National Audit Office report on Homelessness highlights government failure


Local authorities have increased their spending on homelessness while simultaneously reducing spending on preventing it.”

A report by the National Audit Office, despite its diplomatic language, highlights the responsibility of the government for an increase in homelessness. The statistics are stark.

  • Since March 2011 there has been a 60% increase in the number of households living in temporary accommodation; up to 77,240 in March 2017.

  • An increase of 73% in the numbers of children in temporary accommodation to 120,540.

  • An 134% increase in rough sleepers since 2010.

  • Spending on temporary accommodation has increased by 39% in real terms since 2010/11.

But for the efforts of local authorities to prevent homelessness the situation would be even worse. The number of cases where local authorities “took positive action to prevent homelessness” increased by 63% from 2009/10 to 2016/17; up to 105,240. They have also helped 93,390 households to obtain alternative accommodation, an increase of 23% over 2009/10.

The NAO estimates that three quarters of the rise in the numbers of households in temporary accommodation is the result of an unprecedented increase in the proportion of households who qualified for temporary accommodation because an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) in the private rented sector was ended by a landlord. They now make up 32% of homelessness cases. The report states:

The end of an ASTs is the defining characteristic of the increase of homelessness that has occurred since 2010.” Read on below or download a PDF here naoreporthomelessness More


Housing Minister retreats on RTB sales?

Leave a comment

The magazine Inside Housing reports that Housing Minister Gavin Barwell has said that the Right to Buy policy ‘is only politically justifiable’ if the government is delivering replacement homes. At the Communities and Local Government Select Committee Barwell said he would reassess the rules on receipts because future government projections suggest that they will not be able to replace the homes sold.

I do want to look at the rules in relation to RTB receipts…because my own view is that RTB is a good thing but it’s only politically justifiable if I deliver a replacement.”

Barwell’s statement begs the question if housing stock sold is not being replaced then shouldn’t RTB sales be halted? This writer is in favour of RTB being ended. However, supporters of council housing should pick up on Barwell’s words and press their councils and their MPs to demand that if the Minister thinks RTB is unjustified unless sold homes are replaced, then councils should have the right to suspend sales if they cannot replace them. More

Underfunding of council housing – the impact on Bristol

1 Comment

Underfunding of council housing – the impact on Bristol

Swindon Tenants Campaign Group has shown how the coalition and Tory governments have under-funded council housing. We have explained the impact on Swindon’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA). All local authorities that own council housing are being starved of funds as a result of ‘self-financing’, the new council housing finance system introduced in 2012 and policies implemented since then. More than £13 billion of extra ‘debt’ was loaded onto 136 councils in what was described as a ‘debt settlement’. What was said to be the national council housing debt, though largely fictitious, was redistributed amongst stock owning councils. The amount of debt each authority was given was based on an assessment of how much rent income they would collect over 30 years, the cost of managing the stock, and the number of homes expected to be sold under RTB (each one being rent income lost). To enable them to pay off this ‘debt’ each one was given a loan from the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB). To service this debt they are obliged to pay an annual interest charge to the PWLB. They have discretion on how they deal with the ‘loan’ itself, how much they pay each year towards paying it off. They were told that the settlement would ensure that all councils would have sufficient money to maintain their housing stock over 30 years. However, the 30 year business plans which councils had to draw up have been blown out of the water by changes which the coalition and Tory governments introduced. Here we look at the situation facing Bristol council’s HRA. (Read on below or download a PDF here bristolhra )

No solution to the housing crisis without council house building

Leave a comment

Swindon Tenants Campaign Group Media Release February 13th 2017

No solution to the housing crisis without council house building

The government’s Housing White Paper, “Fixing our broken housing market”, is an implicit recognition of the failure of 6 years of coalition and Tory government housing policy. Talk of a “home owning democracy” has been abandoned. However, the problem will not be resolved by attempting to make ‘the market work for everyone’. As the Financial Times recently recognised in an Editorial, it is against the interests of the big builders to build ‘affordable homes’ for rent.

The fact is that private developers, left to their own devices, will not build enough to meet demand, especially when the greatest need is for affordable rented housing in urban areas. It is not in their interest to do so, since the result would be lower house prices and land values, eroding their profitability”. More

‘High value’, ‘higher value’, what’s in a word?

Leave a comment

A worrying amendment to the government’s Housing and Planning Bill may have an even bigger impact on the number of Council homes which could be sold off on the market. The Bill included the enforced sale of ‘high value’ homes when they become vacant. Prior to the General Election a conservative party document referred to “the most expensive third of all properties in their area”. The Conservative Manifesto itself referred to “the most expensive Council properties being sold off and replaced” when they became vacant.

Councils have been awaiting regulations from the minister determining how ‘high value’ would be measured. However, the government has now proposed an amendment which refers to “higher value stock”. The amendment, by implication could mean anything above the average value. Even worse another amendment tabled this week states that the government will be able to “use any category of housing that the secretary of state considers appropriate as a comparator”. This would in effect give the minister the absolute power to not only determine how much stock Councils had to sell, but to change the regulation at will if he thought that they weren’t selling enough. Clearly, the proposed amendments are in breach of their manifesto.

