Written evidence submitted by Southwark Council [HRB 48]
Introduction
Please find below Southwark Council’s written submission to the important select committee inquiry into the Homelessness Reduction Bill.
1. The Homelessness Reduction Bill aims to reduce homelessness by increasing local authority early intervention and prevention activity but does not address the causes and context of increasing homelessness in England.
2. The Loss of Private Rented Sector (PRS) accommodation continues to be the biggest reason for homelessness in the majority of local authority areas as rents continue to rise, however local authorities are increasingly reliant on the Private Rented Sector to prevent homelessness and accommodate homeless households. The Welfare Reforms such as the introduction of shared accommodation rates for under 35 year olds, the freezes to local housing allowance (LHA), the benefit cap and the introduction of direct housing payments to tenants under Universal Credit, are undermining local authorities efforts to prevent and relieve homelessness. Within the last 12 months Southwark Council has witnessed an 11% reduction in tenants renting in the Private Rented Sector claiming housing benefit due to these Welfare Reforms.
3. While Southwark welcomes a greater emphasis and acknowledgement of homeless prevention interventions, the Homelessness Reduction Bill does not address the issue of supply of affordable accommodation needed to prevent and relieve homelessness. 2,235 of the homelessness applications, in Southwark in 2015/16 were made due to loss of assured short hold tenancies, with anecdotal reports of rising Private Rented Sector rents and welfare reforms discouraging landlords from renting to benefit claimants. In 2015/16 1,506 of all homeless prevention and relief interventions in Southwark involved supporting households to maintain or access Private Rented Sector accommodation. However as rents continue to rise above the Local Housing Allowance it is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent or relieve homelessness through the Private Rented Sector. A snapshot of properties available on property rental site Rightmove in August 2016 shows that in the (Inner South East London/Outer South East London) Broad Market Rental Area (BRMA), less than 1% of properties are available to rent at Local Housing Allowance levels or below. Without access to affordable accommodation it is unlikely that changes made to homelessness legislation will reduce the number of households making homelessness applications, in fact it may increase rough sleeping and homelessness.
4. Local authorities are struggling to meet homelessness and housing demands with current housing supply and homelessness legislation. The Homelessness Reduction Bill does not address the number of households owed the main homelessness duty already accommodated in temporary accommodation by London boroughs. At the end of July 2016, 1,467 homeless households were accommodated in temporary accommodation in Southwark, 43% of which were accommodated in the Private Rented Sector. The number of households and length of time they are accommodated in temporary accommodation is likely to rise further with the introduction of The Homelessness Reduction Bill. Increased numbers of people approaching local authorities for help and specific changes such as Section 21 notice expiry being treated as proof of homelessness and duties to people with nowhere safe to stay, are set to increase both the cost of and numbers in temporary accommodation.
5. Currently only the number of homelessness applications and prevention and relief interventions are recorded under the Central Governments P1E statistics, the number of people approaching local authority housing options services is not currently recorded by Central Government. In 2015/16 over 22,000 people approached Southwark’s Housing Solutions service. 2,235 homelessness applications were taken and over 1,500 homelessness prevention and relief interventions took place. The Homelessness Reduction Bill would mean that demand for housing and homelessness support would increase. Under a prevention duty the Council would be set to work with and record information for an additional 17,000 to 18,000 people a year, increasing the numbers reported as homeless by 805%.
6. A significant number of people who experience homelessness do not approach their local authority for housing advice and assistance, often deterred from approaching believing they will not meet criteria for support or be in priority need. Crisis estimate that there are over 300,000 “hidden homeless” people in Britain (typically people sofa surfing or staying with family or friends). Prevention and relief duties introduced by The Homelessness Reduction Bill will mean that a higher proportion of “hidden homeless” households would approach the local authority for housing support, increasing the number of people recorded as homeless.
