[Diggers350] Crisis: The No Rough Sleeping Bill 2016 [1 Attachment]

greenwomble greenwomble at googlemail.com
Fri Jun 10 11:31:22 BST 2016

In money, in the Hierarchal pay out economy, nothing has value unless
it is short at some level.

Free? worthless.

So I suppose the term rough sleeping means nothing is a home but a
monetised home, being a house!

....a house! being someone else's for which you have to work to pay
them for your while life long for the privilege of living.

......a house! being yours if a company will grant you the privilege
of living in if you can work for your life to repay the repayments
over 25 years.

While all the time their are many types of renewable and durable cosy
dry warm homes. but they neither make money nor make taxes.


On 27/05/2016, Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk [Diggers350]
<Diggers350-noreply at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> Homelessness duty 'would cost councils £44m'
> 10 May 2016 0:01 am | By
> <http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/heather-spurr/897.bio>Heather Spurr
> Today’s provisional research findings, undertaken
> by academics and published by Crisis, found that
> local authorities would spend in total £43.9m a
> year on homelessness prevention under the new scheme.
> However, it found that these extra costs would
> eventually be offset by £46.8m a year due to
> fewer full homelessness duty cases, because people would get help quicker.
> http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/homelessness-duty-would-cost-councils-44m/7015149.article
> MPs must seize 'historic opportunity' to tackle homelessness
> 26 May 2016
> http://www.crisis.org.uk/pressreleases.php/709/mps-must-seize-historic-opportunity-to-tackle-homelessness
> MPs have been urged to grasp an 'historic
> opportunity' to make the most significant change
> to the law on homelessness in nearly 40 years.
> National homelessness charity Crisis is urging
> the MPs selected by today’s Private Members’ Bill
> ballot to champion a change in the law that will
> ensure homeless people in England can no longer
> be turned away to sleep rough by their council.
> <http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/The%20homelessness%20legislation,%20an%20independent%20review%20of%20the%20legal%20duties%20owed%20to%20homeless%20people.pdf>The
> proposed Bill, put forward by an expert panel of
> council members, lawyers and housing experts,
> would see a reformed law introduced requiring all
> councils in England to take action to prevent
> people from becoming homeless in the first place.
> The Bill is backed by the highly regarded
> independent Cross Bench Peer Lord Best, the wider
> homelessness sector, and Crisis’ own No One
> Turned Away campaign with 58,000 supporters
> calling for a change to an outdated law that has
> turned away single homeless people to sleep on
> the streets in England since 1977.
> Crisis Chief Executive Jon Sparkes said:
> “The law as it stands means that single homeless
> people who go to their councils for help are
> often turned away without any meaningful help and
> left with no option but to sleep on the streets.
> The MPs chosen in this ballot have an historic
> opportunity to put an end to this scandal by
> reforming a 40 year old law on homelessness.
> “Rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010,
> while 112,230 households applied to their local
> authority for homelessness assistance in 2014/15
> – a 26% rise since 2009/10. But homelessness
> isn’t inevitable, and we don’t need to look very
> far to find an alternative. Recent reform to
> legislation in Wales has already resulted in a
> drop of two thirds in the number of people
> formally accepted as homeless, proving prevention really does work.
> “Crisis is urging the MPs chosen in today’s
> ballot to seize this unique opportunity and
> champion a Bill that will ensure thousands
> currently sleeping on the streets get the help they so desperately need.”
>   Lord Best said:
> “The groundswell of evidence, opinion and support
> for a change in the law on homelessness in
> England has become too great to ignore. The
> Government has already made a commitment to
> consider options – including a change in the law
> – to prevent more people from becoming homeless,
> while over half of English local authorities
> think a change in the law similar to that in
> Wales would be beneficial for homeless people in England.
> “It is almost 40 years since current laws on
> homelessness were introduced. The MPs chosen in
> today’s ballot have an historic opportunity to
> ensure that no one can be turned away to sleep on our streets.”
> For further information or for spokesperson
> interviews with CRISIS CEO Jon Sparkes call 020
> 7426 3854 - 07973 372587 or email
> <mailto:simon.trevethick at crisis.org.uk>simon.trevethick at crisis.org.uk
> Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Professor/Director of
> Research Institute, phone: 0131 451 8362, email:
> <mailto:s.fitzpatrick at hw.ac.uk?subject=>s.fitzpatrick at hw.ac.uk
> Lord Best, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW, Tel:
> 020 7219 6799, Email: <mailto:best at parliament.uk>best at parliament.uk
> 5. Our proposed alternative homelessness legislation
> http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/The%20homelessness%20legislation,%20an%20independent%20review%20of%20the%20legal%20duties%20owed%20to%20homeless%20people.pdf
> Following a review of the current legislation in
> England, particularly with respect to the
> implications for single homeless people, the
> Panel takes the view that the case for reform is
> strong. The homelessness legislation must be more
> inclusive and provide meaningful assistance to
> all homeless applicants. There is a need for
> prevention work to take place at a much earlier
> point, providing local authorities with greater
> flexibility in their approach. Furthermore,
> prevention work should take place within a
> statutory framework, making local authorities
> more accountable for the work undertaken. It is
> also vital that applicants are properly
> incentivised to engage at an earlier stage to
> reduce the personal costs of homelessness to the
> individual as well as the significant financial
> costs to national and local government. After
> careful examination of divergent legislation in
> Scotland and Wales, and the existing evidence on
> implications and effectiveness, the Panel took
> the view that there were many aspects of the
> approach being taken in the latter that may have
> merit in the English context. We therefore sought
> to draft an alternative legislative framework,
> which could be achieved through a set of
> amendments to the Housing Act (1996). Our new
> proposed legislative model would: • place a
> stronger duty on local authorities to help to
> prevent homelessness for all eligible applicants
> regardless of priority need status, local
> connection or intentionality; • extend the
> definition of threatened with homelessness from
> 28 to 56 days to provide local authorities with
> more flexibility to tackle homelessness at a much
> earlier stage; and • place a new relief duty on
> local authorities requiring them to take
> reasonable steps to help to secure accommodation
> for all eligible homeless households who have a
> local connection. This new model will create a
> more robust package of advice and assistance to
> prevent and relieve homelessness for all
> applicants regardless of priority need status. It
> is the view of the Panel that more effective and
> flexible early prevention work - based on a
> clearer set of expectations placed on both local
> authorities and homeless applicants - will also
> help reduce the number of people who are owed the
> main homelessness duty. The full set of proposed
> amendments are included as an annex to this report.
> 5.1 How would this work?
> 5.1.1 A stronger advice and information duty
> Section 179 of the Housing Act (1996), the ‘Duty
> of local housing authority to provide advisory
> services’, requires local authorities to provide
> anyone within their area with advice and
> information in order to help prevent their
> homelessness. At present, Section 179 goes into
> no significant detail about the steps a local
> authority should take in order to fulfil this
> duty and as a result it is very difficult to
> legally enforce. The Panel therefore recommends
> that Section 179 should be amended to more
> closely mirror Section 60 of the Housing (Wales)
> Act (2014), ‘Duty to provide information, advice
> and assistance in accessing help’. This clause is
> much clearer about the types of advice that could
> be provided. Furthermore, it sets out that a
> local housing authority must in particular work
> with other public authorities and voluntary
> organisations to ensure that the service is
> designed to meet the needs of groups at risk of
> homelessness. These groups include: people
> leaving prison or youth detention accommodation;
> young people leaving care; people leaving the
> regular armed forces; people leaving hospital
> after medical treatment for a mental health
> problem, and people receiving mental health
> services in the community. The duty placed on
> local authorities to provide anyone in their area
> with advice and information would apply
> regardless of whether or not they are homeless or
> threatened with homelessness. It would therefore
> serve as an important early intervention service,
> which could for example help anyone experiencing
> problems with debt and unemployment etc. and
> might be at risk of homelessness. It also serves
> to provide assistance for applicants who are not
> eligible for housing support e.g. those who are not habitually resident.