If implemented this could not only decimate Council housing numbers but lead to the deterioration of the remaining stock. Under the new financial system, ‘self-financing’, introduced in 2012, Councils were given a ‘debt’ level which was based on an assessment of how much rent Councils were expected to take in over 30 years. The more homes that are sold the more rent is lost. Councils are already losing a great deal of rent as a result of the 1% rent cut which central government is imposing over the next 4 years. Swindon will lose more than £22 million. More

Underfunding of Council housing

Leave a comment

Media Release: Swindon Tenants Campaign Group March 14th 2016

Tenant reps on Swindon Council’s Housing Advisory Forum (HAF) opposed the 3 year Housing Investment Programme which officers were recommending for the Cabinet to agree. The programme includes major cuts in replacement of housing components such as kitchens and bathrooms (see table below). Tenants opposed it because it would create a significant backlog of work, which would cost more in the future.

The cuts included in the proposed programme are the result of two things:

  • the loss of rental income resulting from central government policies, including the decision to cut ‘social housing’ rents by 1% a year for 4 years, beginning in April 2016;

  • a significant increase in spending on non-traditional (prefabricated) stock .

The rent cut alone means that Swindon is expected to take in £22.8 million less rent than it had planned for. The government has imposed the rent cut not because of any concern for tenants but to cut housing benefit paid to ‘social housing’ tenants. It has taken no account of the financial impact on local Housing Revenue Accounts. More

Government response to ‘pay to stay’ consultation

Leave a comment

The government has just published it’s response to its consultation on ‘Pay to Stay’, the policy which will make Council Housing tenants subject to pay up to the level of a market rent if their household income1 is £30,000 and above, £40,000 in London. The consultation was only on “the design of certain aspects of the policy” rather than on whether or not the policy itself should be introduced.

It asked just three questions:

QUESTION 1A – How income thresholds should operate beyond the minimum threshold set at Budget, for example through the use of a simple taper/multiple thresholds that increase the amount of rent as income increases. (Download a PDF here paytostayresponse or read on below)

QUESTION 1B – Whether the starting threshold should be set in relation to eligibility for Housing Benefit?

QUESTION 2 – Based on the current systems and powers that Local Authorities have, what is your estimate of the administrative costs and what are the factors that drive these costs?

In what is surely one of the briefest responses to a consultation we have learned that:

  • A taper will be applied above the minimum income thresholds. “Further detail on the operation of the taper will be set out in due course but we would design this so that households at the lower end of income above the proposed threshold will see their rent rise by only a few pounds each week. ”

  • The Government agrees that it should not be the case that those who are in receipt of housing benefit should be subject to increased rents, as the rent rises would simply need to be covered by the taxpayer. Households in receipt of housing benefit will therefore be exempt from the policy.”

  • The Government will allow local authorities to retain a reasonable amount of administrative costs. The amount that can be retained will be subject to further discussions with the sector about what a reasonable level would constitute.

The operation of a ‘taper’ means that people earning just above the threshold won’t find themselves facing a massive increase. However, we don’t know how shallow or steep the taper will be. Reports in the media suggested that the full rent would be charged at £50,000. We won’t know until the Minister issues regulations.

The taper will make it more complicated for Councils to keep up to date with changing information as the circumstances of the tenant change; consider somebody doing irregular overtime. In practice it may only be possible to check on an annual basis.

‘High earners’ in receipt of housing benefit

That the government has had to concede that people in receipt of Housing Benefit will not be subject to ‘pay to stay’ shows how absurd was it’s assertion that this was a policy for ‘high earners’. As Shelter pointed out two adults working full-time on the minimum wage would earn £27,000. Moreover, it is said to be a means of ‘supporting work incentives’. Yet anybody in receipt of housing benefit would be stupid to take a promotion or pay rise if it would put them above the level at which they would cease to qualify for housing benefit or be subject to ‘pay to stay’ and face increased rent. Some ‘work incentive’!

What constitutes a ‘reasonable level’ of costs for Councils having to carry out an ongoing assessment of tenants’ income is a thorny question. We shouldn’t expect the government to be too generous. Whilst Housing Associations can keep all the extra money they take in from ‘pay to stay’ the government decided that it was going to take the money Councils took in to go towards paying off the national debt! So it won’t want to relinquish too much of that.

The myth of “subsidised” rents

‘Pay to stay’ itself is based on the false premise that “housing in the social housing sector offered at subsidised rents should go to those people who genuinely need it .” Council rents are in fact not subsidised. They are lower than market rents because they were not built to make a profit as housing is in the private sector. There was an element of subsidy in the distant past but that was at a time when mortgages were subsidised as well. Indeed at times the subsidy for home owners was higher than the subsidy for tenants.

Today, the Housing Revenue Account under which Council housing operates, receives no subsidy whatsoever. Indeed in 2012 when a new Council housing finance system was introduced Councils were burdened with extra ‘debt’ which was not the result of actual borrowing but was a product of ‘creative accountancy’ by the Treasury. Ironically, today the only subsidised rents are those paid for by housing benefit, and the government is proposing to exclude recipients of it from being subject to ‘pay to stay’!

The policy was originally introduced as a voluntary one with a household income of £60,000. Hardly any local authorities introduced it, Tory ones included, because they considered it to be an onerous administrative job, not worth the effort. So the government which talks of ‘localism’ and ‘giving power back’ to the localities, has introduced yet another central government diktat.

One of the consequences of ‘pay to stay’ is likely to be that anybody who faces increased rents is likely to take advantage of ‘right to buy’, if they can secure a mortgage. This will mean that Councils will lose even more income as the rent they take in declines. Since rent (and service charges) are the only income which Councils take in then they will have less resources for the maintenance of their shrinking housing stock.

Martin Wicks

March 11th 2016

1Either an individual or two earners.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: