Industry News


Huge increase in children living in temporary accommodation in last decade


Government’s repeated claims to be tackling homelessness and child poverty. Figures from the Ministry of Housing,


T


Communities and Local Government show the number of children without a permanent home rose from 72,590 in the second quarter of 2010 to 128,200 in the first quarter of 2020. The latest figures also reveal that the number of


households in temporary accommodation has increased by 83 per cent over the past decade. This trend is supported by figures from a survey by Centrepoint, which found that 73 per cent of youth homelessness charities expect an increase in the numbers of young people sleeping rough. Less than a third (31 per cent) of the 57


organisations surveyed by the charity thought there was sufficient support available for rough sleepers in their area, while only one in five thought there was sufficient support for young people forced to sleep rough. Helen Barnard, director of the Joseph Rowntree


Foundation (JRF) said: “These figures show there was an unacceptable rise in the number of families experiencing homelessness even before Covid-19


he number of children living in temporary accommodation has risen by more than 75 per cent since 2010, despite the


hit, and we know the pandemic has hit private renters hard.” “Polling by JRF has found millions of people


anxious about paying their rent over winter, with 700,000 households already in arrears,” she added. “Renters are running out of options, and without action we could see a wave of evictions and a surge in homelessness, putting even more pressure on temporary accommodation services at a time when the health risks of overcrowding are clear. As we head further towards an unemployment crisis that has yet to peak, the government should act to keep as many people as possible in their homes.” The charity is calling for a targeted package of


Government support to address high rent arrears. Paul Noblet, from Centrepoint, said: “The


Government has committed significant investment to tackle homelessness, but this survey suggests this will be a winter like no other when it comes to providing the much-needed accommodation to keep rough sleepers safe. As temperatures fall, central government must guarantee that every part of the country has the necessary funds to guarantee that no one is placed in unsafe accommodation or put at risk by Covid-19. “Key to achieving this is making sure that


funding is made available not just to support older,


The number of children living in temporary accommodation has risen by more than 75 per cent since 2010


entrenched rough sleepers but younger people too. With more and more under-25s facing time sleeping on the streets it’s vital that the government ringfences funding for age-appropriate accommodation so those young people can be kept safe this winter.”


London council left homeless family for ‘too long’ in B&B


Two schoolchildren were left sharing a bed in a B&B hotel for more than a year by Redbridge council in East London, according to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s investigation found the living


conditions the children were subject to in the bed and breakfast accommodation had a significant impact on the family. The two children’s schooling was badly affected - they had to share a bed and suffered disrupted sleep because of the night-time noise, and there was no room for them to do their schoolwork. The family was placed in the B&B in the


Redbridge area by another London borough. The other council decided the family was intentionally homeless because the mother had refused a damp and mouldy flat, which would have exacerbated both her and her children’s respiratory conditions. Instead of making its own decision on whether


the family was intentionally homeless, Redbridge accepted the other council’s decision and decided it did not have a duty to house the family under the Housing Act. The council then placed the family in the B&B for more than a year under the Children Act.


However, the Ombudsman’s investigation found the council could not show it assessed the harm caused to the family by staying in the B&B for such a long period, or that it made regular reviews of their situation. During this time, the council offered the


family options including a studio flat – where the three would have had to sleep, eat and do homework in the same room – or accommodation away from the borough in the north or Midlands. The woman rejected the first because it would be too small, and the second because her older child was due to take GCSE exams in a local school, and she had no network of support outside the capital. The council decided it no longer had any duties to the family as the mother had rejected these options. Because the family’s living conditions were


so poor, the woman suffered increased anxiety, stress and panic attacks. The ombudsman found the council did not make allowances for her poor mental health when it dealt with her, and instead misinterpreted her behaviour as ‘being difficult’ and blamed her situation on her lack of co-operation.


18 | HMM February/March 2021 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk Michael King, the Local Government and Social


Care Ombudsman, said: “Councils should balance the impact of being housed in bed and breakfast accommodation against the affect this might have on children, regardless of which Act the council is housing them under. In this case two children were left for far too long in poor accommodation. This left them – in their own words – ‘stuck in a cycle of instability’ and unable to fulfil their potential in school. “I hope the council’s acceptance that it could have


done more to support the woman, given her understandable anxiety and depression, will lead to it dealing with people in difficult situations with more empathy in future.” In this case the council agreed to apologise to the


woman and pay her £3,900. This is made up of £250 a month for leaving her family in unsuitable accommodation for 14 months, £250 for the distress caused by the council failing to consider the effect her anxiety and depression had on her actions or the difficulties she had communicating because of her dyslexia, and a further £150 for her time and trouble caused by the council’s delays dealing with her complaint.


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