Lords to rule on overcrowding
Share
The House of Lords is to rule on whether local authorities must rehouse people living in overcrowded conditions.
Peers will decide whether councils should be forced to find alternative accommodation for residents who are judged to be ‘homeless at home’ because they are living in unsuitable and overcrowded properties.
Birmingham City Council is bringing the case after losing an appeal in February this year. The court ruled that the council was breaking the law by leaving six families homeless at home while waiting for suitable alternative accommodation.
The council claims there would be dramatic financial consequences if it was forced to relocate all families who live in overcrowded conditions.
Councillor John Lines, cabinet member for housing, said: ‘I’m pleased that we’re able to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision, which has major implications for local authorities across the country in their efforts to tackle homelessness.’
The council added that historically the term homeless at home has been used in common practice among local authorities and was included in government statistics, despite the Court of Appeal finding its approach unlawful.
The House of Lords will hear the case later this year.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
MARGARET KIELY | 23/11/2008 6:51 pm
I FIND IT TOTALLY DISCUSTING HOW THE COUNCILS CAN GET AWAY WITH THE WAY THEY ARE TREATING FAMILIES WITH SERIOUS OVERCROWDING ISSUES , I LIVE IN A 3 BED COUNCIL HOUSE HOWEVER 2 OF THE BEDROOMS ARE BOX ROOM SIZES AND ONLY FIT IN A SINGLE BED AND A MAKE SHIFT SMALL WARDROBE , IT IS A NIGHTMARE I HAVE 7 CHILDREN , ME AND MY PARTNER , MY YOUNGEST HAS HAD TO HAVE A SMALL TRAVEL COT SQUASHED INTO OUT BEDROOM TO SLEEP IN AS WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIT A COT ANYWHERE ELSE , THE ELDEST IS 17 , THE HOUSE IS EXTREMELY SMALL AS BEFORE I ACTUALLY MOVE IN IT APPARENTLY WAS A 2 BEDROOMED PROPERTY , YET EVEN THOUGH IT IS SO OVERCROWDED THEY REFUSE TO REHOUSE , OR EVEN CONSIDER IT , THERE IS ALOT OF LAND ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY SO IF THERE ARE NO LARGER HOMES THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF ROOM FOR A EXTENSION BUT THEY WONT EVEN CONSIDER THAT ,NOBODY SEEMS INTERESTED , I WAS EVEN ACTUALLY TOLD BY A LADY AT THE HOUSING THAT I WILL NEVER EVEN COME UP FOR A TRANSFER AS THEY HAVE LOCATED ME ON A CATAGORY THAT WILL NEVER EVEN BE LOOKED AT , INSTEAD OF MOVING UP THE TRANSFER LIST WE ARE MOVING DOWN IT , I NEED HELP BUT I CANT GET ANY , NOBODY WANTS TO LISTEN AT THE HOUSING OFFICE , IM AM AT A ALL TIME LOW WITH THE STRESS OF ALL THIS , THEY SAY I HAVE A 3 BEDROOMED HOME , YET THEY HAVE NOT EVEN ATTEMPTED TO COME AND LOOK AT THE SITUATION I AM LIVING IN , I KNOW OF OTHER PEOPLE IN 3 BEDHOME YET THEY ARE 2 X LARGER THAN MY PROPERTY , M KIELY
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HAYLEY EARLINGTON | 14/01/2009 11:47 pm
I ALSO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. I LIVE IN A ONE BEDROOM FLAT (BLOCK OF 4) WITH TWO CHILDREN CRAMPED INTO THE ONE ROOM. UPSTAIRS FROM ME IS A SKITSOPHRENIC AND OPPOSITE IS A PEADOPHILE. EVEN AFTER NUMEROUS EMAILS CALLS LETTERS ECT THE COUNCIL APARENTLY WILL NOT REHOUSE ME UNTIL MY CHILDREN REACH 7! OR CONSIDERING MY CIRCUMSTANCES 3 YEARS WAIT APPROX. EVERYTIME I CONTACT THEM I GET A DIFFERNT STORY FOBBING ME OFF! AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HOUSE THE HIGH PRIORITY PEOPLE FIRST YET A FRIEND OF MY A SINGLE MAN APPIED TO THE WAITING LIST AND HAD 3 OFFERS IN 6MONTHS! YET ME AND MY CHILDREN ARE STILL HERE . DISGRACFUL
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
p kelleher | 21/01/2009 11:09 pm
Hi well where do i start. I have been waiting for a move for 4 and half years now, I have 3 bedroom property, theres me and my husband
my son who is autistic suppose to have one room
my daughter who is 18
and another daughter who is 21
my son 22 and my granddaughter.
we have medical award, and overcrowding award and still waiting....
we live in a flat as well...they say there is no houses.
Also I was accepted for adapted property as I have osterarthritis of the knee and need a walk in shower, but another member of family needs a bath for skin disorder. they said they have to take me off adapted property list as there are no properties with a shower and a bath in...