> 5.1.2 A homelessness prevention duty for all
> eligible households The Panel recommends that the
> government should create a new prevention duty
> for anyone who is threatened with homelessness
> and eligible for assistance. Reflecting Section
> 66 of the Housing (Wales) Act (2014), local
> authorities would have to demonstrate that they
> have taken reasonable steps to help prevent a
> person becoming homeless. Measures that ought to
> be available in relevant cases could include
> mediation with private landlords, assistance with
> rent arrears and debt management. In order to
> ensure that the new duty would be effective in
> preventing homelessness, Section 175 of the
> Housing Act (1996) should be amended to extend
> the definition of threatened 22 The homelessness
> legislation 23 30. DCLG (2016), Statutory
> homelessness live tables Table 774: Reason for
> loss of last settled home. 31. DCLG (2006),
> Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local
> Authorities, London: DCLG 32. Liz Davies, Garden
> Court Chambers, Prospective ammendments to the
> Housing Act (1996), Part 7. with homelessness
> from 28 to 56 days. This will enable local
> authorities to respond to the threat of
> homelessness at a much earlier point, providing
> them with a greater number of options to help
> prevent someone becoming homeless, and therefore
> a higher chance of success. The loss of an
> assured shorthold tenancy (the default tenancy in
> the private rented sector) is the leading cause
> of homelessness, accounting for 29 per cent of
> those accepted as homeless in England and 39 per
> cent of those in London.30 Landlords are required
> to provide tenants with two calendar months’
> notice when evicting them from their home. In
> this context, extending the definition of
> ‘threatened with homelessness’ to almost two
> months would enable local authorities to begin
> prevention work at a much earlier point, with
> greater chance of success. For example, if a
> landlord is evicting a tenant who is in rent
> arrears, this will require a local authority to
> intervene almost as soon as the Section 21 notice
> requiring possession or (in the case of a fixed
> term tenancy) the section 8 notice seeking
> possession is served. Assistance could include
> help to pay off rent arrears or mediation with
> the landlord to help the tenant remain in their
> home. In addition, the Panel recommends that
> Section 175 ‘Homelessness and threatened with
> homelessness’ should be amended to ensure that
> local authorities accept the expiry of a Section
> 21 eviction notice as proof that an applicant is
> homeless and would therefore be eligible for
> assistance under the relief duty (outlined
> below). The Homelessness Code of Guidance for
> Local Authorities already advises that it is
> “unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to
> continue to occupy the accommodation beyond the
> date given in the Section 21 notice, unless the
> housing authority is taking steps to persuade the
> landlord to withdraw the notice or allow the
> tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation
> for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity
> for alternative accommodation to be found.”31 In
> her advice, Liz Davies stated however, that
> “local authorities… frequently decide that the
> applicant is not homeless at that stage. The
> proposed amendment to Section 175 (2A)
> [Homelessness and threatened with homelessness]
> would mean that there was no longer any
> consideration of whether or not it is reasonable
> for an applicant to continue to occupy after the
> date for possession.”32 Waiting until a
> possession order or bailiff’s warrant has been
> executed places a costly burden on county courts,
> landlords and tenants. Furthermore tenants may
> accrue further rent arrears making them much more
> vulnerable to homelessness, and landlords less
> likely to let to homeless households or those at
> risk of homelessness in the future.
> 5.1.3 A relief duty for all eligible homeless
> people who have a local connection If a local
> authority is unable to successfully prevent an
> applicant’s homelessness, or if an applicant is
> already homeless when they approach the local
> authority, then there would be a duty to take
> reasonable steps to help secure accommodation for
> homeless households who are eligible for
> assistance and have a local connection. This
> could include providing local authority
> accommodation or arranging for an applicant to be
> housed in a fixed term tenancy with a minimum 12
> month term in the private rented sector. In
> addition to providing accommodation, examples of
> how a local authority ought to help secure
> accommodation should be set out in legislation in
> order to create a robust and legally enforceable
> duty, but with enough flexibility for local
