This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/may/29/homelessness-bed-and-breakfast-law-change-hammersmith-and-fulham

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Homelessness: BnB hoteliers doing very nicely, thank you Homelessness: BnB hoteliers doing very nicely, thank you
(4 months later)
Somewhere in West London the owners of a hotel are doing very well out of the housing crisis. This unnamed hotel charges the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham £234,000 a year to put up homeless families and provide them with bed and breakfast.Somewhere in West London the owners of a hotel are doing very well out of the housing crisis. This unnamed hotel charges the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham £234,000 a year to put up homeless families and provide them with bed and breakfast.
It is not the only one: four more hotels each make between £49,000 and £60,000 from the council a year. The five hotels present average weekly bills to the taxpayer of between £964 and £4,500. For these hotels (and they are just the five used most regularly by the council) business is only going to get better.It is not the only one: four more hotels each make between £49,000 and £60,000 from the council a year. The five hotels present average weekly bills to the taxpayer of between £964 and £4,500. For these hotels (and they are just the five used most regularly by the council) business is only going to get better.
The cause of this apparent mini-boom for BnB hoteliers is homelessness, specifically the huge rise in the number of homeless families placed in temporary BnB accommodation.The cause of this apparent mini-boom for BnB hoteliers is homelessness, specifically the huge rise in the number of homeless families placed in temporary BnB accommodation.
Five years ago, according to the council, no families were placed in hotels. In the calendar year 2010, during which the Coalition government took power, there were just 15. In 2012, as austerity and welfare cuts took hold, there were 365 families (of which 41 had been in BnB accommodation - unlawfully - for longer than six weeks) at a cost to the council of £839,000.Five years ago, according to the council, no families were placed in hotels. In the calendar year 2010, during which the Coalition government took power, there were just 15. In 2012, as austerity and welfare cuts took hold, there were 365 families (of which 41 had been in BnB accommodation - unlawfully - for longer than six weeks) at a cost to the council of £839,000.
That cost of putting families in BnB, obtained from the council by Hammersmith and Fulham Labour MP Andy Slaughter, is alarming but only half the picture, because the figure is net of housing benefit costs refunded to the council by the Department for Work and Pensions.That cost of putting families in BnB, obtained from the council by Hammersmith and Fulham Labour MP Andy Slaughter, is alarming but only half the picture, because the figure is net of housing benefit costs refunded to the council by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Total gross expenditure to the tax payer on providing bed and breakfast accommodation for housing homeless families in the borough in 2012-13 was actually £1.974m, according to an investigation carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and reported in the Guardian. In 2013-14 this figure is projected to rise to £3.65m.Total gross expenditure to the tax payer on providing bed and breakfast accommodation for housing homeless families in the borough in 2012-13 was actually £1.974m, according to an investigation carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and reported in the Guardian. In 2013-14 this figure is projected to rise to £3.65m.
Bed and breakfast, however, is only a subset of temporary accommodation (TA) costs overall, and the overall figure is even more alarming. In Conservative-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham TA spending has soared from just under £8m in 2009-10 to £11.2m in 2012-13, and an expected £15.1m this year.Bed and breakfast, however, is only a subset of temporary accommodation (TA) costs overall, and the overall figure is even more alarming. In Conservative-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham TA spending has soared from just under £8m in 2009-10 to £11.2m in 2012-13, and an expected £15.1m this year.
Why such a BnB boom? The council blames the housing market: high rents and expensive property mean there is little in the way of affordable accommodation. More families are presenting as homeless, and part of the reason for this, it notes, is they can no longer afford to live locally as a result of housing benefit caps.Why such a BnB boom? The council blames the housing market: high rents and expensive property mean there is little in the way of affordable accommodation. More families are presenting as homeless, and part of the reason for this, it notes, is they can no longer afford to live locally as a result of housing benefit caps.
In this sense Hammersmith and Fulham is little different to most other London boroughs, Tory and Labour alike. All are spending more on temporary accommodation. Most accept that as welfare reforms take root (such as the bedroom tax, and household benefit cap) spending on homelessness will rise as households run up arrears and are evicted.In this sense Hammersmith and Fulham is little different to most other London boroughs, Tory and Labour alike. All are spending more on temporary accommodation. Most accept that as welfare reforms take root (such as the bedroom tax, and household benefit cap) spending on homelessness will rise as households run up arrears and are evicted.
