Securing resettlement for single homeless people in London’s private rented sector

European Research ConferenceAccess to Housing for Homeless People in Europe

York, 21st September 2012

Securing resettlement for single homeless people in

London’s private rented sector

Adam Stephenson (2011)

Insert your logo here



Contents Introduction Methodology Findings Conclusions



Introduction Carried out in Summer of 2011 Aimed to explore the challenges facing

PRS access schemes in London; and how schemes adapted to these challenges

Context: Government policy Rising demand and rising rents Changes to Local Housing Allowance



Government policy Successive governments have promoted PRS

as source of accommodation for single homeless people in UK S.73 of 1988 Housing Act funded voluntary sector to

develop access and resettlement services e.g. landlord registers and hostel based advisors

New Labour promoted PRS access as source of accommodation for:

Hostel move-on Single homeless with low or no support needs Approx 30 schemes in London in 2007



Government policy Coalition government (CLG, 2010a:40)

“We are keen to support the voluntary sector and local authorities to help single homeless people access accommodation in the private rented sector”

Crisis PRS Access Development Programme Committed £10million over 3years Created12 new schemes in London



Rising demand Demand is increasing across all tenures Between 2008 and 2033 (CLG, 2010b):

No. of households to increase by 5.8million (27%) 33% of increase in London and South East One person households to increase by 159,000 annually

Demand in PRS Between 1939 and 1991, PRS shrank from over 50% to 9% Over last 20 years, trend has reversed:

Increased from 9% to 12% No. of households increased from 1.7m to 2.6m (52%)

(DCLG live table 801)



Changes to LHA Housing Benefit introduced in 1988. In 2000, the House of Commons Committee on

Social Security reported: “It is now by far the most important financial instrument of

Government housing policy… …HB substantially exceeds all other forms of housing grants, subsidies and tax reliefs”

LHA introduced in 2008 to encourage tenants to ‘shop around’; therefore, improving standards in PRS



Changes to LHA Between 1999/10 and 2009/10, HB bill increased

from £11billion to £20billion Estimated to rise to £25billion by 2015/16 (DWP, 2011)

Distribution disproportionally concentrated in London London accounts for 26% of spend, but only 17% of

claimants (Hamnett, 2011) Many of changes specifically focused on

London 2 claimants each receiving £147,000/year



Changes to LHA Summary of measures affecting single homeless:

Change Effective date

Claimants affected

Absolute caps by property size

Apr 11 In high cost arease.g. Inner London

Removal of £15 excess Apr 11 Rent below median

Setting max. LHA at 30th percentile

Oct 11 Rent above 30th percentile

Extending SAR to 35 Jan 12 New & existing claimants over 35

Linking LHA to CPI Apr 13 All claimants

10% reduction for those claiming JSA for 12m

Apr 13 Long term unemployed



Methodology Consisted of 2 components:

questionnaire quantitative data about schemes

in-depth semi-structured interviews qualitative data about perspective of practitioners

Participation 6 practitioners from 4 organisations



Findings Organisation, sector, scheme & location

Organisation Scheme Sector Funding of scheme

Location

A 1 Local Authority

External Inner London

B 2 Charity External Inner London

C 3 Charity External Outer London

D 4 Social Enterprise

Self funding Inner London

5 Charity External



Findings Type of scheme

Scheme Type Other

1 Incentive £700 to £1000; includes agent’s fees; non-repayable

2 Rent in advance Repayable. Client to apply for Crisis Loan & sign repayment plan

3 Tenancy finder & rent guarantee insurance

£300 premium, which is repayable. Covers rent loss & legal expenses

4 PRS leasing Full management: guaranteed rent, no voids & maintenance. Landlord is charged % of rent

5 Incentive Non-repayable



Findings Services for clients

Scheme Service

1 Self-help; landlord matching; relocation; long-term tenancy; benefit applications; furniture; tenancy supports

2 Self-help; landlord matching; benefit applications; furniture; tenancy support

3 Landlord matching; relocation; long-term tenancy; benefit applications; drop-in support; job club

4 Landlord matching; benefit applications; ; long-term tenancy; tenancy supports for 6m

5 Landlord matching; ; benefit applications; relocation grant



Findings Services for landlords

Scheme Additional services for landlords

1 Legal advice (from team); references; landlord accreditation; inventory; direct payments (application if outside borough)

2 References; direct payment applications

3 HB fast track (with neighbouring borough); referencing (including Credit); mediation; inventory; direct payment applications

4 Full management service provided

5 No additional services



Findings Access to schemeScheme Open Referral Move-

onAdditional

1 X Highly formalised ‘pathway’; must have local connection; target driven

2 X Formalised from organisation’s own hostel

3 X X Accept referrals from own ‘outreach team’ & hostel; neighbouring hostel (informal)

4 X X Move-on form own hostels; Local Authorities (Commissioned)

5 X X Move-on form own hostels; Local Authorities (Commissioned)



Findings Professional perspectives – landlords Number of willing landlords declining Existing landlords are not increasing supply – but new

landlords are Landlords are requesting larger incentives Schemes adapt by:

Increased focus on maintaining existing relationships Introducing stricter referral criteria Better ‘marketing’ – press releases & landlord forums Increasing ‘incentives’ Using own funds rather than Crisis Loans for rent in advance



Findings Professional perspectives – quality Standard of accommodation reducing

e.g. ‘hard to let’; ‘damp’ & ‘dinghy’ shared converted into self contained unfurnished

Poor quality not thought to have major impact on ‘resettlement’

Schemes adapt by: greater filtering – increasing costs managing expectations – PRS not council ‘coercion’ – threat of eviction



Findings Professional perspectives – location Difficult to procure accommodation in Inner London

trend established with LHA

Often unable to provide move-on accommodation locally including in neighbouring boroughs

Number of affordable boroughs decreasing Some schemes routinely procure accommodation

outside on London All aware of clients refusing accommodation due to

locations including some areas deemed to be too posh



Findings Professional perspectives – location Half responded that locality had an effect on ‘resettlement’

distance between accommodation and ‘home’ area difficulty of arranging ‘support’ in other boroughs

Location not thought to have major impact on employment, education or training

clients do move after finding work due to travel times and costs

Schemes overcoming this by: greater filtering – increasing costs managing expectations – PRS not council ‘coercion’ – threat of eviction



Findings Professional perspectives – location Schemes adapt by:

procuring in dispersed localities - increasing costs focusing on areas where they developed knowledge of local

market refusing accommodation in areas where clients have refused managing expectations ‘coercion’ – threat of eviction; one offer policy greater dispersion has greater impact on Scheme 4

full management, including maintenance and support costs passed to landlords making Scheme less competitative



Findings Professional perspectives – single homeless

people Most responded that resettlement in PRS had increased Resettlement in PRS mostly positive for single homeless

people PRS tenancies can encourage greater independence

than more secure social tenancies



Findings Professional perspectives – single

accommodation rate Under 35s excluded – only one scheme accepted under

25s prior to changes SAR substantially below market rents confusion over how LAs will interpret exemptions

Adaptations being considered: LA – converting decommissioned hostels to HMOs Exploring procurement of HMOs, but

poor response from licensed HMO landlords creation of HMOs economically unviable concerns regarding support arrangements



Conclusions Schemes offer a variety of incentives to procure

housing, but additional services are similar ‘self help’ limited – greater choice = greater

satisfaction (Lipton, 2000) location/identity essential to resettlement (Leal, 2005)

Schemes chasing smaller pool of properties driving ‘incentive inflation’

Linear model dominant for those with low support needs



Conclusions Procurement becoming more difficult, but

schemes are adapting dispersed, poorer quality - at greater expense sustainable?

pressure to ‘move-on’ ‘payments by results’

forging successful relationships with participating landlord restricting access to only those with low or no support

needs

Potential of ‘housing first’ not being realised



References CLG (2010a) Local decisions: a fairer future for social

housing, London, DCLG CLG (2010b) Housing and Planning Statistics 2012,

London, DCLG Hamnett (2011) Moving the poor out of central London,

Environment and Planning, 42, 2809-2819 Leal, M (2005) Resettling Homeless People: Theory and

Practice, Dorset, Russell House Lipton (2000) in Johnsen & Teixeira (2010) Staircases,

Elevators and Cycles of Change, London, Crisis

Documents

Securing resettlement for single homeless people in London’s private rented sector