the eligibility of an applicant, what duty is owed to the applicant and whether that applicant has a local connection: the effectiveness with which local authorities carry out these duties varies considerably. The new section 184A seeks to address this variability by requiring an assessment of each applicant which includes consideration of how the applicant became homeless or threatened with homelessness, the housing needs of the applicant, the support needs of the applicant and the outcome that the applicant wishes to achieve from the authority’s support. Following the assessment, councils would be required to notify applicants of the outcome of the assessment and provide a personal housing plan. The personal housing plan would include a summary of the applicant’s case, the outcome that the applicant wishes to achieve, a summary of the advice given and steps to be taken by the Housing Officer, and a summary of the steps to be taken by the applicant.
23.In our homelessness inquiry we heard from people with first-hand experiences of approaching their local authority for support that too often they had been met with indifference because they were not in priority need. Financial pressures and increasing burdens on councils make it understandable that efforts are focussed on the most vulnerable. However this has led to many people not receiving adequate support or guidance. We therefore welcome the requirement in the Bill for an assessment and a personal housing plan as a means of providing more effective support for all applicants. We acknowledge that this will increase the workload of local authorities. The Association of Housing Advice Services conducted research on the additional caseloads of five London boroughs and found that based on data from 2015/16, there would be the following extra assessments under the Bill’s duty to assess:
- South inner London borough – 10,145
- West outer London borough – 1,103
- North outer London borough – 8,340
- Central London borough – 1,779
- East inner London borough – 7,58118
24.It is clear that the provisions of the Bill will make a significant call on the resources of local authorities. We therefore welcome comments from Gavin Barwell MP, the Minister for Housing and Planning, suggesting that the government would provide additional resources:
“At Westminster we will be looking at … some proposed changes to the law in relation to the duties that are put on councils and the responsibilities of government to deal with those problems, and we will be talking about it at that level. Absolutely there is a responsibility on government in terms of resourcing this important work.”19
25.The Minister of State responsible for homelessness, Marcus Jones MP, was similarly encouraging—if slightly less explicit—about government financial support to meet the consequences of the Bill for local authorities:
“we are looking to develop, and in fact are very advanced in developing, a significant package that may well complement any legislation that was put forward”20
26.The provisions of the Bill will undoubtedly make a significant call on the resources of local authorities: however we believe that it is not acceptable to refuse support to vulnerable people on cost grounds alone. The Department for Communities and Local Government should ensure that the costs of new burdens on local authorities are fully taken into account in future funding and in arrangements for the 100% retention of business rates by local authorities.
Duty to help prevent an applicant from becoming homeless
27.The draft Bill introduces a new Section 184B in the 1996 Act which requires local authorities to help to ensure that suitable accommodation does not cease to be available for applicants who are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance. The new Section also describes the circumstances under which the duty can come to an end, which include the local authority being satisfied that the applicant “is unreasonably refusing to co-operate”. Several witnesses expressed concerns about what they saw as the subjectivity of the term ‘unreasonably refusing to co-operate’.