7. The Homelessness Reduction Bill introduces a “Duty to persons with nowhere to stay” to reduce the number of people sleeping rough. 372 people were recorded as rough sleeping in Southwark in 2015/16 however 231 or 62% of these rough sleepers were non UK Nationals.
8. 134 or 36% of people rough sleeping in Southwark were under the age of 35 and therefore only entitled to the Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR) of Local Housing Allowance. There is not currently the supply of affordable shared accommodation necessary to meet the housing needs of people under the age of 35. Unless the issue of affordable housing supply is addressed, the number of homelessness is unlikely to reduce.
9. In order to prevent homelessness for people not judged to be in priority need, the council would need to be able to offer a financial product to support access to the Private Rented Sector such as rent deposit or bond schemes. Current schemes and funding would not be sufficient to meet the demands of an increased prevention and relief duty. Even with increased funding to support access to the Private Rented Sector, there is likely to be difficulty accessing Private Rented Sector accommodation for under 35’s only entitled to the Shared Accommodation Rate of the Local Housing Allowance. In order to support the accommodation of single homeless people under the age of 35, boroughs would need support to develop and manage affordable shared accommodation units.
10. The No First Night Out (NFNO) interim research report indicates that those most likely to sleep rough require support to develop their capacity and confidence in accessing accommodation. Accommodation would need to be provided alongside training to tenants on managing PRS accommodation so that accommodation remains sustainable.
The benefits of prevention activity as a statutory duty.
11. Southwark recognises the importance and benefits of homelessness prevention, A prevention duty would support Southwark in recording and reporting on existing homeless prevention activity and would assist the borough in understanding true levels of housing need.
12. Southwark welcomes changes to the homelessness legislation which require households to be active participants in finding solutions to their homelessness. The duty to cooperate will ensure that households will work with councils to find practical, timely solutions to their housing situation avoiding long stays in expensive and inappropriate temporary accommodation. However the Homelessness Reduction Bill indicates that a full housing duty will be owed to households in priority need despite non-cooperation. This is likely to undermine the prevention work undertaken by local authorities and discourage cooperation from households likely to be in priority need.
The resource implications for local authorities and options for addressing this (use Homelessness Reduction Bill Cost Impact info to complete)
13. Southwark Council has estimated that the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Bill will cost the borough in excess of £7 million pounds in additional staff resource and related costs. This does not include the additional cost of the financial products needed such as rent deposits and rent in advance, to facilitate increased homeless prevention activity. In Appendix 1 the Housing Solutions service have estimated the additional work that would be conducted with all households approaching the borough for housing support in addition to those who have had their homelessness prevented or relieved and those already owed a main homelessness duty. Assumptions have been made regarding the proportion of cases where a 56 day relief duty would be owed, however limited data is collated on the needs of all households approaching the council.
14. Since the implementation of changes to homelessness legislation in Wales there has been a 67% decrease in the number of homeless acceptances. Due to the cost of accommodation in London it is unlikely that acceptances will fall to the same degree.
15. The Welsh Government provided £5.2 million in additional funding to the 22 local authorities to implement changes in legislation. Similar levels of funding would not be enough to cover the cost implications of implementing the Homelessness Reduction Bill in London.
The potential for increased preventative practice and innovation amongst other public agencies
16. Local authority housing services will need the support of other public agencies to effectively meet the duty to provide advice designed to meet the needs of groups at particular risk of homelessness. The expert advice and support of other services is needed to ensure the particular needs of at risk groups are understood and incorporated in personal housing plans.
17. Local authority housing services would welcome the opportunity to work with other public agencies to identify early intervention opportunities and those clients most at risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. Other public agencies are vital in identifying those at risk of homelessness and learning and assessments from the GLA funded No First Night Out projects will inform future practice.
Issues of concern
18. The Homelessness Reduction Bill as drafted will not achieve its primary aim of reducing levels of homelessness.
19. The Communities and Local Government Committee has asked for comments on 6 objectives that the Bill seeks to achieve. In summary if the Bill remains as currently drafted it will fail to meet its desired objectives:
20. The Bill’s anticipated impact on overall levels of homelessness – as currently drafted overall levels of homelessness will be likely to increase not decrease.
