Written evidence submitted by Citizens Advice [HOL 115]

 

 

What we do

●       Citizens Advice helps people to resolve their problems. As the UK's largest advice provider we are equipped to deal with any issue, from anyone, spanning debt and employment to consumer and housing plus everything in between.

●       In the last year alone, we helped 2.5 million people with 6.2 million problems from 2,600 locations in England and Wales. But we're not just here in times of crisis - we also use clients stories anonymously to campaign for policy changes that benefit the population as a whole.

 

How we’re structured

●       We deliver advice services from over 3,300 community locations in England and Wales, run by 338 individual charities. Citizens Advice is the national body for bureaux and is a registered charity in its own right. Together we make up the Citizens Advice service. Of the 28,500 people who work for the service, over 22,000 of them are volunteers and nearly 6,500 are paid staff.

●       Through the training, information systems and operational support it provides, Citizens Advice equips bureaux to deliver the highest quality advice to their local residents. In turn, client evidence submitted by bureaux alerts Citizens Advice to widespread problems that require action at a national level.

 

How the public knows us

●       The Citizens Advice service offers information and advice through face-to-face, phone and email services, and online via Adviceguide.org.uk. As well as from their high street premises, Citizens Advice Bureaux make face-to-face advice available from other locations including community centres, doctors' surgeries, courts and prisons to make sure that people can access advice where they need it most.

 

 

 

 

 

Homelessness figures

  1. Over the last four recorded quarters, Citizens Advice has helped over 260,000 clients with over 430,000 housing problems. More than 20 per cent of those inquiries were in respect of actual homelessness, threatened homelessness and a local authority homelessness service.

 

  1. It is noted that does not reflect the full scale of the problem, as we find that many people approach reporting other matters as their primary concern, which may mean that homelessness is not necessarily recorded. For example, we often see inquiries relating to the private rented sector where the issue of homelessness or threat of homelessness is often apparent or a background issue in the light of the security of tenure.

 

  1. Citizens Advice currently record that the issues leading to actual and threatened homelessness are as follows:
    1. Relatives and/or friends unable or unwilling to house;
    2. Relationship breakdown (excluding domestic violence);
    3. Domestic violence;
    4. Harassment/illegal eviction;
    5. Mortgage/secured loan possession;
    6. Local authority possession action;
    7. Housing association possession action;
    8. Private landlord possession action;
    9. Landlord’s mortgage arrears;
    10. Delays in housing benefit claims;
    11. Local authority will not rehouse permanently;
    12. Antisocial behaviour;
    13. Benefits cuts;
    14. Other.

 

  1. Of these categories in the last four recorded quarters, we have seen an increase in the number of actual and threatened homelessness that appears to have been caused by (i) relatives and/or friends being unable or unwilling to house; (ii) private landlord possession action; (iii) local authority possession action; (iv) harassment/illegal eviction; and (v) benefit cuts.

 

  1. Of the inquiries we have seen, nearly a third of actual homelessness appears to have been caused by relatives and/or friends being unable to or unwilling to house. Ten per cent of inquiries showing actual homelessness, have been caused by relationship breakdown (excluding domestic violence).

 

  1. Local authority, housing association and private landlord possession action is the largest cause of inquiries to us where clients are threatened with homelessness.

 

 

 

 

 

The relationship between homelessness and the availability of social housing

  1. In the last four recorded quarters, we have seen over 24,000 clients with over 32,000 problems relating specifically to problems of access and provision of accommodation.

 

  1. Of these inquiries, nearly 40 per cent related to access and provision of local authority accommodation, which has increased on figures from last year.

 

  1. We are concerned that local authorities do not fully understand how to deal with people owed s.193(2) duty when framing their allocation policies for the purposes of Part 6, Housing Act 1996. In particular, over the last two years, we have seen examples of this misunderstanding in the decisions of R(HA) v Ealing London Borough Council [2015] EWHC 2375, R(Jakimaviciute) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1438, R(Alemi) v Westminster City Council [2015] EWHC 1765 (Admin) and also the various decision that were sent to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

  1. The High Court in R(HA) v Ealing, held that Ealing’s policy was unlawful because the policy:
      1. was contrary to the statutory scheme (s.166A, Housing Act 1996) because it precluded people entitled to a reasonable preference;
      2. discriminated against women who were victims of domestic violence contrary to article 14;
      3. did not make arrangements to ensure their functions under s.11(2) of the Children Act 2004 were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children;
      4. allowed for discretion in certain exceptional circumstances, which had not been considered.