28.As discussed in paragraphs 17–20, the relationship between applicant and local authority should be based on open conversation and not become adversarial, as it often is now. It is therefore appropriate that the applicant should be expected to work with and not against the authority, and to behave in a way that will help resolve their homelessness sooner. Heather Wood from South Cambridgeshire District Council told us that she welcomed the new expectation that applicants should co-operate and work with housing officers:
Sometimes people’s expectations are not realistic about what is deliverable. As we have already said, by having that frank conversation at the beginning we can try to offer realistic solutions by listening on both parts. However, applicants have to understand that a housing authority cannot make houses appear out of nowhere. There has to be some recognition of the challenges that a local authority faces and a responsibility for doing as much as you can to safeguard your own accommodation. It is very much a partnership.21
29.Matthew Downie from Crisis described how his organisation had considered a duty for applicants to co-operate in their panel reviewing homelessness legislation:
The panel that we convened looked very closely at this, because the idea that, particularly for prevention and relief activity, there should be a balance of responsibilities was seen as absolutely central. The argument was that there must be incentives on both sides, and we completely concur with that, as long as we can be clear that any breach of that is not constituted by a failure to co-operate that is inherent to the circumstances of homelessness: not being able to attend particular appointments or keep up contact levels. For somebody who is homeless, some of those things are not realistic and we see the detrimental effect of that sort of regime through the sanction system.22
30.Kate Webb from Shelter also suggested that greater clarity was needed on this issue:
When you are being very clear that your duty to co-operate means responding to letters and attending appointments, that is very objective. When it drifts into, “What steps have you taken to find a home? What have you done to engage with local landlords?”, that opens up an area where it is very difficult to track what someone has done or is reasonable to do. You are probably setting up a situation where the local authority is going to be subject to an awful lot of challenges23
31.Homeless Link also highlight that the complex needs of many homeless people could lead to behaviour which might be interpreted, under the current wording of the draft Bill, as them refusing to co-operate:
Homelessness agencies often find that a people with complex or multiple needs struggle to follow instructions which are given to them. Research has shown that it is the most vulnerable groups within the homeless population who are most likely to be sanctioned for not fulfilling benefit conditionality. This includes those with poor literacy, learning disabilities, mental health problems and substance misuse issues. The impact of these sanctions is devastating. In a similar way, Homeless Link is very concerned that the broad nature of the term “failure to cooperate” leaves open the possibility of individuals having support that will help address their homelessness being withdrawn.24
32.We welcome the new requirement for applicants to engage with and share responsibility for resolving their homelessness. However we recommend that this clause (and a similar provision in the proposed Section 184C)25 be revised so that the definition of non-cooperation is clear and takes into account the likely behaviour of homeless people with complex needs. Factors arising from the financial circumstances of many homeless people, such as a mobile phone being out of credit or not having a consistent or reliable postal address, should not be used as evidence of a failure to meet any duty to cooperate.
Duty to help secure accommodation for homeless applicant
33.Clause 4 of the draft Bill inserts a new Section 184C into the 1996 Act. Section 184C requires local authorities to help to secure accommodation for all applicants who the authority is satisfied are homeless and eligible for assistance, regardless of priority need. Provisions are also made for the circumstances under which the duty comes to an end. These include:
- after a period of 56 days;
- when the applicant ceases to be eligible;
- once the local authority is satisfied that ‘reasonable steps’ have been taken to help secure suitable accommodation; and
- when suitable accommodation is available for a period of at least 12 months.
There is also provision for councils to discharge the duty if the applicant refuses an offer of accommodation that the authority judges to be suitable, and if the applicant unreasonably refuses to co-operate. (We discussed concerns over the expectation that applicants co-operate fully in paragraphs 27–32.)
34.We welcome measures that will give effective support to applicants not judged to be in priority need. However the requirement that accommodation be secured be for at least 12 months could prove problematic. Andy Gale, a housing and homelessness consultant, argued that the 12 month requirement was not achievable:
The 12 month clause in the Homelessness Reduction Bill fails to recognise the reality of housing markets in London and across many parts of England where the only 12 month outcome would be an offer of social housing that cannot be delivered because of the lack of 1 bedroom availability … The 12 month clause would perversely create a situation whereby the only accommodation that a local authority is able to secure to end the 184C duty is likely to be of a 6 month duration. However, this would not end the duty and an applicant would be able to refuse that offer of accommodation leaving the local authority under the ‘help to secure’ duty for the remainder of the 56 days that duty is owed. At the end of 56 days the applicant would be left homeless with no accommodation unless they were in Priority Need.26
35.Harrow Council also highlight that the 12 month requirement could prevent councils from using supported hostel accommodation:
We know that many hostel places give 6 month agreements, which generally are extended over again for up to 2 years provided the occupant engages with the support and services at the hostel. We know that many vulnerable people can’t manage an AST, and a supported hostel is the only and best option available to them. The 12 month proposal could rule out this option as a valid form discharging the help to secure duty if the hostel offers an initial licence for 6 months.27
36.Lindsay Megson from the National Practitioners Support Service told us that the 12 month requirement would also not be practicable when placing people in the private rented sector:
Lots of landlords may be willing to work with homeless households, but 12 months is too much. They would not grant a 12-month tenancy to somebody who was not coming through the local authority, so why would they grant that tenancy to a homeless household? Six months would definitely widen prevention options.28
37.We acknowledge and welcome the intention of the 12 month requirement and the increased stability that it would provide. However we are not convinced that it will be workable. We therefore recommend that section 184C(5) and 184C(7) be amended to require councils to help secure accommodation for a period to be set out in secondary legislation. We would expect this initially to be six months, but believe that it is important to have the flexibility to extend the period if the market changes.
