Written evidence submitted by Association of Housing Advice Services [HOL 78]
AHAS represents the largest number of Statutory Housing Needs sections comprising housing advice, housing options and homelessness services and housing procurement in London and the south east. These statutory housing services are the portal from which every applicant either threatened with homelessness or homeless passes through.
The organisation has been operating for over 25 years and as operational managers we therefore can lay claim to being uniquely placed to contribute to and inform this debate.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the document
The largest cause of homelessness in London for all groups is the overheated housing market resulting from a serious shortage of rented accommodation.
2.1 London has seen a big increase in homelessness due to ending of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) – as evidenced in P1E data. This shortage of rented accommodation has caused large increases in market rents. Both subsidy payments made to councils to provide temporary accommodation (TA) and Local Housing Allowance (LHA) levels have fallen behind actual market rents charged by landlords, and the gap is increasing. As a result it is increasingly difficult to access the Private Rented Sector (PRS) to prevent or end homelessness, or lease accommodation for TA. Landlords can get higher rents elsewhere, so often evict tenants on LHA and now often won’t work with Local Authorities to house homeless households. Outer London boroughs have also seen a huge decrease in available accommodation in the PRS due to inner London boroughs placing families in their areas which is unavoidable and due to a lack of affordable properties in their areas.
There is increasing concerns about the fragility of the rental market. In some London boroughs the private rented sector accounts for more than 40% of all households. A small change in the market has serious impacts on the local authority TA budget. Any greater change in the market is potentially catastrophic.
The Times reported (3/2/16) that “collapsing confidence in the buy-to-let market will lead to half a million properties coming on to the housing market in the next year…” A survey by the National Landlords Association revealed that the proportion of landlords hoping to sell in the next 12 months has more than doubled since July from 7 per cent to 19 per cent.
AHAS would be able to provide more information and detailed analysis on the change in causes of homelessness and the likely cost implications of changes in the private rented sector.
2.2 Under Universal Credit, landlords are concerned that they generally won’t get housing payments made directly to them. Experience shows that when households receive all their benefit, they are not always able to satisfactorily budget and end up spending some of their income that should be used to pay the rent. This will be a further disincentive to landlords to offer properties to benefit claimants.
2.3 Government policy is discouraging buy to let landlords by increasing tax and adding extra regulatory requirements, such as the Right to Rent. The Right to Rent regulations should be amended so as not to apply to any households assisted into private rented accommodation in order to prevent homelessness, where the council confirms this is the case. (Currently only accommodation offered in response to the full homeless duty is exempted).
2.4 The requirement that single people must be 35 before they can receive LHA to pay for self contained accommodation has caused a serious shortage of shared accommodation. Removing housing benefit entitlement from 18-21 year olds will also cause increased homelessness amongst this group and the cost of dealing with this is likely to outweigh the saving achieved to the HB budget. The cuts in the Supporting People budgets has caused gaps in provision for people with complex needs and leads to repeat homelessness. It is increasingly difficult to house vulnerable rough sleepers whose main support needs are mental health and/or substance & alcohol misuse.
2.5 There has been an increase in homelessness due to domestic violence and gang violence and the reciprocal protocols in place are not adequate and adding to the local authority pressures.
3.1 LHA needs to reflect the market rents at least at 30th quartile to enable working households on benefits to access private rented accommodation in London.
3.2 London needs to get the vast majority of the devolved TA management fee from 2017-18, to reflect the pressures in the capital.
3.3 Government needs to support the development of rented accommodation, both private sector and social rented that is genuinely affordable to Londoners on low and moderate incomes and/or who have to claim benefits.
3.4 Mortgage lenders should be stopped from imposing restrictive requirements on the mortgage such as:
i) Prohibiting buy to let landlords from letting to households on benefits
ii) Requiring tenancies to be let on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, thus preventing a property being leased to the council
iii) Requiring Assured Shorthold Tenancy length to be only 6 months or 1 year, thus preventing landlords from offering longer terms and greater security of tenure to families.
3.5 The Housing element of Universal Credit should be paid direct to PRS landlords when homelessness services have initiated the letting for homelessness prevention, temporary accommodation or ending the homelessness duty. This would reduce repeat homelessness and achieve higher rates of tenancy sustainment for vulnerable groups
3.6 The overall household benefit cap should not apply to homeless households in temporary accommodation (or placed there to prevent or discharge homelessness) for the first six months, if they have been housed in a new district. This is to give an opportunity to obtain employment.
3.7 Proposed changes to the National Planning Policy framework will reduce the provision of affordable rented homes which again will impact on the move on options for homeless households. The Housing and Planning Bill will reduce the availability of affordable rented homes, drive up rents and reduce our ability to build new rented homes.
4.1 There has been a steady reduction in the availability of social housing. Government policy, in introducing the right to buy for housing association tenants and the forced sale of high value voids, and in developing Starter Homes & shared ownership housing rather than rented accommodation, will speed up the reduction of social rented housing in London. This will lead to a further increase in homelessness as fewer people at risk of homelessness or homeless and living in temporary accommodation will be allocated social housing to prevent or resolve their housing crisis. Where replacement properties are developed to replace Housing Association Right to Buy, they should be in the same as area as those units they replace. The second best option, if this does not happen, is that replacement properties should be made available for allocation by London councils who have lost homes through the Right to Buy.
4.2 Local Authorities such as Harrow, which has one of the smallest social housing stocks in London, have seen some of the highest homelessness pressures because it is disproportionately dependent on the overheated PRS. Boroughs, such as Camden, with larger social housing supply that have been able to restrict the growth of homelessness through allocating social housing will see increases in homelessness as stock reduces.
