Crisis: The No Rough Sleeping Bill 2016

[Tony Gosling]

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calling for a change to an outdated law that has 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.”

ENDS
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.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20160527/a0295cbe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20160527/a0295cbe/attachment.bin>