Clause 8: Becoming homeless intentionally
38.Clause 8 inserts a new subsection into section 190 of the 1996 Act which provides that a person can be considered to be intentionally homeless if they have not accepted a reasonable offer of accommodation from the local authority or a private landlord, or they have otherwise failed to cooperate with the support given by the local authority. As stated in paragraph 32, we are concerned that the term ‘failed to cooperate’ is not clear enough and recommend that this provision is redrafted. The Clause does not specify what a ‘reasonable offer of accommodation’ constitutes.
39.Some witnesses expressed concern at this provision, on the grounds that it might weaken the support given to priority need households. Crisis explained:
This would for the first time introduce a duty to cooperate for priority need households (mostly families and very vulnerable adults), significantly undermining their existing protections. This may put homeless families at risk of being ineligible for any assistance at this late stage, when they will already have fallen through the safety net of the prevention and relief duties … [Existing intentional homeless provisions] assess the circumstances in which a household became homeless, not their behaviour after the fact. This could have far-reaching consequences in restricting the protections afforded to some of the most vulnerable in society, including by preventing families and very vulnerable adults from applying for homelessness assistance in future.29
40.In our view, the provision in Clause 8, as currently worded, is too broad and might be seen as running counter to the wider objectives of the Bill by significantly weakening the protections that already exist for priority need households. In our report on homelessness we called for services to provide a compassionate approach that gives individuals an element of choice and autonomy.30 Despite measures elsewhere in the draft Bill that foster a partnership approach, Clause 8 reverts to the adversarial ‘take it or leave it’ approach. If the Clause is to stay in the Bill, we believe that it should be redrafted to ensure that the protections for vulnerable people in priority need are not weakened.
Clause 9: Somewhere safe to stay
41.Clause 9 inserts a section 192A into the 1996 Act which would create a duty for local authorities to provide 56 days of emergency accommodation to homeless applicants with a local connection but who are not in priority need and who have nowhere safe to stay. This duty would only apply to a first application and would not apply if the applicant had accessed services in the previous six months. The clause specifies that an applicant would meet the ‘nowhere safe to stay’ criterion if there were no accommodation available for them, or if it is probable that the only accommodation available would lead to violence against the applicant or their family.
42.We heard from local authorities that this provision caused particular concern because of doubts over its feasibility. Neil Wightman told us that:
This is one of the key areas. It is not workable due to the potential cost. We have done some research through AHAS to look at London local authorities and how that would work. We have done the analysis based on the current footfall for last year. We have discounted it by 30% for potential repeat visits and by another 30%, assuming a prevention rate of 30%, and used the net average TA [temporary accommodation] cost for eight weeks after housing benefit has been taken off. That comes to about £100 million for London based on the current figures. That does not include any new demand.31
43.These concerns were shared by the Local Government Association, which argued that “it is difficult to see how local government will be able to deliver a 56 day accommodation duty to all applicants. Many councils are already struggling to source a sufficient supply of accommodation for those in priority need and supply is falling as a result of housing and welfare reforms.”32 We note the suggestion from some witnesses that the ‘nowhere safe to stay’ duty be restricted only to verified rough sleepers33 as a way of building upon the work of the No Second Night Out programme. However we heard during our homelessness inquiry about the difficulties street homeless people face accessing services, and restricting the duty to rough sleepers would mean that the only way that someone at risk of violence, for example a young person forced to leave home as a result of family disagreements and relationship breakdown, could access support would be to spend time sleeping rough. This would not be an effective or efficient way of supporting vulnerable people.
