Homelessness

[Gerry Glyde]

According to a Guardian survey published today Brent Council in London has rented various private properties in Hastings to temporarily house it's homeless families as it is cheaper to do so. It seems they do not think about the schooling of any children or what the job or other prospects may be available for the people. Hastings was featured as a deprived area in election programmes in 2010

[Richard]

Probably Hastings was a magnet for layabouts and scroungers going back to the times when railways could first bring them in.
In the more recent past It was often a London Borough dumping ground.
Homeless families are very lucky to be in Hastings if they can get into good private accomodation.
Next we'll hear of people setting up businesses providing care homes and adoption centres in collusion with various London Boroughs, infact it's probably been going on for donkey's years.
I try to be positive about it because I ask myself what makes a good person or good families?
It's not intelligence at all in my opinion, I think it is down to their attitude and education and the fortune of circumstance.

[Gerry Glyde]

My post was not about "layabouts" and "scroungers"; it was intended to highlight the ludicrousness of government policy that leads to Councils shunting families around the country. Having worked in local authority housing dealing with private tenants and homeless families for the last 12 years; the majority are not feckless. Private tenancies without security of tenure are, in most cases not suitable for families who want to put down roots so they can call a place their home and know that they will be able to remain in the long term. Often a landlord will not allow a place to be decorated and most only offer 6 or 12 month contracts that may or may not be renewed. The government is now recommending that councils sell more of their stock to tenants - making the homeless situation worse.

In Walthamstow a working mother on a minmum wage who is homeless was offered a private tenancy in Erith; the Council told her that it was a reasonable offer and that it was possible for her to travel (3 changes twice a day) each day - or change her job.

This is not sensible. In Hastings, if London Councils are taking accommodation it can only have an adverse effect on the existing housing need in the borough. It will in some cases also lead to an increase in the reported rate of unemployment for those people who are unable to keep any job they may have in London.

[Richard]

I know what you are saying Gerry in that you seem to be upset that the Council are trying to shift the emphasis to private landlords rather than providing more Council accomodation and that this is a Policy that is changing recently?
Council accomodation comes at a price involving the tenants who may have rented for years and then are allowed to buy at a discount after Thatcher allowed this procedure as we all now.
Also private leaseholders are then allowed to buy former Council accomodation from the first wave of former tenants and also the landlords are allowed in to do what they will on the same principle.
Regardless of which category they belong to all the private leaseholders are being used to subsidise Council accomodation for the later wave of "renters" who benefit from the aforementioned.
I don't like it much but it seems logical and a crafty way to pass on the substantial building repair costs and service charges to a different sector.
Is that really so bad after all?

as for Councils shunting people to different locations I don't see your point because we all have to move and take our families with our work when a company dicates.
But I do think it is wrong to allow Councils to operate a policy that is damaging to normal family life.

[Gerry Glyde]

The point that I was making is that it is merely shifting homelessness from town to town. It will decrease the supply of accommodation for local population. As for subsidies; through the housing benefit system tenants do not receive any advantage as the money is merely going from the tax payers direct to private landlords who benefit from the lack of afforable permanent housing.

Your point of a person having to move if the company requires again misses the point; in that case a person has a choice that they may make. If they do not wish to move they can accept a redundancy payment. In cases of homelessness there is no choice; you move or you get nothing. If a person who is employed but homeless may end up losing a job because they accept temporary accommodation.

[Richard]

Hello Gerry,
I agree that people who are housed by London Boroughs are now liable to be shifted to cheaper regions and this may put pressure on available accomodation for the local population.
It's probably being done by some sort of agreement with, for example, Hastings Borough Council or it's Authority.

I think Councils do not care that Private landlords are gaining from the Taxpayer if it solves their problem of high property values in London which would cost them even more.
Additionally, If it is cheaper to allow this to happen rather than build new Council housing then it is logical whether we like it or not.

I don't agree at all about you saying a person who is in work which is being relocated can get redundancy if they turn down the opportunity.

Your point about the employed homeless being made to lose a job if they accept accomodation outside their working location is one which I hope the Council would consider carefully in order not to cause even more social upheaval.

[Richard]

Hi again,

Just thought it may be useful, before going much further, to cover some of the issues around the general term "Homelessness".
Any of these issues may applied to people featuring on the Council list as people housed temporarily but deemed to be housed inadequately and hence classed as Homeless.
The issues are classified, categorised and analysed for statistical research

1. People (+/- families) being given Notice by current Landlords and applying to the Council for more permanent accomodation to allow them some dignity, stability, continuity, privacy, and security for children, if present.

2. One-parent Families where there is little or no income to pay rent or buy food.

3. People living in very poor housing that may have limited space for a growing family.

4. People with medical health issues preventing them from working or paying rent, buying food etcetera.

5. People who are generally in good health but earning too little to pay rent or buy adequate food.

6. People just too old to work and provide for themselves.

7 People experiencing family breakdown_ _ _

8. People in debt_ _ _

9) People living in bad conditions.


It appears that we now also need to classify the degree of 'Child Poverty' as a meaningful statistic.

Gerry, you seem to be demanding long-term accomodation, which only the Council can provide, as Landlords are able to evict families on short-term contracts
please see this reference:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advic ... ess_people


.

[Gerry Glyde]

I regret to continue this debate but I have spent the last 12 years working for a local council, but specifcally dealing with private sector tenancy disputes including illegal eviction, harassment, disrepair etc.and as appeal review officer for applicants appeals against homeless officers' decisions. I have worked closely with Shelter. It is not that I am demanding long term accommodation but that if people are to be able to call a place their home as opposed to somewhere that they live they need to be able to put down roots, decorate, change things around and know that they can be there long term. It is not impossible for private landords to offer long term tenancies but they will not usually do so Your nine conditions may only apply if the applicants can satisfy the 5 tests for a person who is literally homeless or is threatend with homelessness; if not then the council is not required to provide accommodation. Shelter and Councils are often in conflict on the meaning and interpretation of these issues which is why there will be more challeges throuh the courts.

[Richard]

Gerry I think it is important to discuss such issues or I would not bother either.

The world is ruled by Market Forces - I work, I pay my rent.
I have to live where I can afford it and if that involves a private landlord and all the uncertainty that entails then I cannot expect to be able to complain about it either.
If it means I have to live in an area that I can afford when I would prefer a better location/bigger property then that is tough for me too.
I know you would say that at least I have choice but it may only be between the lesser of two evils.
Many landlords are absolutely ruthless, I know, they are receiving good money from the local Council and are running a racket (IMO) as they will have "buy-to-let" mortgage terms that are very favourable to their investment.
I would have thought eviction would only occur when property values are rising so quickly that the returns on what the Council are prepared to pay to the Landlords is less attractive than selling up on the open market.
Many of these properties are in a dreadful run-down condition and will not be able to attract private tenants anyway.

I appreciate that Councils are looking for ways to save money regardless of the effect on vulnerable folk and that they interpret the law in ways that can seem unfair in the extreme.

I also realize that putting homeless families in locations that have little work anyway is exacerbating the problem into a downward spiral.
I think the only solution to the problem you have raised about these "landlords from hell" is to build more Council Housing - for some reason this is not seen as financially viable and all the Councils are currently doing is to improve their current housing stocks.

[roy]

The fact is we need council house building and on a massive scale,the population is rising faster than it ever has due to mass immigration and people living longer.
At the end of the day supply and demand will dictate what the lanlord can charge and demand is greater than supply.



Enjoy life.you never know when it will end.