21. The 56 day accommodation duty for homeless people not in priority need is unaffordable and cannot be practically delivered given the current supply of single person accommodation available to Southwark and all other local authorities in London.
22. The benefits of homelessness prevention activity as a statutory duty – This aspect of the Bill mirrors the Welsh Model and should be fully supported.
23. The resource implications for local authorities and options for addressing the 56 day duty would be very significant for local authorities and will divert resources required to perform the new prevention duties. The 56 day duty does not provide a sustainable strategy for ending rough sleeping and may have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of people sleeping on the streets.
24. The potential for increased preventative practice and innovation amongst other public agencies – The general duty to cooperate with other public bodies is to be welcomed but the 56 day duty may have the unintended consequence of undermining our existing and excellent joint working.
25. The Homelessness Reduction Bill however can and should be fully supported if a number of key amendments are made. The Communities and Local Government Committee is asked to recommend that the changes set out in this briefing paper should be made. This will, Southwark Council believe, allow the Homelessness Reduction Bill to progress to its second reading with the full support of local authorities and all other sectors.
26. The Homelessness Reduction Bill and the Communities and Local Committee report into homelessness make a compelling case for reform to the Homeless Legislation in England.
27. The homelessness legislation in England is desperately in need of reform to produce a modern, radical safety net that is able to help more people. However, as currently drafted, the Homelessness Reduction Bill fails to recognise the practical and financial implications it will place on local authorities. The primary objective of the Homelessness Reduction Bill should be to deliver a legal framework that provides everyone at risk of becoming homeless with a realistic offer of help set against the resources available. The Bill as currently drafted will not work.
Part 1: Why the Bill as currently drafted will not work
28. The primary concern is the wording for the clause to provide a 56 day accommodation duty to homeless applicants with nowhere safe to stay.
29. The moral case for an accommodation duty for single homeless people is not in question. In England today most people would agree that every person who is homeless or facing homelessness should be able to access accommodation. The Bill aims to tackle this problem by providing a 56 day accommodation duty for any eligible homeless person and it is this key aspect of the Bill that cannot be delivered in its current form. A similar proposal was rejected in Wales because it would have unaffordable resource implications for the Welsh Government and local authorities and could not be delivered due to the lack of suitable affordable accommodation that would be needed to meet the duty.
30. The 56 day duty is a major policy change and a change of this this importance should not be entered into without:
1) Clarity on the likely numbers who will be owed the new duty
2) Certainty regarding the cost to Central and Local Government and a binding commitment that actual costs will be fully met by Central Government
3) Certainty that there is sufficient supply of single person accommodation available for applicants who need to rely on benefits to pay all or some of their rent, to enable local authorities to meet the new duty.
4) Ensuring there are no unintended consequences of the 56 day accommodation duty
31. Each of these 4 points is examined below with the evidence set out for why the 56 day for single people should not be pursued. Section 2 sets out a revised definition for the clause ‘nowhere safe to stay’ that should be adopted in the Homelessness Reduction Bill.
32. Point 1: The 56 day accommodation duty cannot be enacted without clarity on the likely numbers who will be owed the new duty.
33. There is a substantial body of research that estimates that there could be as many as 300,000 plus ‘hidden homeless’ at any one time. The term ‘sofa surfer’ is used to describe insecure accommodation arrangements with family and friends. The welfare reform impacts on single people are still emerging with further impacts likely as Universal Credit is fully rolled out and a new benefit model is implemented for many young people.
34. Given the extent of single person hidden homeless the 56 day accommodation duty is likely to result in an unprecedented increase in homeless presentations to local authorities. The official first year statistics for the new Welsh legislation record a 26% increase in demand, based on the new prevention and relief duty. A 56 day accommodation duty will inevitably produce a far higher increase in demand.