44.We also heard concerns that this provision could overwhelm councils as it might encourage the ‘hidden homeless’, such as sofa surfers, to claim accommodation. The Association of Housing Advice Services, drawing on research from Crisis which suggested that there were between 310,000 and 380,000 people who were relying on a series of short-term arrangements for accommodation, argued that councils could not cope with the additional demand:
Providing TA for 56 days under a relief duty will put significant strain on local authority budgets and will be available for all single people irrespective whether they have a support need or not … In addition to costs, the process of acquiring and accessing housing to provide relief for all these additional people does not currently exist and cannot be procured. It is likely that the private housing market will react to this financial opportunity by creating thousands of nightly rated bed and breakfast accommodation at astronomical costs which will have to be paid for by the local taxpayer.34
45.We recognise that this Clause, and the Bill as a whole, will increase the demands on local authorities, and we discuss the funding of new burdens later in the report. Giles Peaker argued in favour of
a limited duty of emergency accommodation for a period of 56 days, in order to help people get on their feet until they find something else … In principle, you are dealing with people who are not necessarily [legally] vulnerable but are at risk. Rough sleepers and those fleeing domestic violence are the two obvious categories, in that they are not otherwise in priority need. It is a breathing space, hopefully to enable these people to obtain something where they are otherwise at serious risk … Conceived of as a limited emergency duty, where safety is the concern, it is valuable.35
46.We support the principle behind the requirement that local authorities provide 56 days of emergency accommodation to those with nowhere safe to stay. However we also recognise the reality that it is not feasible for councils to provide accommodation to all homeless people. We therefore recommend that Clause 9 be revised to restrict the duty to those whose safety is at risk and call on the Secretary of State to issue guidance with objective measures to ascertain when someone is at risk of violence as compared to other forms of homelessness.
Clause 12: Definition of local connection
47.Clause 12 amends the definition of local connection in Section 199 of the 1996 Act. Under the Housing Act, a person has a local connection with an area:
- if they are or were a resident there,
- if they are employed there,
- because of family associations, or
- because of special circumstances.
Local authorities have agreed36 that a local connection means that the applicant must have lived in the area for six out of the last 12 months, or three out of the last five years. The provisions of Clause 12 alter the local connection definition by requiring that an applicant is or was a resident for an unbroken period of six months, is or will be employed in the area for six months without a break, because of family associations or for special circumstances.
48.In our report on homelessness we recommended that the Government should consider the guidance given to local authorities for when families moved from lower cost areas into higher cost areas, and then subsequently presented as homeless after a short period in privately rented accommodation.37 High cost areas such as London are already struggling to meet the housing demand across all sectors and it is not appropriate that stretched resources be used in this way. However we are concerned that the proposed revision to the local connection criteria will fail to address this issue and could potentially make it harder for homeless households to access support.
49.Shelter argued that the revised definition could have adverse consequences for people in insecure employment (such as those on zero hour contracts)38 who would have difficulty proving six months’ employment. Ryedale District Council also had concerns regarding employers in the tourism and food manufacturing industries who took on large numbers of seasonal staff. Such employees would be able to claim a local connection based on short-term employment, even if their permanent residence was elsewhere.39 Neil Wightman from the Association of Housing Advice Services and the London Borough of Lambeth told us:
We would prefer local connection to remain largely as it is, related to where you are living or where your last local connection has been. We are worried that if you widen it out and make it more flexible, it is going to provide another layer of investigation to determine whether somebody had a local connection in your area at whatever point in time. Multiple applications and local connections create a layer of complexity that is not needed over the current rules.40
50.Witnesses were also troubled by the implication that the required six months of unbroken residence in an area could have been many years ago. Justine Harris from Brighton & Hove City Council argued that it would be “very hard to investigate six months at any point in someone’s life”.41 Rhys Makinson from the London Borough of Camden also told us:
What we are most concerned about is that, if you discharge duty and somebody goes off and then happily lives in another area for two or three years, they could then come back again and say, “We have lived in Camden previously; we want you to find other accommodation for us somewhere else.” You could end up with a big circle where we discharge duty, they come back, we discharge duty, they come back.42
51.Clause 12 also alters the local connection rules by shifting the burden of proving a connection onto the applicant. The 1996 Act states that a person has a local connection if they have a connection. However Clause 12 of the Bill states that a person has a local connection if they can prove they do. Lindsay Megson from the National Practitioners Support Service argued that:
It did appear that the burden to prove the local connection rested with the applicant, and the burden to disprove it with the local authority. I know many of us would struggle to prove where we lived for six months at some point in our lives. We do not support the idea that a homeless household, possibly at crisis point, should have to do that. In our opinion, the local connection criteria works as it is, and there is no need for a revision.43
52.We do not support the changes proposed in Clause 12 of the draft Bill. We do not believe that there is a consensus for changes to the local connection rules. We therefore recommend that the Clause be removed from the Bill.
Clause 14: Reviews of decisions
53.Clause 14 of the draft Bill amends Section 202 of the 1996 Act to give applicants the right to request additional reviews of a local authority’s actions under the new duties to assess, prevent and help to secure accommodation. The Clause also outlines what should be included in the reviews. For reviews concerning the authority’s duty to assess, measures such as the information taken into account in connection to the assessment and any decision which is adverse to the applicant’s interests are subject to review. For reviews concerning the duties to prevent homelessness and to help secure accommodation, the nature and extent of assistance given and the suitability of accommodation are included.
54.The London Borough of Wandsworth argued that:
This whole section is misconceived as it extends the right to seek a review of virtually everything under the legislation … There seems to be little logic in extending the right to review to matters that have been overtaken by events … or indeed any decision `adverse to the applicants interest’. That sub clause is a particularly strong example of imprecise drafting as the bill is set out. One can imagine endless, futile and expensive arguments about what that precisely means.44
55.Harrow Council described the Bill as “a litigant’s charter”45 and argued that:
The current review process is already lengthy and complex. The proposal to add another four review stages in each case to an already burdened service is disproportionate and unworkable. It will have the effect of making all assessments grind to a halt when applicants could stop the process at so many stages.46
56.Giles Peaker told us that he did not oppose the provisions of the Clause and the additional rights of review:
These are all significant decisions. Each of those decisions is either a decision to end a duty or that a duty has been fulfilled or that there has been a failure to engage with the duty in the first place. It is not a question of necessarily a whole sequence of decisions being challenged. These are the key decisions, and as such capability of review is vital.47
57.In light of the examples of poor service we found during our homelessness inquiry, we agree that applicants should have the right to ask for a review of the support they receive from local authorities. However we recognise the potential for a significant increase in cases brought to review and the impact that this will have on local authority resources. We therefore recommend that sub-paragraph (1B)(d) “any decision which is adverse to the applicant’s interests” be left out of Clause 12(5) of the draft Bill. Reviews should address whether the local authority has met its duties and fulfilled the actions it committed to in an applicant’s personal housing plan.
Clause 16: Accommodation suitability
58.Clause 16 amends the criteria in Section 210 of the 1996 Act used to determine what a local authority should consider when assessing whether or not a property is suitable for an applicant. It provides that the authority shall not have regard to the applicant’s preferred location of the property.
59.In our homelessness inquiry we heard that many London boroughs struggle to find affordable accommodation within their boundaries, and so place homeless households in cheaper areas elsewhere in the country. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea argued that:
An expectation should be placed on applicants to pursue housing options that will reduce reliance on welfare benefit budgets … in the longer term, including options that may be on occasion some distance away from the assisting borough. Therefore, affordability must be a key consideration when considering whether an offer of accommodation is suitable.48
60.Similarly Neil Wightman told us that:
There are significant areas, London and outside London, where there simply is not any affordable accommodation at all, and if we are placing single people or families in accommodation, we want that to be sustainable. The only way you can make it sustainable as a long-term family home is if it is affordable. If there simply is no accommodation locally, affordability has to be brought into the suitability dimensions.49
61.Giles Peaker told us that he recognised the importance of affordability as a key consideration, but would want to retain some consideration of location. He told us that “simply removing locality as a factor that is important to people risks … people simply being shipped to other areas without any consideration as to whether there was some alternative in between”.50 During our homelessness inquiry we heard from Daisy-May Hudson who told us that her family was offered accommodation that was a two hours away from the school attended by her sister who was part-way through her GCSEs. When the family refused the placement, they were told that doing so would mean they would be judged as being intentionally homeless and the council’s duties would come to an end. It was only when the family sought to challenge the decision in the courts that the council agreed to look for accommodation closer to the area.
62.In our homelessness report we concluded that “Housing people away from their homes and support networks should be an action of last resort, but we appreciate the pressures that councils are under and do not oppose out of area placements in principle.”51 We recommend that when assessing a property’s suitability, local authorities should be required both to take into account an applicant’s location preference and to balance this with long-term affordability for the applicant. Consideration should be given to providing a stronger duty to accommodate certain groups within a reasonable distance of their last permanent accommodation, such as people with mental health conditions who have a support network which is helpful in managing their condition, and families with children at school.
Clause 17: Co-operation between authorities and others
63.Clause 17 of the Bill amends the 1996 Act to require co-operation between social services and housing teams within local authorities, and between local authorities and other bodies including social landlords, the NHS, probation services, Jobcentre Plus and the police.
64.In our homelessness inquiry we heard that different homeless support services often operate in isolation. For example people leaving prison were given little or no support to find accommodation, and prison services frequently sent ex-prisoners to local authorities with little attempt to support their resettlement.52 Dominic Williamson from St Mungo’s noted the Committee’s findings on co-ordinating mental health support. He told us that:
there is a real problem with getting the right support to people with mental health problems who are sleeping rough. This element of the Bill would help cement some of those relationships that you desperately need at a local level between the NHS and housing. It is quite reasonable to expect that co-operation to happen between public bodies. We see a lot of cost shifting between the different siloes in the system otherwise. If a local council does not do its job and someone ends up on the street, gets assaulted, is picked up by an ambulance and goes to hospital, the costs are shunted into the health service—or maybe they are arrested. This is part of the problem with our siloed public services, and wherever possible we need to hardwire in that co-operation and raise the expectation that our public services will talk to each other and work together strategically on a case-by-case basis for individuals to ensure that the best outcome happens.53
65.Subsections 2 and 3 of the new Section 213 introduced by Clause 17 outline the circumstances under which co-operation can be withheld: if doing so is incompatible with a person’s duties, or if co-operating would have an adverse effect on their functions. While recognising that there will be instances when a public body has legitimate grounds to withhold co-operation, we are concerned by the uncertainty of this Clause. It is unclear whether an organisation could deny a request for co-operation on the grounds that it would divert funds away from its primary duties or residents. We recommend that this Clause be reinforced by statutory guidance that makes it clear that such grounds would not be a valid reason for failing to co-operate with measures to reduce homelessness.
1 Q3 [Kate Webb]
2 Q3 [Matthew Downie]
3 Q53 [Giles Peaker]
4 Q53 [Chris Norris]
5 Q56
7 Q53 [Neil Wightman]
9 Q52 [Lindsay Megson]
10 Q53 [Neil Wightman]
12 Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Homelessness, HC 40, para 67
13 Q7 [Matthew Downie]
14 Department for Communities and Local Government, Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, July 2006
16 Q96 [Neil Wightman]
19 Quoted in “Barwell pledges action to tackle rough sleeping ‘moral shame’”, Inside Housing, 5 September 2016
20 Q 81
21 Q37 [Heather Wood]
22 Q13
23 Q14 [Kate Webb]
25 Draft Homelessness Reduction Bill, August 2016
28 Q100 [Lindsay Megson]
30 Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Homelessness, HC 40, para 67
31 Q101
35 Q104
36 Department for Communities and Local Government, Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, July 2006, Annex 18, para 4.1
37 Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Homelessness, HC 40, para 56
40 Q98 [Neil Wightman]
41 Q42 [Justine Harris]
42 Q42 [Rhys Makinson]
43 Q98 [Lindsay Megson]
47 Q62 [Giles Peaker]
49 Q61 [Neil Wightman]
50 Q61 [Giles Peaker]
51 Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Homelessness, HC 40, para 53
52 Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Homelessness, HC 40, para 86
53 Q10 [Dominic Williamson]
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
13 October 2016