martin haddelsey
Recent activity
Comments (16)
-
Comment on: Homeless face losing council housing guarantee
There are basically three things H&F can do:
1) The case of Ahmad v Newham LBC established that councils have carte blanche when it comes to determining priority between groups of people owed 'reasonable preference' for social housing (i.e. those with a statutory right to be given some priority). Many councils apply this by creating several bands (usually 2 or 3), which are made up different priority groupings. One of these bands is often exclusively set aside for homeless people, who receive first refusal for properties or, under a quota system, the lion's share of properties. But there is no legal obligation to give homeless applicants this level of priority, so long as they receive some priority over those without a statutory housing need. Hammersmith & Fulham could therefore put homeless applicants in a lower band, allocating a greater share of properties to those in other forms of statutory housing need.
2) Coupled with this would be the use of the new power (again conferred by the Localism Act) to discharge the majority of homeless cases by relying on offers within the private sector.
3) Finally, homeless people who can demonstrate 'good behaviour' of some kind (e.g. paid or voluntary work) could receive a relatively high priority within their band.
It's particularly important to note point (1), because the applicant would still be awarded preferential status over those NOT in statutory housing need. Even under the current systems adopted by local councils, there is no guarantee of a social housing tenancy (at least, not in the short to medium-term).
"‘The new system set out in this report may be perceived as affording less advantage to the making of a homelessness application and may start to exert downward pressure on the number of homelessness applications,’ the paper says." At the heart of this analysis is the idea of the 'perverse incentive'. A high proportion of homelessness applications are deemed to be fraudulent, deliberately manipulating the system. Of course, much as with the claim that teenage girls get pregnant in order to access council housing, THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP.
Such changes are again justified by wrapping them up in the language of "strong, mixed and sustainable communities" and the need for people who "contribute" to society.
Sometimes it seems more like poor-bashing, to me. -
Comment on: Government raises right to buy discounts
Gavin, you write that "every RTB sale...removes the demand placed on social housing by one household - and it effectively takes out of social housing the households who are able to be self-sufficient."
Two points: 1) wouldn't it be more effective for their demand on social housing to be removed without the removal of one unit of social housing, i.e. by purchasing on the open market? 2) they are not genuinely self-sufficient if they have received up to £75k to help them purchase the property.
Actually, this policy does not "reduce [tenants'] dependency on the state". If they were to stay as council tenants they would usually be living in a property which had paid for itself years ago. Council rents are not 'subsidised'. It would be more accurate to say that they are designed to cover costs, not to generate profit. So - no 'dependency' involved. The RTB, on the other hand, actually increases their dependency by giving them a substantial discount at the taxpayers' expense... -
Comment on: Off the Field
I think anyone working or living in social housing would agree that 'neighbours from hell' ARE a reality, and not just an invention of the press. However, I agree F451 that Field's comments are mis-timed & play into the current scapegoating of the 'undeserving poor', which provides useful ideological cover at a time of severe cutbacks.
The new government guidelines on allocations (out for consultation) will allow local authorities to distinguish between applicants on the basis of their behaviour in any case - where Field goes beyond this is in suggesting that 'good citizens' should trump people in housing need, full stop. This would dismantle social housing as a pillar of the welfare state, and it would no longer be possible to call it 'social'. However, there may be significant numbers of people who could sustain tenancies in the private sector, so long as bond schemes are extended. Unfortunately, the welfare reforms will mitigate against the sustainability of private tenancies, leading to a 'revolving door' of homelessness. -
Comment on: Allocations overhaul to favour ‘responsible’ tenants
Can anyone direct me to the relevant section of the Localism Act which gives councils permission to make such radical changes? I've had a look and (unless I've missed something) the wording is surprisingly vague. That's good news for these councils, who are having a field day pushing forward their deserving/undeserving poor agenda (in a context nationally of high structural unemployment), but also means that at some point these allocations policies will be challenged in the courts. Personally, I'm looking forward to it. There are mechanisms in place to deal with truanting kids and claimants turning down work - why housing providers want to get involved beats me.
-
Comment on: Allocations overhaul to favour ‘responsible’ tenants
Can anyone direct me to the relevant section of the Localism Act which gives councils permission to make such radical changes? I've had a look and (unless I've missed something) the wording is surprisingly vague. That's good news for these councils, who are having a field day pushing forward their deserving/undeserving poor agenda (in a context nationally of high structural unemployment), but also means that at some point these allocations policies will be challenged in the courts. Personally, I'm looking forward to it. There are mechanisms in place to deal with truanting kids and claimants turning down work - why housing providers want to get involved beats me.
Discussions (0)
martin haddelsey has not added any discussions yet.
Posts (0)
martin haddelsey has not added any posts yet.