Because of a lack of resources and insufficient rented accommodation in London and the South East, Local Authorities are already struggling to meet statutory homelessness duties. So Homelessness duties should not be extended further until the current homelessness crisis is resolved and sufficient resources are made available. Otherwise families with children who are currently assisted would be put at risk.
There are insufficient resources such as supported hostels for vulnerable single households for whom we do have a current statutory homelessness duty such for (e.g. vulnerable rough sleepers with support needs). They place a huge burden on local authorities and other public sector services. 'CHAIN' data confirms a substantial rise in rough sleeping in London over the past year and this needs multi-agency work and extra resources to tackle.
6.1 Prevention of homelessness is essential, but it is very difficult to prevent homelessness due to the ending of an AST, for the reasons given above (increased disparity between LHA & market rents).
6.2 Boroughs are exploring alternative options for TA, in order reduce their spending on B&B and self contained nightly paid TA, including buying properties, converting other buildings e.g. care homes, sheltered housing , supported housing, commercial premises on Council estates, school keeper’s houses and offices & modular units. But our ability to move people on from TA is severely compromised by factors mentioned already and so people are likely to live longer in TA.
6.3 Changing expectations is also essential. Too many families still believe becoming homeless is the route to obtain social housing, and this is their legal right. Legally this has never been the case, and practically this is not a realistic expectation. Legislation needs to clearly frame that homelessness duties are a stop gap safety net before other housing options, usually private rent accommodation, is accessed.
AHAS works mainly in London and the South East where the vast majority of homelessness occurs, so cannot really comment. For areas where there is a surplus of social housing, and private rented sector housing rents are comparable to social housing rents, usually homelessness can be resolved by simple matching, with little cost. So homelessness does not have the same financial impact as occurs in cities, especially London.
We would support this. DCLG should lead on this but DWP needs to be fully involved so that the impact of welfare reform on homelessness is fully assessed. The impacts of legislative and policy changes on homelessness prevention should be monitored; and new legislation requiring more involvement by priority need homeless households to prevent their own homelessness should be developed. The working group should draw on the expertise of actual practitioners in the field delivering statutory services to homeless households. AHAS would be happy to assist with this.
We have no comments on current methods. AHAS would be happy and willing, as practitioners to work with the DCLG to assist in the development of appropriate system.
10.1 We strongly believe that Government needs to amend legislation to help boroughs tackle the rising levels of homelessness.
10.2 We are not in favour of the Scottish model, extending the full duty to all homeless households, regardless of priority need or intentionality, as this would overwhelm LAs who already struggling to meet current demand for services. Where LAs have resources to assist extra groups such as single homeless households, current legislation already allows this to happen.
10.3 The Welsh model has some merit in the policy objective of ensuring households are actively involved in preventing their own homelessness and finding housing solutions. But the actual Welsh legislation just creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and adds new burdens to councils which are not needed to achieve this policy objective.
10.4 We support the introduction of a statutory amendment to legislation which requires applicants to prevent their homelessness, when possible. This can be achieved by amending intentional homelessness in Part VII Housing Act 1996. We believe intentional homeless should include:
a) Homelessness in consequence of failing to move into suitable accommodation that is offered by the local authority or a private landlord, which would have ended a threat of homelessness within 28 days. (Currently families can refuse all offers of suitable accommodation and chose to become homeless before they are formally assessed and accepted as homeless).
b) Homelessness in consequence of not following advice provided by, or on behalf of, the local authority that would resolve the threat of homelessness. (For example not following employment advice that would enable the family to increase their income through employment and benefits so as afford rent payments and avoid rent arrears).
10.5 Because of the lack of affordable housing in London, the reduction in the overall benefit caps & rising PRS rents, LAs need greater flexibility to place households in affordable areas. The case of Nzolameso v Westminster has made it too difficult. Government should review the Suitability of Accommodation Order and guidance, in order to reduce the burden on expensive LAs. The overheated housing market and Government’s welfare reforms make London unaffordable for even small families who are capped, so Government needs to enable LAs to place affected families in affordable locations.
The starting point on suitability should be that accommodation is affordable for the household from their usual income and/or benefits (without the LA having to top up their rent). Location should be a secondary consideration. The suitability of accommodation order 2012 should be amended accordingly. Also in paragraph 17.40 of the code of guidance, “the Secretary of State recommends that housing authorities regard accommodation as not being affordable if the applicant would be left with a residual income which would be less than the level of income support or income-based jobseekers allowance that is applicable in respect of the applicant, or would be applicable if he or she was entitled to claim such benefit.” This needs updating to take account of recent court judgments, Universal Credit & the overall benefit cap.
10.6 LAs need changes to legislation to deal with the backlog of accepted cases. LAs should be able to review the full duty cases every 2 to 5 years to see if priority need still exists.
10.7 Private Rented Sector Offers (PRSOs) should be extended to pre-November 2012 cases if there is no likelihood that an offer of social housing will be made within 2 years. It is not reasonable to expect homeless households to live in temporary accommodation for many years. By ending the homelessness duty in this way enables the family to plan and move on with their lives.
10.8 LAs should be able to offer PRSOs to end the homelessness duty with any suitable housing likely to be available for 6 months (as is the case in Wales) not just ASTs.
10.9 Where a family in shared B&B approaching six weeks can only be offered self-contained accommodation away from the district, the family should be able to choose to remain in the shared accommodation without it breaching the B&B accommodation order, if the local authority is able to continue to offer it. This may be for example, when children are approaching exam period in a local school.
We would be happy to provide further information on any of this if required.