So how to cut the bill? Hammersmith and Fulham appears to show little interest in building affordable housing for homeless families. It sees no case for choking off demand, by arguing against the draconian thrust of housing benefit caps.So how to cut the bill? Hammersmith and Fulham appears to show little interest in building affordable housing for homeless families. It sees no case for choking off demand, by arguing against the draconian thrust of housing benefit caps.
Instead, its proposed solution to the TA problem appears to be to change the law to cut the numbers of households it has to accept as homeless.Instead, its proposed solution to the TA problem appears to be to change the law to cut the numbers of households it has to accept as homeless.
First, the council wants the Housing Act 1996 amended to enable it to reject more easily the homelessness claims of younger applicants who, it says, exploit homelessness rules because they:First, the council wants the Housing Act 1996 amended to enable it to reject more easily the homelessness claims of younger applicants who, it says, exploit homelessness rules because they:
...know that if they are excluded from their accommodation by family or friends they will be rehoused by the council
...know that if they are excluded from their accommodation by family or friends they will be rehoused by the council
A spokesperson for the council said it would in some cases want to see these applicants "return home". Putting such people in temporary housing is unfair on other households, who rather than throw out family members, just get on with it, according to the council.A spokesperson for the council said it would in some cases want to see these applicants "return home". Putting such people in temporary housing is unfair on other households, who rather than throw out family members, just get on with it, according to the council.
It's not clear how many of these cases there are: in the same statement the councils says, confusingly, that these amount to both "a small number" and "one of the largest categories of homelessness acceptances."It's not clear how many of these cases there are: in the same statement the councils says, confusingly, that these amount to both "a small number" and "one of the largest categories of homelessness acceptances."
The second change it wants to see is the removal of the right of appeal of homeless applicants whose claim to be housed is rejected. Currently, an applicant has a full right of review by another officer, during which the council is obliged in practice to put them up in temporary accommodation.The second change it wants to see is the removal of the right of appeal of homeless applicants whose claim to be housed is rejected. Currently, an applicant has a full right of review by another officer, during which the council is obliged in practice to put them up in temporary accommodation.
Hammersmith and Fulham wants the law changed, so that the council's initial decision is final. If an appeal does by some chance go ahead, it wants clarification that it can refuse to put up applicants in temporary accommodation for the duration of the process.Hammersmith and Fulham wants the law changed, so that the council's initial decision is final. If an appeal does by some chance go ahead, it wants clarification that it can refuse to put up applicants in temporary accommodation for the duration of the process.
A law change would seem to be essential, as attempts by councils to rush through homelessness decisions appear to be frowned upon by the courts. Housing law blogger Nearly Legal reports a recent court ruling which sends "a clear shot across the bows" of those councils which take "instant" decisions in order to avoid paying for temporary accommodationA law change would seem to be essential, as attempts by councils to rush through homelessness decisions appear to be frowned upon by the courts. Housing law blogger Nearly Legal reports a recent court ruling which sends "a clear shot across the bows" of those councils which take "instant" decisions in order to avoid paying for temporary accommodation
Slaughter notes:Slaughter notes:
Their answer doesn't seem to be to build more affordable housing, but rather to make it more difficult for families to go down the homelessness route, so the Council doesn't have to spend any money housing them.
Their answer doesn't seem to be to build more affordable housing, but rather to make it more difficult for families to go down the homelessness route, so the Council doesn't have to spend any money housing them.
It is not clear how much money these proposed changes will save the council. The simplest way to reduce the TA bill, is to attempt to send homeless households to suitable homes in cheaper areas, which these days means outer London or beyond. Ministers are notoriously touchy about this, preferring to imagine that their policies won't actually uproot families from their communities and schools.It is not clear how much money these proposed changes will save the council. The simplest way to reduce the TA bill, is to attempt to send homeless households to suitable homes in cheaper areas, which these days means outer London or beyond. Ministers are notoriously touchy about this, preferring to imagine that their policies won't actually uproot families from their communities and schools.
Cllr Andrew Johnson, Hammersmith and Fulham's cabinet member for housing, is far less sensitive. The west London taxpayer demands that they will simply have to leave the borough, he suggests:Cllr Andrew Johnson, Hammersmith and Fulham's cabinet member for housing, is far less sensitive. The west London taxpayer demands that they will simply have to leave the borough, he suggests:
We will be seeking to reduce the burden on the public purse by placing those people who do not need to live in such expensive areas in places which are cheaper and offer better value for those hard-working people who ultimately pay the bill.
We will be seeking to reduce the burden on the public purse by placing those people who do not need to live in such expensive areas in places which are cheaper and offer better value for those hard-working people who ultimately pay the bill.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.