 

  1. In R(Jakimavicuite) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, after the applicant was placed in long-term accommodation pursuant to a s.193 homelessness duty, Hammersmith and Fulham removed the applicant from the allocation register to reflect a provision in the policy excluding a great majority of people who were homeless. The Court of Appeal held that the authority had gone further than the Housing Act 1996 had permitted by disqualifying a large number of people who should have a reasonable preference, so as to make the scheme unlawful. Hammersmith and Fulham were not the only local authority to adopt this exclusion, having modelled their allocation policy on the London Borough of Barnet’s policy. We are aware that many local authorities across England have introduced similar requirements into their policies.

 

  1. In R(Alemi) v Westminster City Council, Westminster owed a full duty pursuant to s.193(2), Housing Act 1996 to provide Ms Alemi with suitable temporary accommodation. They also accepted her onto the housing register, but stated that she would only be registered for a tenancy with a private landlord for the first 12 months and not choice based lettings in line with other homeless housing applicants. The High Court held that the Westminster’s scheme was unlawful, as it deprived a whole sub-group from the potential of being allocated social housing for 12 months, which was contrary to their preference under s.166A(3), Housing Act 1996.

 

  1. In addition, we note that the Local Government Ombudsman has reported that during the year 2014/15, it received 978 complaints and enquiries about housing allocations.[1] This is a 13% increase on the previous year. Where it carried out a detailed investigation, it found fault in 42% of cases.

 

  1. These decisions demonstrate the problems caused by local authorities’ misunderstandings of how to deal with those that they have a duty to assist pursuant to s.193, Housing Act 1996 through their allocation schemes. In our view, this problem is widespread, as many local authorities adopted similar provisions and as exemplified by the LGO’s figures. 

 

Measures taken by local authorities to deal with the homeless

  1. Concerningly, we regularly see issues of local authorities that have failed to take homeless applications from those that approach them when they may have a duty to do more. We have been provided with examples by advisers in the Local Citizens Advice offices of cases they say exemplify what they frequently see in their areas.

             

              Example 1

  1. The client was a 32 single male who presented with alcoholism and depression. He was in the Army for three years. When he approached, he had recently split from his partner so had become homeless and was staying in emergency accommodation. He had no family in the area, but was being financially supported by an alcoholism charity. When he approached the local authority to register as homeless, the local authority refused to take a homeless application and it did not allow him to be on the housing register as it was said he did not have a local connection. No reasons were given for not taking a homeless application. Eventually, however, he was offered accommodation by an external agency.

 

              Example 2

  1. The client sought advice two days before Christmas. His relationship had broken down and he had been forced to leave his ex-girlfriend’s property as she was the sole tenant and he had no right to remain in the property. He had no children or health problems. He had initially been sofa surfing, but his friend had told him that he could no longer stay. He had no money and, although he had put in a claim for JSA, he was still waiting for payments to start. He had been to the local authority, who told him that he was not in priority need, they had nowhere for him to go, no temporary accommodation available so they could not help him any further. The Local Citizens Advice assisted him with contacting seven different organisations, including the Salvation Army, for accommodation, but these avenues were not successful. Problems included not being able to travel to other areas to access a night shelter. The client found a room in a local guest house, but could not afford to pay the rent in advance for the property. The Local Support and Prevention Fund was unable to assist because the referral had to come through the housing options team and, in any event, they could not pay the money in time. The client was advised that the only options available to him were to find friends who might be able to accommodate him or to obtain a short-term loan while he waited for JSA, possibly through the jobcentre. He was given a food bank voucher.

