ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Are we on the brink of a new homelessness crisis?

The government’s Everyone In campaign to get rough sleepers off the streets has been hailed as a success. But what happens once the pandemic is over? Gavriel Hollander reports on the pressures facing one inner London borough. Illustration by Shonagh Rae

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Sharelines

Is there a rough sleeping time bomb waiting to go off? – @Gavhollander reports for @insidehousing #ukhousing

If the government can claim one relative PR victory during the pandemic, it is probably in the work done to get rough sleepers off the streets. Even perennial critics have recognised that the Everyone In campaign has had a positive impact: around 90% of England’s rough sleepers have been found temporary accommodation.

But that success is only qualified, and there are already fears in town halls up and down the country about what happens when the current crisis is over or when funding from the government runs out. It is also only a partial success, with the problem of rough sleeping just one part of a complicated puzzle when it comes to solving long-term homelessness.

“The right thing to do is to lift those restrictions, at the very least for the rest of the COVID-19 pandemic”

Of particular concern to many councils is the cohort of people classified as having no recourse to public funds (NRPF).

This includes possibly thousands who have pending immigration cases with the Home Office but in the meantime are unable to access benefits to help pay for accommodation. Although the restriction has been temporarily lifted for some people with NRPF, the future remains murky for many more.

Inside Housing has talked to one council – Southwark in south London – to understand what has been done so far to keep rough sleepers and those at risk of returning to the streets safe, and to hear about the challenges that persist.

In common with most inner London boroughs, Southwark has for some time had high numbers of both homeless households and rough sleepers. But it is also a borough that has recently made good progress on street homelessness. According to its own count, the number of people sleeping rough on the borough’s streets had fallen from 91 last June to just 35 in March 2020, when coronavirus struck.

That reduction made it easier for Southwark to engage with its remaining rough sleepers when the government moved to get people off the streets at the start of the pandemic.


READ MORE

Additional £5.5m in funding made available for homelessness charitiesAdditional £5.5m in funding made available for homelessness charities
Almost 100% increase in households being hit with benefit cap during pandemicAlmost 100% increase in households being hit with benefit cap during pandemic
Charities tell government to remove barriers to housing rough sleepers as ‘too many’ remain on streetsCharities tell government to remove barriers to housing rough sleepers as ‘too many’ remain on streets
Council mistakes are making homelessness problems worse, says ombudsmanCouncil mistakes are making homelessness problems worse, says ombudsman
Legislative changes needed to ensure homelessness does not rise during pandemic, says CrisisLegislative changes needed to ensure homelessness does not rise during pandemic, says Crisis

Kieron Williams, cabinet member for housing management and modernisation at Southwark, tells Inside Housing that the council found accommodation for those 35 people “within a matter of days” after lockdown was announced. But, as it turns out, that initial group was just the thin end of the wedge.

“What we’ve seen since then is a flow of people additionally coming onto our streets that we’ve continued to house,” Mr Williams says. Since March, Southwark has housed a total of 323 people who were either rough sleeping or deemed at imminent risk of rough sleeping.

“Living with other people was hard. I was scared because of coronavirus – I never went to the kitchen until the other person had finished”

While many of these have been found permanent accommodation, at the last count 138 were in what is known as ‘first-stage’ temporary accommodation. This includes a mix of hotel rooms, hostels and – more controversially – council properties that were being emptied ahead of refurbishment or regeneration, such as the Ledbury Estate in Peckham.

Out of those 138 people, 86 have NRPF. Of these, 40 are homeless EEA (European Economic Area) nationals and a further 46 are non-UK nationals with no recourse because of their immigration status.

“The simple, straightforward thing that we’d like government to do is acknowledge that the right thing to do is to lift those restrictions, at the very least for the rest of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Mr Williams says. “The government has set out its ambition in its manifesto to end rough sleeping in Britain but it’s simply not possible to do that while those restrictions are in place.”

To illustrate what a fast-moving picture this policy area is, as Inside Housing went to press with this article Dame Louise Casey, chair of the government’s COVID-19 rough sleeping taskforce, wrote to councils to tell them that they would be allowed to support EEA nationals (but not those from outside Europe with pending immigration cases) with NRPF for 12 weeks. This latest revision came just days after the government announced a further £105m funding – £85m of which is new money – for English councils to keep people off the streets after the pandemic.

These small steps may be welcome, but in Southwark more than half of its current NRPF cases involve non-EEA nationals. Mr Williams also feels that the measures taken are too short-termist. “We want to ensure that all those people don’t just not go back to the street, but that we can find secure, permanent housing for them,” he explains.

“The impact of COVID-19 on the jobs market means even where EEA and NRPF rough sleepers are ready and able to work, their job prospects are incredibly uncertain. Without the safety net of Universal Credit or housing benefit to fall back on, few have the financial security needed to take on a tenancy.