35. The definition of ‘Nowhere Safe to Stay’ in section 192A of the Bill will mean that the majority of the increased demand cases will eventually be owed an accommodation duty. It must be logical to presume that the majority of the ‘hidden homeless’ who are living in short term insecure arrangements with relatives or friends will at some point present as homeless. The evidence for this assertion is further strengthened when the definition of ‘nowhere safe to stay’ set out in the Bill is considered.
36. The Bill sets out that a local authority would be placed under a 56 day accommodation duty if “an applicant has ‘nowhere safe to stay’ where there is no accommodation available to him”. Nearly all of the hidden homeless will hold no more than a ‘bare licence’. This means that a 56 day accommodation duty would be owed as soon as the person they are staying with verbally confirms that they cannot stay for one more night, or if on the day the applicant presents, a local authority is unable to contact that person the duty will be triggered on the applicant’s confirmation that they have nowhere safe to stay that night. In addition any period of reasonable notice is likely to be minimal for someone sofa surfing.
37. Point 2: The 56 day accommodation duty cannot be enacted without certainty regarding the cost to local authorities and a binding commitment that all additional costs will be fully met by Central Government
38. The Department for Local Government and Communities has publicly accepted that a new prevention duty would be a new burden on local authorities that would require funding. The commitment would appear to have been given based on the assumption that a similar prevention duty to Wales would be the likely model adopted in England. The commitment was not based on a 56 day accommodation duty. The Communities and Local Government Committee will no doubt receive from local authorities and others numerous figures estimating the cost impact of the 56 day duty. The anticipated annual cost to Southwark Council is £7 million. Please find attached to this report the evidence for these costs.
39. It would be irresponsible for the Private Member and the Communities and Local Government Committee to agree that a new 56 day accommodation duty should be enacted without a binding commitment from DCLG to fund 100% of the actual costs for that duty. This would need to be an ‘open ended’ commitment from the Government to meet any additional costs over and above any final figure agreed before enactment on the likely cost of the new burden. The Communities and Local Government committee should recommend that without a binding commitment to cover all actual costs, the 56 day duty if passed, should not be enacted until funding to cover the full costs have been committed.
40. Point 3: The 56 day accommodation duty cannot be enacted without the certainty that there is sufficient supply of single person accommodation to enable local authorities to meet the duty.
41. The increase in single people needing to be accommodated will outstrip the resources available to manage these numbers with the majority of local authorities unable to source sufficient accommodation. The only realistic, and affordable, supply options for single people are 1) HMO accommodation (HMO accommodation across England is reported to be full with little excess supply) and 2) Lodging with a resident landlord (there are a very low number of schemes currently in place).
42. The development of new hostels and HMOs by local authorities, or the private sector will be unlikely to keep pace and meet the increase in demand. New licensing and planning permission for the change of use of some existing stock, such as sheltered housing units, is likely to be controversial and will inevitably result in some permissions being turned down despite the new duty placed on local authorities and evidence of the new demand.
43. Furthermore, single people currently occupying HMO accommodation will be displaced by landlords who become aware that a local authority requires their accommodation to meet the new duty. The authority will have no choice but to pay a higher rent than a single person, many of whom rely on the shared accommodation benefit rate to help pay their rent. This landlord practice is already widespread for the self contained rented market in London and the South East. Many landlords, who previously let directly to a family, or to the local authority under a leasing arrangement, are now only prepared to offer that accommodation through a far higher nightly rate paid directly by the local authority.
44. The overwhelming majority of local authorities will also not be able to rely on vacant single person social housing to meet the 56 day duty or to move single people onto long term settled housing. There is a shortage of 1 bedroom non-older person social housing in virtually every local authority in England. The very limited single person supply that does become available is already insufficient to address the accommodation needs of under occupying tenants severely impacted by the ‘bedroom tax’, single people owed a full homeless accommodation duty, and housing applicants with an urgent medical or welfare need to move into social housing. The 56 day duty will only increase the number of people chasing the limited pool of social housing available.
45. The Bill does not address the lack of affordable social rented housing for single people. Neither does it propose changes to the shared accommodation rate to allow single people better access to the private rented sector, nor does it propose new initiatives to boost the supply and availability of private rented accommodation for single homeless people. The response would appear to be to pass the responsibility over to local authorities and hope for the best. To enact a 56 day accommodation duty in the full knowledge that there is not currently a sufficient supply of single person accommodation available to meet that duty is not a responsible approach to policy making.
46. Point 4: The 56 day accommodation duty should not be enacted because of the unintended consequences of that duty.
47. There are a number of likely unintended consequences of the new 56 day accommodation duty. The evidence points to these being a likely consequence of the new duty and not just a possibility.
Unintended consequence 1: Undermining of the prevention focus
48. There will be an undermining of key messages and practice on prevention and family responsibility. As single people and their parents begin to learn about the duty to provide 56 days accommodation it may well make less attractive the seemingly harder option of staying within the family network and accessing mediation, or seek help from the Housing Solutions Service to resolve conflicts at home. This will reverse the effective prevention practice that has taken place over many years with young people and their families. To “exclude” knowing the local authority have an accommodation duty will inevitably become the chosen option for many. What we have learnt from prevention work is that once a person is out of the family home/network it is much harder to get them back again. After 56 days accommodation, many will not be able to return to accommodation with family and friends, with rough sleeping the likely consequence. This will perversely create the complete opposite of the policy intention.
Unintended consequences 2: Undermining the other critical elements of the Homeless Reduction Bill
49. The 56 day duty may well dilute or detract from the prevention and relief duties proposed in the new legislation. Due to the level of new demand for the 56 day duty and the cost of accommodation the focus of Housing Options work will inevitably be on the 56 day duty work diluting the focus on real prevention and relief work. Resources will have to be focused on the sourcing of temporary accommodation and the housing management of the large numbers of people owed the 56 day duty. The 65% overall prevention rate in Wales has resulted from focusing resources fully on prevention casework. The 56 day duty risks undermining the primary objective of the Bill which is to prevent homelessness.
Unintended consequence 3: Undermining a new shared commitment to make prevention work.
50. The biggest reason for the success of the Welsh model is reported to be the goodwill and effective partnership working between local authorities and other statutory and non-statutory organisations. There is a shared commitment towards making the new duties work. This shared commitment is as important as the legal framework itself. In England local authorities are likely to feel that the new 56 day duty for singles has been imposed without any consideration of the financial implications and the practical ability to deliver the new duties. Without a total and shared commitment to make the new legislation work it is unlikely to succeed.
Unintended consequence 4: It is likely to reduce not enhance partnership working.
51. It is already too often the case that other parts of local authorities and other statutory agencies outside of the local authority see the responsibility for finding accommodation as the sole responsibility of Housing Authorities. There is important learning from Wales (for the legislation prior to the new prevention model) where an accommodation duty was placed local authorities for all single people who were homeless on release from prison or custody. This undermined partnership working focused on pre release prevention work. For the majority of prisoners the advice in the period leading up to release was that they should attend the local authority housing options unit on release. This undermined pre release work in prison to help the person secure more appropriate accommodation with family or friends. The unintended consequence led to the Welsh Government removing this accommodation duty when the new legislation was enacted in April 2015.
52. The risk in England is similar. Other public and voluntary sector agencies will regard the problem as a housing issue because the duty would be on the housing authority. There will of course be likely to be examples of excellent partnership working, but this is unlikely to be the norm where an absolute accommodation duty lies with the local housing authority
Unintended consequence 5: It is likely to have a negative impact on Supported Housing (SP)
53. The inevitability that supported housing would have to be used to meet the 56 day duty
54. Local authorities will, due to the financial cost of the new duty, be forced to use any available accommodation on the day to meet the duty. Inevitably, in many local authorities, supported housing will end up being used to meet an accommodation need rather that to meet the needs of other vulnerable single people who require it.
Unintended Consequence 6: Risks to individuals owed the accommodation duty re safeguarding
55. The ‘Nowhere Safe to Stay’ duty may ironically put some people at risk. Women, men, ex-offenders, those with mental health problems, or have substances misuse problems would all be owed a duty and require somewhere safe to stay. Inevitably, authorities will be forced to place people together in any accommodation they have been able to source, rather than accommodation that is appropriate for specific needs. It is not a solution to safety and safeguarding to house different vulnerable groups together on a short stay basis unless there is a huge injection of cash to fund a whole new Supporting People accommodation program. In the absence of such schemes, risk management and safeguarding must be major considerations when assessing the impact of the accommodation duty proposal.
56. There are also practical issues of large accommodation units or HMOs housing single people on a short stay basis. There could be actual or perceived issues of anti social behaviour and criminal activity which is likely to mean the public have a poor public perception of the new duty.
Part 2: The amendments to the Bill
57. The Communities and Local Government Committee is asked to recommend that the following amendments be made to the Homelessness Reduction Bill
58. There will be some people and organisations that will inevitably oppose the Homelessness Reduction Bill in entirety. Others will call for England to adopt the Welsh legislation in full as it is proven to work. Despite the success of the legislation in Wales, Southwark Council would recommend that there is an option to build on the Welsh Model and go a stage further in England but this will require a number of amendments to the Bill.
Recommended amendments to the draft Homelessness Reduction Bill:
59. Recommendation 1: The recommendation is that the ‘Nowhere safe to stay’ clause (section 192A) remains but that the definition of ‘nowhere safe to stay’ is changed and defined only as single people verified as sleeping rough.
60. As proposed in the Bill a 56 day accommodation duty would be placed on local authorities including the provision of support and a pathway out of rough sleeping. Of critical importance is that this will allow the Government to commit to ending rough sleeping within a time period of say 2 to 4 years. It would also have the added advantage of effectively tackling street begging as the public many of whom generously give money to people on the streets would be aware that there was an accommodation duty for any person who is genuinely sleeping rough.
61. It would have to work on the basis of an accommodation duty being owed only to verified rough sleepers, otherwise anyone could say they were going to sleep rough when some will have an accommodation option with relatives or friends.
62. The term ‘verified’ would need to be defined. However, this does not need to be an onerous or complicated task with verification of known rough sleepers able to be confirmed by outreach teams where they exist, or The Police or Community Support officers, or other locally agreed arrangements. The issue of local connection would need to be considered but should not apply to the immediate duty to place.
63. The argument made by some that this would encourage people to sleep rough is countered by the fact that the accommodation duty remains of a short term nature and the requirement that the duty will apply to verified rough sleepers.
64. This model will provide a pathway out of homelessness; supports the no second night out model and provides a practical and achievable strategy to end rough sleeping. It supports the development of a Housing First Model in England. In contrast the 56 proposed day duty is a stop gap measure that may actually increase rough sleeping once the duty comes to an end.
65. Recommendation 2: The Bill should contain measures to help increase access to realistic single person accommodation. Section 179 should therefore be amended to require local authorities to set up 1) lodging schemes with resident landlords and 2) shared accommodation schemes
66. The Bill as proposed does not contain any clauses that will help increase the supply of single person accommodation. It does have to be accepted that any increase in affordable social rented accommodation for single people has to be seen in the context of the Government’s overall policy for the sector and is difficult to address in this Bill. However, it is possible through the Bill to introduce two very practical measures to increase the supply of single person accommodation. Section 184 D 3 of the draft Bill sets out the type of help a local authority may wish to provide. The clause is phrased as a local housing authority may provide, arrange or facilitate the following - a list is then given of the services a local authority may wish to provide. This clause should be amended so that two services are listed that a local authority must provide rather than may provide. These are 1) a lodging scheme finding accommodation and promoting lettings with resident landlords and 2) a shared accommodation scheme promoting single person sharing schemes as per the Crisis Good Practice Model. Both these schemes provide the only realistic option to bring about a step change in supply of accommodation available to single homeless people. They would be low cost to introduce and that is why the recommendation is that the two schemes are a requirement on a local authority individually or collectively to implement.