> authorities to be able to tailor responses to
> specific homeless households’ circumstances.
> Reflecting the Housing (Wales) Act (2014), the
> Panel recommends that these examples of potential
> interventions should include: mediation; payments
> by way of a grant or loan; guarantees that
> payments will be made; support in managing debt,
> mortgage arrears or rent arrears; security
> measures for applicants at risk of abuse;
> advocacy or other representation; and
> accommodation. While this relief duty would be
> priority need and intentionality ‘blind’, in
> contrast to the proposed prevention duty outlined
> above, an applicant would have to have a local
> connection to the local authority area as
> currently defined in Section 199 of the Housing
> Act (1996), otherwise the local authority could
> refer the applicant to a local authority with
> which they do have such a connection. This would
> help to ensure that local authorities,
> particularly in areas of high demand, are not put
> under undue burden with regards to providing
> relief interventions to applicants from other
> areas. 24 The homelessness legislation 25 The
> relief duty would last for a period of 56 days.
> This duty could be brought to an end before this
> time if the applicant was unreasonably refusing
> to cooperate with relief efforts (see below). It
> could also be brought to an end if an applicant
> had accepted or refused a suitable offer of
> accommodation or if the applicant had ceased to
> be eligible for assistance. For applicants in
> priority need, the local authority could bring
> the duty to an end before this time if they had
> taken all reasonable steps to relieve their
> homelessness. The applicant would then be
> eligible for assistance under the main homelessness duty.
> 5.1.4 Incentivising applicants to engage in
> prevention and relief work In order to ensure
> that a new legislative model works effectively,
> it is vital that applicants are incentivised to
> engage in effective prevention and relief work at
> the earliest stage. The Panel therefore
> recommends that a clause should be included in
> the new legislative framework which would allow
> local authorities to discharge the prevention and
> relief duty if an applicant unreasonably refuses
> to cooperate with a course of action that they
> and the local authority have agreed to undertake.
> The refusal to cooperate provision, however,
> would only apply at the prevention and relief
> stage and could not be used to prevent a
> household in priority need from accessing the
> main homelessness duty. The Panel did not
> however, reach consensus on this particular issue
> and some panel members proposed that the clause
> should apply to all households irrespective of
> priority need status in order to ensure all
> applicants are equally incentivised to engage in
> prevention work at the earliest point. The Panel
> recommends that local authorities should only use
> the refusal to cooperate provision in very
> exceptional circumstances e.g. where an applicant
> had ceased all communication with the local
> authority over a sustained length of time. If a
> local authority is considering discharging either
> the prevention or the relief duty because an
> applicant is refusing to cooperate then they must
> send a letter to the applicant warning them that
> they are minded to cease to provide assistance.
> The letter should set out the reasons why the
> local authority intends to cease to provide
> assistance and a time period of no less than 14
> days within which the applicant could re-engage.
> The Panel also recommends that provision should
> be made within this clause to allow the Secretary
> of State to prescribe (in regulations) grounds on
> which a person could not be deemed as unreasonaly
> refusing to cooperate. This would be particularly
> important in helping to ensure that the provision
> was only invoked in exceptional circumstances and
> not used as an inappropriate sanction.
> 5.1.5 Emergency accommodation for homeless people
> who have nowhere safe to stay The Panel
> recommends that a new duty should be placed on
> local authorities to provide emergency temporary
> accommodation for people who are homeless and
> have nowhere safe to stay. Under the current
> legislation, applicants who the local authority
> thinks are likely to be in priority need are
> entitled to interim accommodation until they have
> carried out their full assessment. Furthermore,
> local authorities are required to accommodate
> households who are owed the main homelessness
> duty in temporary accommodation until they find
> them an offer of settled housing. No such
> provision exists for households who are not in
> priority need. The Panel’s proposed new clause
> would entitle anyone who had nowhere safe to stay
> to interim accommodation for 28 days. This
> provides a window of time for support teams to
> work with the applicant to ensure that they do
> not sleep rough and move into some form of
> alternative accommodation. This duty could only
> be exercised once every six months. If at the end
> of the 28 days, the applicant re-applied, the
> local authority would not be under the nowhere
> safe to stay accommodation duty if the applicant
> had had the benefit of that duty from any local
> authority in England in the six months preceding
> the date of application. The Panel recgonises
> that further consideration must be given to how
> this clause will work in relation to the
> assistance provided to people who are at risk of
> sleeping rough and verified rough sleepers.
> However, rough sleepers suffer the worst outcomes
> of all homeless people and the current system
> provides inadequate protections and support for this group.
> 5.1.6 Maintaining the current protection for
> priority need groups Under the new proposed
> legislative framework the intention would be that
> all eligible applicants would go through the
> prevention duty (if they are threatened with
> homelessness) and relief duty (if their
> homelessness could not be prevented or they are
> already homeless at the point they approach the
> local authority). If a local authority is not
> able to successfully prevent or relieve the
> homelessness of a household in priority need then
> they would proceed to the main homelessness duty,
> which would remain as it is currently drafted in
> the legislation. A local authority would be able
> to fast track a household in priority need to the
> main homelessness duty if they thought 26 The
> homelessness legislation 27 that this was a more
> appropriate way to remedy their homelessness. The
> household would not be able to elect to do this
> themselves. Furthermore, if households that are
> in priority need refuse an offer of accommodation
> under the relief duty or refuse to cooperate with
> assistance given under either the prevention or
> relief duties they would not lose their
> entitlement to an offer of settled accommodation
> under the main duty. The Panel did not however,
> reach consensus on this particular issue and some
> panel members proposed that the refusal to
> cooperate provision should apply to all
> households irrespective of priority need status
> in order to ensure all applicants are equally
> incentivised to engage in prevention work at the
> earliest point. The suitability of the offer of
> settled accommodation under the main homelessness
> duty would remain as set out in the current
> legislation i.e. an offer of social housing or a
> 12 month minimum fixed-term private rented sector
> tenancy, which complies with minimum standards
> set out within the legislation regarding
> affordability, physical condition of the property
> and location. The suitability of an offer at the
> relief stage mirrors that of the main duty. Any
> offer of accomodation made the prevention stage
> should be likely to last for six months and meet
> the same suitability criteria as an offer of
> accomodation made at the relief and main duty stage.
> 5.1.7 A wider care and support duty Prevention
> and early intervention are prominent features of
> the current Government’s approach to tackling a
> number of social issues. Under the last
> Government, the Ministerial Working Group on
> Preventing and Tackling Homelessness set out a
> commitment to ensuring that there is a more
> strategic and joined up approach to ending
> homelessness. Key to implementing an effective
> prevention duty will be the ability of local
> authorities to work with a range of partners in
> order to help address the multiple and
> overlapping factors that cause an individual’s
> homelessness. The Panel recommends that Section
> 213 of the Housing Act (1996), ‘Co-operation
> between relevant housing authorities and bodies’
> should be redrafted to ensure that the NHS, drug
> and alcohol agencies, probation teams, debt
> advice services, children’s services and mental
> health teams should also have a duty to
> co-operate with local authorities when they carry
> out their duty to help to prevent homelessness or
> secure accommodation. The government should
> consider how, beyond the scope of the
> homelessness legislation, other agencies should
> work in partnership with local authorities to
> prevent homelessness effectively.

  It's a revolution. But, it's more of an evolution that no one will
notice. It might get a little shadier, or brighter. Buildings might
function better. You might have less money to earn because your food
is all around you and you don't have any energy costs.  and more
people will be fed, as more land and resources, kept scarce for the
dollar, for the  abundance called glut,  will be shared.

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list