 

              Example 3

  1. The client suffered from mental health problems. She had become homeless and contacted a London local authority housing team when she was in a park late at night. The client waited for the whole night, but no one came to help her. She spent five nights on the street. When she called the local authority’s housing team again, she was informed to wait in the park until someone was available to help her.

 

              Example 4

  1. The client was street homeless, having slept rough for two weeks. She approached the local authority, was referred to the waiting list, but was not assessed as homeless and instead was encouraged to find accommodation in the private sector. When the client approached the Local Citizens Advice, she was advised she should go back to the Council to make a homeless application, as the Council had failed to comply with its duties.

 

              Example 5

  1. The client (a woman in her mid-forties) was sleeping rough in London. The underlying cause to her homelessness appeared to be health-related, but the client refused to provide any more detail on the issue. The Council offered some financial assistance in meeting a portion of costs for a female only hostel, but it was not sufficient to cover each night.

 

              Example 6

  1. The client was a British citizen, who moved to Sweden with her husband. The client had a baby just over a year ago, but at that time her husband ended her relationship with her. The client left and returned to the UK. For a short while, the client lived with her friend, but was asked to leave. The client applied to the Council as homeless. The Council refused to house her saying she needed to sign on first and initially refused to house her in temporary accommodation until she had work. When she was finally assessed, the Council stated that it did not have a duty to accommodate her because she had made her intentionally homeless and asked her to leave her temporary accommodation. The Council’s approach has been protracted and frightening for the client, particularly as the process for her and her one year old child was not properly explained.

 

 

 

              Example 7

  1. The client has a long history of mental health problems, including anxiety and paranoid personality traits. The local authority obtained a High Court writ to evict the client because the landlord was renting undersized rooms in an HMO and also without a licence. The client tried to make a homeless application, but was told he would never get housed without any assessment or application being taken. Due to the stress of the process, the client’s mental health has deteriorated.

 

  1. As a further example, we note the decision of the Local Government Ombudsman - R(Anon) v London Borough of Southwark (Claim No. CO/2035/2014) where Southwark’s practices included making new homeless clients wait for a period of time for an appointment with a homeless caseworker, treating them as ‘housing options’ customers in the meantime. The homeless application, if made, ran from the date of the appointment with the homeless caseworker, but the meantime the customer was told that they would be expected to find their own private rented housing. In addition, Southwark’s website for housing options and a leaflet it produced failed to even refer to a homeless application being an option. It was found that an internal form circulated to Southwark staff stated that:

“Housing option scheme. The Finders Fee Scheme is now available to both single person household and families. If the applicant is not homeless tonight and is unlikely to be homeless within the next 5 days and is eligible for assistance you should advise them of the details of the Finders Fee Scheme at this stage. You should give the applicant a leaflet and they should be advised to go away and find their own accommodation in the private rented sector. There is no need to complete this form any further. [...] If you have not advised the applicant about the Finders Fee Scheme or feel that there is something about this household’s circumstances that make them unsuitable for this Scheme, please give your reasons why.”

 

  1. These examples show how local authorities are repeatedly dealing with homeless applicants, i.e. by not taking a homeless application in cases where someone clearly presents as homeless or not even giving the option to make a homeless application. Over the last four reported quarters, we have seen nearly 10,000 clients approach specifically to deal with approximately 14,500 issues relating to local authority homelessness services. These figures coupled with the other presenting issues relating to homelessness generally provide cause for concern, particularly as it appear that local authorities are not always dealing with applicants in a consistent or legal way.

 

 

The re-establishment of the cross government Ministerial Working Group on Preventing and Tackling Homelessness

  1. We support the establishment of a specific body tasked with ensuring that homelessness is monitored properly and relevant, efficient steps are taken to tackle homelessness. Any body that deals with such a task must ensure it relies on accurate figures that fully reflect the problem of homelessness and is open to working with relevant organisations in the sector.

 

  1. We have responded to some of the issues that CLG is looking into as part of its inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance on these or any other issues, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

 

 

February 2016

[1] http://www.lgo.org.uk/downloads/special%20reports/2276-FR-Housing-allocations-FINAL.pdf