Brian Capaloff
Recent activity
Comments (22)
-
Comment on: CIH president attacks IDS over homeless slur
No Gavin, what you posted were statistics which were from the days of the Labour Government and which do not reflect the present housing and welfare benefits framework. Some of us are able to post so that what we say 'bears any relationship to fact'. We work in 'the business' and can see both the inevitability of homelessness going up, stays in temporary accommodation being longer, both due to impacts of benefit changes in social housing, but also because of those same benefit changes inevitably removing the private sector as a solution for many. We can see the knock on effect of these lengthier stays in temp (which are happening now) and the consequent upwards spiral in costs to local authorities, alongside the damaging personal and social consequences.
Whilst there are many reasons why we could justifiably criticise the previous government, homelessness was going down - fact. It is now rising - fact! -
Comment on: CIH president attacks IDS over homeless slur
What's so wrong in pointing out that the Secretary of State, whose Department is implementing changes which will have a major impact upon homelessness, doesn't know the very basics of the law, or else is spreading untruths about the law?
And the figures referred to by Mr Rider relate to pre-ConDem days. Wait for it! -
Comment on: Scots councils fear homeless backlash
Wouldn't it be good if Inside Housing were to get the change correct! Not 'anyone who is homeless regardless of their status'. For the time-being, whilst there is legislation which would impact upon the way in which intentionality was treated this is not being implemented, nor is there a definite date for its implementation.
With regard to the question of 'reasonable period' for rehousing, there is no change here. The obligations to those people accepted as homeless, or threatened with homelessness and unintentionally so, will remain, for the time-being, as they currently are in terms of reasonable preference. In this sense, 'reasonable period' is, and will remain, a relative term, bearing in mind local contexts. -
Comment on: Council u-turn over eviction of riot teen
As has been stated already, soundbite politics based upon a complete ignorance of the Council's obligations a) as a landlord and b) within the homelessness legislation. Still, won't let the law get in the way of a bit of dog whistle publicity in the Mail/Sun!
-
Comment on: DWP anger at defeat of bedroom tax
What a completely ridiculous statement from the 'DWP source'. As has already been stated, this demonstrates the complete ignorance as to the mix of properties actually available to those people in housing need, and the mismatch between single people needing housing and 1-bedroomed properties available. Furthermore, however, this statement completely disregards the perfectly reasonable motivation, which had previously been encouraged, towards providing sustainable housing.
Providing a 2-bedroomed property to a young couple (a) because they're in desperate housing need, (b) because there were no 1-bedroomed properties available, and (c) because at some point within the next couple of years they may require a further bedroom anyway and could wait many years on the transfer list for a property (being in lesser need perhaps, because they have secure, self-contained, albeit overcrowded accommodation), provides a much more effective and longer lasting solution to their housing need.
As with many aspects of these welfare benefit changes, the ideas of sustainability and sustainable communities are beyond the comprehension of this government, as are the prospects of future instability that this community of nomads they will be creating will inevitably lead to.
Discussions (0)
Brian Capaloff has not added any discussions yet.
Posts (5)
-
Posted in: lOCAL cONNECTION
Hiya - Firstly, local authorities are not obliged to look at local connection, but, given constraints upon resources most do.
There are a range of ways in which someone may establish a local connection: Residence (e.g. 6 out of 12 months or 3 years out of 5 years residence - although not all forms of residence qualify - hospitalisation, etc); family connection (normally understood to be a direct relative - mum, dad, brother, sister, etc); employment (not temp); and special circumstances (this can be basedupon religious practice or medical need). Additionally, a referral should not be made to a local authority where there is a connection if the person being referred would be at risk of violence.
I would suggest you check up in the Code of Guidance for more info which may be of assistance. Local authorities don't need to follow this, as it isn't law, but they have to have a good reason for not doing so. (found here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf
Cheers, Brian
-
Posted in: Tenancy for life
That's a useful contribution, Camden tenant, with the logical conclusion being the creation of estates in which aspiration ultimately leads to the breakdown of communities. A society to be looked forward to, where those who move up the career ladder are ultimately forced out of their home. And as we reach the occasional economic slump and those people who have been encouraged to/pushed out of their secure home lose their jobs they get welcomed back onto an endless waiting list, because groups such as the CIH played the government's own game rather than got their priorities right by campaigning for new housing, which everyone with the vaguest interest in housing need can see is the absolute priority.
-
Posted in: Tenancy for life
I thought we were talking here about the suggestion that public landlords should have the right to reassess the tenancy agreements of their tenants every few years in order to grab some of the wage that they have earned, in the form of higher rent and thereby (my argument, as with the argument of many others against this unbelievable suggestion), encourage the growth of ghetto estates. Discussing the private sector and the property motive, whilst worthy of discussion elsewhere, is a smoke screen for the mutual backscratching between the Government and the CIH.
Some people on a low income who could not otherwise pay their rents receive a benefit which is paid for through the public purse - I would hope that anyone who is in any way connected to the housing profession would not be against this 'subsidy' Those who would be affected by the Government/CIH proposals do not receive a subsidy when they pay their rent (as is my understanding). The proposals would result in them, the tenants on a living wage, subsidising the service - again, I would ask where is the equity in that? -
Posted in: Tenancy for life
I must admit to having hated the Housing Finance and Development part of my Housing qualification, so I may have this wrong here, but isn't the Housing Revenue Account, and therefore the costs of managing the whole of the housing service related to the tenancies themselves, paid for through the rents received (i.e. the HRA does what it says on the tin, being from housing revenue!). On this basis, aren't the tenants themselves paying for the costs of the service they receive through their rents and those who are on a lower income receiving a benefit to subsidise their rent? If this is so (and I stand to be corrected), higher rents would result in those people having to pay it subsidising the service themselves. They would still receive the same accommodation, with the same service, but would see their rent benefitting the service elsewhere. Where is the equity in that?
-
Posted in: Tenancy for life
And, Harry Lime, writing here 'as a housing professional myself', do you think that encouraging (or forcing) people to move out of their secure council tenancy, thus ensuring that these sink estates consist solely of those tenants on low incomes/benefits, will further the cause of eradicating such sink estates? I suspect the answer is that we might see an increase rather than a decrease of such estates.