Industry News


Councils concerns over HAs cherry picking tenants resurface


F


resh tensions between councils and housing associations over the provision of accommodation for homeless households


have been revealed in a national survey designed to monitor trends in housing practices and policy outcomes. The allocations and lettings policies of HAs


typically requires them to offer between 50 and 100 per cent of their empty properties to tenants nominated to them by councils. Homeless families are usually given the highest priority by councils for nominations to any empty homes. Disagreements between councils and HAs


periodically surface over the people granted tenancies and those who are rejected. In the past this has often seen people with a series of difficulties or issues, such as a history of anti-social behaviour, refused housing. This is reportedly changing, with those dependent on welfare benefits and most likely to run up rent arrears, now facing the most difficulty. Evidence for this view has come from ‘The


Homelessness Monitor: England 2019’, the eighth annual report from the charity Crisis and funded by Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It reports that representatives of local authorities


say their attempts to tackle homelessness are being undermined because HAs are turning down the poorest prospective tenants in favour of those in work and with stronger credit ratings.


SCRUTINY GAPS Jon Sparkes, Chief Executive of Crisis, said: “At the moment, there is very little scrutiny of how housing associations fulfil their legal duties to help people experiencing homelessness. Moreover, some see homeless people as risky tenants – in part due to certain welfare reforms – and will only rent to them if they can pass certain financial checks, making the huge challenge of finding a home near impossible.” Some critics within the sector are saying that


HAs have become too commercially focused and are losing touch with their social mission to provide housing for society’s poorest and most vulnerable people. The monitor reports some bleak predictions


from councils of rising homelessness. Nine out of 10 councils say the freeze on local housing allowance support means the poorest claimants are increasingly “living on a knife edge” because they cannot afford to pay their rent. The monitor’s survey of English local authorities


reveals unease that some HAs routinely refuse to take on “higher risk and economically inactive” households who fail financial capability tests, in favour of those with higher incomes. In some cases prospective tenants failed the tests


because they had fallen foul of the benefit cap, while others failed because they were unable to pay one month’s rent in advance as a deposit.


Nearly two-thirds of councils in England


reported to the survey that they agreed with the statement: “Affordability/financial capability checks are making it more difficult for homeless households to access social tenancies in my area.”


HAS DEFENDED The performance of HAs was strongly defended by Kate Henderson, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, their trade body. She said: “Data shows that the same proportion of new housing association lettings are going to homeless people as they were 10 years ago. Housing associations have not lost their social purpose but in the face of drastic government cuts continue to ensure people in severe need and on the lowest incomes can access social housing. “We share the deep concerns of Crisis and local


authorities that social housing is under immense pressure and changes to welfare are making it hard for people to access it. The answer to this problem is more housing, a properly funded welfare system and properly funded support services.” Crisis said it was likely that a homeless household


turned down for a social rented letting would stay in expensive and insecure temporary accommodation paid for by the council. The backdrop for this year’s Monitor has been


the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act in April 2018, and the Rough Sleeping Strategy in Summer 2018. Among other trends highlighted in the report:


• 71 per cent of councils reported that homelessness had recently been increasing – in a quarter of cases to a “significant” extent.


• The rise since 2010 in the number of households made homeless by the ending of private tenancies seems to have peaked.


12 | HMM June/July 2019 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


• Homelessness temporary accommodation placements, however, have continued to rise, and now stand 71 per cent higher than in 2011, with a disproportionate rise in Bed & Breakfast use also ongoing.


• After rapid growth since 2010 rough sleeping appears to have levelled off in England with official estimates recording a 2 per cent decrease nationally.


• However, there are still rising trends in three of England’s four broad regions, including core cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, and among Central and Eastern European migrants.


• Private rents appear to be falling in real terms across the country as a whole, but rising in London. Affordability in the sector as a whole also seems to be improving, and repossessions falling.


• However the growth in the private rented sector has exposed many more low-income households to higher housing costs, a smaller proportion of which are protected through housing allowances in the benefit system.


• The safety net once provided by Housing Benefit, has now effectively ended for the bulk of private tenants, with young people under 35 particularly badly affected by reduced Local Housing Allowance rates and the working age benefit freeze.


• The full roll out of UC is the subject of greatest concern with nearly two thirds of councils anticipating a “significant” homelessness increase as a result. Most LAs anticipated that homelessness would “significantly” increase due to the freeze in LHA rates (53 per cent) and other working age benefits (51 per cent), with almost as many councils (47 per cent) reporting likewise for the lowered benefit cap.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52