No recourse

Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, a person will have no recourse to public funds (NRPF) if they are “subject to immigration control”. Those under this condition cannot access welfare support, including housing benefit.

The no recourse condition is imposed on most migrants granted limited leave to remain in the UK and critics cite it as part of the Home Office’s infamous ‘hostile environment’ policy.

The no recourse condition does not technically apply to EEA nationals, but many of them will not be able to claim benefits unless they meet certain eligibility criteria.

In May, the High Court ruled that the NRPF condition was in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EHRC).

“For those who are not able to work due to their health or immigration status, that situation is even more acute. The upshot is hundreds of the people who have been accommodated from the street during this national emergency have no route to a long-term home.”

Notwithstanding the fact that its hands are tied when it comes to people with NRPF, money remains a major problem for councils such as Southwark. The lifting of the restrictions on public funds for EEA nationals still does not allow them to access housing benefit or Universal Credit, which means that local authorities will foot the bill for housing them and for any other services they provide.

Southwark estimates that it will have to spend an extra £2m this year just on supporting its NRPF cases into temporary accommodation. Its total temporary accommodation spend in 2019/20 was just under £12m, while this year’s is expected to come in at £19m. Southwark was allocated £20m from the £3.2bn the government gave to councils to tackle coronavirus back in March. However, it is facing a £50m hole in its budget for the year.

The government has announced more funds to help councils – but with £105m to be shared out across the country, there is no hope that this money will get anywhere close to letting Southwark balance the books.

The issue of people living with NRPF was raised with Boris Johnson during his appearance at the Commons’ Liaison Committee in May. The prime minister seemed surprised that anybody should be excluded from claiming benefit and suggested he would review the situation – a suggestion that was swiftly dropped.

“There are going to be a lot of people who either still currently have no recourse or have maybe recently had it lifted but who, because of financial restrictions, are only able to get private rented accommodation for themselves in shared houses”

Meanwhile, back in Southwark, the reality of what having NRPF means during a global pandemic is keenly felt.

In April, Southwark Law Centre took on the case of a 71-year-old Ghanaian man with NRPF and several underlying health conditions, including heart disease. Although he should have been shielding in single accommodation, he was still sharing with two other adults and one child.

“Living with other people was hard,” Samuel (not his real name) tells Inside Housing. “To be honest, I was not very happy about it. I was scared because of coronavirus – I never went to the kitchen until the other person had finished.

“The other people didn’t care whether you were there or not, and so I had to be very vigilant for myself. I would wake up very early to go to the bathroom before anybody else.”

The law centre, which helps Southwark residents with homelessness and asylum applications, sent a pre-action judicial review letter to the council, after which Samuel was found a single-person home. Samuel says he “feels safe” now, but despite having lived in the UK for 20 years, his application for leave to remain is still pending and he still has NRPF.

Is there a rough sleeping time bomb waiting to go off? 3

The law centre also dealt with the case of a single mother of three who had her NRPF restriction lifted during the lockdown but who was then unable to find suitable accommodation, even with access to housing benefit.

“While her income was limited with no recourse, all she could afford was shared accommodation,” explains Amy Clements, the Southwark Law Centre solicitor who handled the case. “There are going to be a lot of people who either still currently have no recourse or have maybe recently had it lifted but who, because of financial restrictions, are only able to get private rented accommodation for themselves in shared houses.”

For Sally Causer, director of Southwark Law Centre, cases like these highlight the problems facing councils such as Southwark, with large numbers of people in housing need, a stretched budget, and an unprecedented public health crisis on its hands.

“I think Southwark did an excellent job,” she says. “Right at the beginning, they decided who they were going to prioritise and those priorities were to get rough sleepers off the streets and to get people out of shared temporary accommodation. But it just highlights the kind of issues of the housing crisis in London generally.

“There are a lot of people who are on the housing register who are in overcrowded accommodation so they’re not actually homeless at the moment. I understand how difficult it is for Southwark to deal with that and find places for people.”

Both Ms Causer and the council’s Mr Williams say that the coronavirus crisis in general – and the Everyone In scheme specifically – has helped them to reach more people either sleeping rough or in danger of ending up on the streets. But Ms Causer is worried that the measures taken so far will amount to little more than a short-term remedy.

“It’s presented an opportunity to engage, but that’s going to be a missed opportunity if there’s no more money from central government to actually keep those rough sleepers housed until individually their issues can be sorted out and they can be moved into something longer term.”

She also believes that the partial suspension of the NRPF rule is illusory.

“They haven’t so much suspended the rule, it’s just that they’ve allowed local authorities to house and accommodate and feed people. Whether or not local authorities can continue to do that, or have a will to do that, [is another matter].

“I know Southwark does have the will to do it but how much longer can they afford to do it if there’s no money?”

Sign up for the IH long read bulletin

Sign up for the IH long read bulletin
Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.