67. Recommendation 3: Amendment to the duty to help to secure accommodation for homeless applicant section 184C.
68. The Bill proposes that any accommodation secured needs to be for a minimum 12 months before the duty to help secure accommodation to people who are homeless can be ended. In Wales a similar duty can be ended with suitable accommodation secured that is likely to be available for 6 months. 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 Bill has not considered the evidence and learning from the introduction of the Government’s Localism Act power allowing local authorities to end the duty in the private rented sector with a 12 month fixed term tenancy offer. The numbers helped are low as authorities across all parts of England report they are unable to obtain a commitment from landlords to let for a minimum of 12 months. The Homeless Reduction Bill risks repeating the same mistake leaving the critical relief of homelessness duty unworkable and unable to provide the help intended to homeless applicants. In Southwark it has not been possible to discharge our homeless duty into the Private Rented Sector since the introduction of the Localism Act, despite our best efforts, and hence the zero use of this option due to the 12 month requirement.
69. As an example it would be extremely challenging bordering on the impossible or improbable to secure accommodation for a single person that an authority could say was likely to be available for a minimum of 12 months. Most single people seeking accommodation in the private rented sector will be accommodated under a license and for the few that are able to obtain an Assured Shorthold Tenancy this will in all probability be a 6 month fixed term tenancy.
70. 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. The Bill proposes a clause will prove to be unworkable and will perversely disadvantage applicants who do not have a priority need.
71. The compromise should be a minimum 6 month accommodation secured solution (as in Wales) to end the duty to help to secure accommodation for a homeless applicant. Given this would be a 6 month and not a 12 month solution there is an option to amend the Bill to require a local authority who has ended the duty through securing 6 months accommodation to check on the applicant’s progress and provide any early prevention help if the person may become homeless at the end of 6 months.
72. Recommendation 4: Amending the clause in the Homelessness Reduction Bill whereby a person is to be treated as homeless upon the expiry of a valid section 21 notice.
73. The Bill proposes “a person in respect of whom a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) has been given is to be treated as homeless from the date on which that notice expires.”
74. This would mean that a person or household would have to be considered to be physically homeless and owed a temporary accommodation duty at the expiry of a valid section 21. The loss of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy is the biggest cause of homelessness and continues to rise due to welfare reform and landlords seeking higher rents from tenants who do not have to rely on housing benefit to pay all or part of their rent.
75. This clause works against the purpose of the Bill to strengthen prevention of homelessness work. The consequence of this proposal would be to undermine critically important prevention work for what has now become the main cause for statutory homeless full duty accepted cases. The clause would also have a significant financial impact on local authorities that are lawfully able to inform applicants of their right to remain beyond the expiry date of a valid section 21.
76. Many homelessness customers currently present at the expiry of the section 21 or later at a possession order stage. The clause would mean there would be no time slot for local authorities to try and resolve any problem, as a person would have to be considered to be physically homeless from the expiry date in a valid section 21.
77. A practice will inevitably emerge, especially where an applicant does not provide them with a long term housing solution, of applicant’s being advised not to present early when a section 21 notice is issued but to present on the day the section 21 notice expires as this will guarantee that if the applicant is owed a priority need duty temporary accommodation will have to be provided on the day they present.
78. There does however, sensibly need to be changes to legislation to ensure that local authorities do not automatically advise every households to remain in their tenancy until eviction by bailiff.
79. The compromise amendment is therefore to enshrine an expanded version of the current statutory advice in the code of guidance into the legislation itself. The amendment would require that an application be triggered when a household presents with a valid section 21. The local authority would be required to then apply a clear legal test if they wish to consider whether a tenant can remain beyond the expiry date in their section 21 notice. The legal tests would mirror the guidance tests set out in the Code and must include a full consideration of the impact on the tenant and landlord of remaining beyond the expiry date in the section 21. It should require the authority to be seeking to make a prevention offer to the landlord. A further change to current practice could be that a household must be considered homeless at expiry of a possession order with a local authority not able to require the household to wait until a bailiff warrant is executed.
Removal of clause section 3 1(b)
80. Clause 3 1 (b) of the draft Bill proposes that “The Secretary of State may not implement a code, or amendment to a code, falling under subsection (1A) before the code or amendment has been approved by a resolution by each House of Parliament as if the code was a draft statutory instrument under the affirmative resolution procedure”
81. The purpose would appear to attempt to create secondary legislation beyond the requirements set out in the primary act. This would be confusing and unworkable and would go against the spirit of social policy legislation where the role of any statutory code of guidance is to explain and reflect the current legal position. Local authorities would be faced with a vastly expanded legal framework and tests. This is unworkable and an attempt to create a more complicated legal framework through the backdoor. There is no policy justification for the clause and the recommendation should be that it is removed.
82. Clarifying the consequences for any applicant who fails to accept a reasonable offer of accommodation provided by the local authority, or a private landlord, or otherwise failed to cooperate with assistance provided to alleviate homelessness.
83. The draft Bill includes a non-cooperation clause and sets out a framework for the steps a local authority must take to end the duty through non-cooperation. These seem sensible clauses.
84. However, there does need to be clarity regarding the consequences for priority need households who refuse a suitable offer or fail to cooperate with the help provided. In Wales applicants who ‘unreasonably fail to cooperate’ with assistance may not progress to the main homelessness duty to be secured accommodation. The effect is that an applicant in priority need cannot refuse the prevention help offered and wait to become homeless and be owed a full accommodation duty. This reflects the policy intention in Wales which is that an applicant should be expected to cooperate with any genuine help provided by the local authority.
85. There is some degree of confusion in the draft Bill that does need to be clarified. This may need additional wording. The confusion is that: It is proposed that a new section 191 C clause be added to the intentional homeless law so that an applicant can be intentionally homeless if “he has failed to accept a reasonable offer of accommodation provided by the local authority, or a private landlord, or otherwise failed to cooperate with assistance provided to alleviate homelessness.”
86. However, section 184 C 6 states that “the cessation of the duty under subsection (5) shall have no effect on any duty or duties of the authority to the applicant under sections 188, 190, 193 or 200”. The section 5 referred to sets out the ways in which a duty to prevent or secure accommodation will come to an end and includes the non-cooperation clause. Therefore on the one hand the Bill appears to reflect a version of the Welsh Model in that an authority would appear to be able to consider any applicant (priority need or not) who refuses a suitable offer of fails to cooperate to be intentionally homeless whereas section 184 C 6 appears to state that the ending of a duty for non cooperation should have no effect on any of duties owed to an applicant under an interim, full, intentional, or local connection referral basis.
87. The Bill as currently drafted is not sufficiently clear and the wording needs to be amended or clarified to fully reflect that as a policy position an applicant is expected to accept or cooperate with the help provided. This can only be achieved if there is a consequence for an applicant who does not cooperate. As a principle that consequence should apply to all applicants whether or not they may be in priority need otherwise the legislation continues to treat one group (those in priority need) more favourably than those who are not.
I hope you will take the above evidence seriously, as Southwark Council supports a radical agenda to amend the homelessness legislation, but unfortunately, what has been proposed would not allow a new dynamic new approach to be adopted, but simply place both council’s and homelessness customers at risk both financially and from a wider well-being agenda.