I cold not believe it...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
M KIELY | 07/03/2009 12:54 pm
JUST THOUGHT I WOULD DROP ANOTHER LINE TO SEE IF ANYONE OUT THERE CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION , I AM WITH OUT DOUBT SERVERLY OVER CROWDED , THERE WAS A EMPTY PROPERTY NEXT TO MINE , HOW IS THAT A 18 YEAR OLD JUNKIE(HEROIN ADDICT) HAS MANAGED TO GAIN A 2 BEDROOMED PROPERTY NEXT TO MINE WITH CHILDREN , SHE HAS HAD HER CHILD TAKEN AWAY FROM HER BY SOCIAL SERVICES, YET ON THE WIM SHE 'MIGHT 'BE GIVEN HER CHILD BACK HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS HOUSE , YET I NIGHTLY HEAR HER BEING BEAT BUY HER DRUG ADDICT FRIENDS, I AM TOTALLY DISCUSTED AND AM PLANNING TO TAKE THIS FURTHER , I AM SO ANGRY THIS HAS HAPPENED , WHAT DO I DO WAIT UNTIL MY CHILDREN START PICKING UP HER USED NEEDLES , OR MAYBE IT IS THAT SHE USES FOIL AT THE MOMENT IS THIS CLASSED AS OK ??AND HAS BEEN ALREADY FOUND IN THE GARDENS , HOW CAN THE COUNCIL JUSTIFY THIS ??/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
lee | 24/03/2010 2:36 pm
We also are in an overcrowded 1 bed flat, we have registered with several housing associations and birmingham city council, we have been waiting now 3 and a quater years with not one single offer, I cannot believe that this so called councillor john lines is for my area and is doing all that is possible to overturn this legal finding by the court, shouldn't he be here to help us all, he will not be getting my vote now or ever, i believe the goverment and the council are in this crisis because of all the people they have allowed just to walk into this country illegally, they are getting housing which i know for fact having seen and heard about with my own eyes, I am a strong believer that you should sort your own back yard before you start helping others, if that makes me racist then so be it, I have also experienced the council telling us to have more children which is totally stupid in our current 1 bed flat, we were also nominated by relatives to Bounville village trust and then turned down due to us having a child out of wedlock, so for my son to have his own room we would have to break up our family which i find totally outragous, when enquired about my partner was told that they could house her and our son only, i believe this to be discrimanation agaist myself and i am currently seeking legal advice regarding bournville village trusts policys, I also wished i knew about this case with BCC as we could of been the seventh family to go against them in this case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ILAG | 24/03/2010 7:33 pm
Wow, what a fascinating set of newbies to join the site. From this small sample I can see that there could well be a connection between overcrowding and inability to spell, use punctuation and grammar correctly, place full stops between sentences and to write without the caps lock key on. Surely CLG should fund a multi-million pound national survey to discover if such a connection exists and, if so, what "interventions" should be required to order to remedy the situation?
To the lady with 7 kids: Given your circumstances, why did you have so many in the first place and why do you think the taxpayer should fund a property three times the size in order to accommodate your own choices?
On the subject of Bournville Village Trust's policy of only housing married couples with kids: Survey after survey says that kids from married couples do better than kids from NuLab State sponsored single parent Benefit-Ville. If those are BVT's rules, they seem eminently sensible. Advice: Get married if you want to live there. Problem solved.
On the subject of NuLab State sponsored single parent junkies getting priority: Well you have my sympathies. This is a direct result of so-called "needs" based allocation; the race to the bottom propagated by the Lefties which ensures only the real scum qualify for housing. The responsible and those in employment need not apply.
On the subject of "all the people they have allowed just to walk into this country illegally": Again, my sympathies. This is, once again, a direct result of said so-called "needs" based allocation backed up with NuLab's "let's fill the country full of third world immigrants to rub the Tories noses in diversity" policy. Migration Watch have a good piece on the connection between gaming of the present "needs" based allocation system and third world immigration, see:
Sir Andrew Green's Presentation to the National Housing Federation on 23 September, 2009
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/165
ii) The Allocation of Social Housing
But given the rise in demand, the letting of housing has been thrown into sharp relief, with accusations of bias favour of immigrants.
Are those allegations correct?
Not necessarily. It may just be that immigrants are in greater need. But that brings you back to how you define "need".
If you give high priority to poor or overcrowded housing conditions of families with children, then family size itself can be a factor which would give a certain kind of result.
According to the ONS, in 2001, women born in Pakistan, but living in the UK, had an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. Those born in Bangladesh had 3.9, in India 2.3 while mothers born in the UK had, on average, 1.6 children.
So the question comes back to what definition of need you consider to be fair.
The issue is not whether the rules are administered fairly. But whether they lead to an outcome that is accepted as fair.
A very significant proportion of those directly affected do not think so.
A DCLG sponsored focus group study published earlier this year found that 32% of the public disagreed that the allocation of social housing was fair.
For those who said that they knew a lot about the matter, the figure was 64%.
For social renters themselves it was 42% who thought that the system was unfair.
This is a disturbing number. Could they be right?
A very interesting recent study was made by the Young Foundation - a social studies group that is very far from being right wing.
They had conducted a social study in Bethnal Green 50 years previously and, in 2006, they went back to assess the changes. They were clearly disturbed by what they found.
They described how a social housing policy introduced in the 1970's on the basis of "need", as defined by Whitehall, had had the effect of breaking up the social structure of the white working class while replacing it with an equally strong social structure of people of Bangladeshi origin. I stress that that is not my opinion, it is the conclusion of a major study by the Young Foundation.
If that is broadly right, it should be no surprise that there is a perception that social housing policy has favoured immigrants.
So are all these people wrong? Do they believe in a myth"?
ILAG
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment