{"id":704,"date":"2010-12-05T15:57:12","date_gmt":"2010-12-05T14:57:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/?p=704"},"modified":"2010-12-05T15:57:12","modified_gmt":"2010-12-05T14:57:12","slug":"social-housing-reform-consultation-details","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/2010\/12\/social-housing-reform-consultation-details\/","title":{"rendered":"Social Housing reform consultation details"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"title<\/a>The DCLG consultation [link to PDF<\/a>] entitled ‘A Fairer future for Social Housing’ is due for responses by 17 January 2010 and the proposals are to be included in the Localism Bill for February. The forum for members’ to discuss the proposals is here<\/a>. David Watkinson’s summary of the proposals follows.<\/p>\n

This consultation paper can easily be obtained from the DCLG website.\u00a0It is 58 pages.\u00a0The proposals are contained between pages 19-50.\u00a0It is intended that they will become part of the Localism Bill and be in force by April 2012 (para 9.6)<\/p>\n

What follows is intended as an introduction rather than a substitute for reading the paper<\/p>\n

First, the good news is:
\n(1) that these proposals do not change the security of tenure or other rights of existing <\/em> secure tenants of local authorities or assured tenancies of housing associations (para 2.14)<\/p>\n

(2) it is the Government\u2019s preference that the current reasonable preference categories for allocation in s.167 Housing Act 1996 remain (4.15) although whether they should be altered\u00a0is a consultation question\u00a0– as is a question whether there should be additional categories.<\/p>\n

(3) the priority need criteria and the criteria for a duty to secure accommodation for the homeless remain (6.10).<\/p>\n

The paper contains 3 big ideas (and some others)<\/p>\n

1. security of tenure<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cPrivate registered providers\u201c (housing associations) to have the power \u00a0to let Affordable Rent fixed term tenancies (of not less than 2 years) \u2013 the rent being higher than \u201csocial rent\u201d but 80% of local market rents (the affordable rent part to be available by April 2011- I think- but this is not entirely clear (paras 2.9 to 2.13)<\/p>\n

Local authorities to have the power to\u00a0let to new tenants a \u201clocal authority flexible tenancy\u201d which would be for a minimum term of 2 years, with equivalent rights to an introductory tenancy. It seems to be the plan that before the end of the fixed term there would be an assessment of options (stay, move to another social tenancy, move to private sector) in accordance with the local authority\u2019s strategic tenancy policy (itself another proposal)\u00a0taking into account tenants’ level of need, work incentives and local pressures for social housing. The tenant would have a right of internal review if the decision was not to renew the tenancy. Any possession proceedings could be defended on basis of error of law or material error of fact (and now proportionality after Pinnock?) – (paras 2.23, 2.30-32)<\/p>\n

Unless the decision not to renew was because of the tenant\u2019s behaviour, a tenant who became homeless as a result would be considered Not <\/em>intentionally homeless (para 2.54) (and so presumably could apply for accommodation)<\/p>\n

2. allocation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Local authorities to \u00a0have the power to end \u201copen waiting lists\u201c, ie<\/em> subject to the reasonable preference criteria, the list could be restricted to those in housing need, examples mentioned are residency, behaviour, financial criteria etc. (para 4.9\/4.10)<\/p>\n

Those tenants seeking transfers to be taken out of the allocation framework \u2013 I think that means that the reasonable preference\u00a0criteria would not apply \u2013 the aim being to make transfer easier and free up under-occupied property (paras 4.19-4.22).<\/p>\n

3. homelessness<\/strong><\/p>\n

Local authorities to have the discretion to discharge the full duty by an offer of accommodation in the private sector \u2013 if their needs could be met that way, depending on the homeless person\u2019s circumstances, availability of accommodation and pressure on social housing.The offer would have to met the suitability criteria. It would be for a minimum of 12 months. The homeless person would have no right to refuse (paras 6.11.-6.16)<\/p>\n

The duty would revive if the applicant became homeless again within a period of two<\/em> years through no fault of his\/her own (para 6.17).<\/p>\n

There is much else.<\/p>\n

Discouraging empty properties and encouraging mutual exchange (Sections 3 and 4)<\/p>\n

Proposals for addressing overcrowding are made and sought (Section 7)<\/p>\n

The regulator (the HCA replacing the TSA) is to be directed by the SoS to require landlords to enable ‘tenant panels’ \u201cto hold landlords to account\u201d (para 8.9)<\/p>\n

Current financing system is to be re-formed (Section 9)<\/p>\n

These sections are brief proposals, each about 0.5 pages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\"title<\/a>The DCLG consultation [link to PDF<\/a>] entitled ‘A Fairer future for Social Housing’ is due for responses by 17 January 2010 and the proposals are to be included in the Localism Bill for February. The forum for members’ to discuss the proposals is here<\/a>. David Watkinson’s summary of the proposals follows.<\/p>\n

This consultation paper can easily be obtained from the DCLG website.\u00a0It is 58 pages.\u00a0The proposals are contained between pages 19-50.\u00a0It is intended that they will become part of [... read more]<\/a>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/704"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=704"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/704\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":708,"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/704\/revisions\/708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.hlpa.org.uk\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}