A different path
Solicitor and blogger Giles Peaker gives his perspective on the homelessness provisions in the Bill and how Wales will differ from England and Scotland when they come into effect
While the homelessness proposals in the Housing (Wales) Bill broadly mirror the familiar Part VII Housing Act 1996, there are significant changes in emphasis and operation.
Prevention
There is an increased emphasis on prevention of homelessness The period in which someone is formally threatened with homelessness is extended from 28 days to 56 days before potential loss of housing. At 56 days (about the point a possession claim is issued in the accelerated possession procedure) the duty to assess a homeless application begins. At the same time, regardless of the reason for homelessness, a duty to ‘help secure accommodation’ begins. This is not a duty to house, but to prevent homelessness.
Once a decision has been reached, then there is at least an eight-week period of ‘help to secure accommodation’, whether or not the person is eligible for the full duty to secure accommodation. So there is an eight-week interlude where alternatives to the council securing accommodation can be explored, although temporary accommodate should still be provided for those owed the full duty.
Ending the duty
There is a big difference to the current Housing Act 1996/Localism Act provisions, which might be regarded as worse both for the homeless and for the councils.
A full homeless duty can be ended by a six-month private sector tenancy, with no continuing duty.
While the current provision in England is for a minimum of a 12-month PRS tenancy with a continuing duty for two years (so a person made homeless again from the PRS tenancy does not need to undergo a fresh decision), the Welsh provision means a short fixed term and the need for a further resource-consuming assessment. A revolving door of homeless/PRS tenancy/homeless is a concern.
Intentional homelessness
Unlike Scotland, Wales does not propose to end intentional homelessness. But intentionality is to be made less of a catchall. Intentionality will not prevent a duty to secure accommodation for those who are pregnant, have a dependant child or are aged 16-17.
Additionally the Welsh Government will set out categories of person for whom councils will have to decide (and publish) whether or not they will have regard to intentionality. If the council doesn’t publish such a list, they will not be able take intentionality into consideration for those categories. This is a means of making councils publicly decide what they want to do about intentionality.
Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner at Anthony Gold and blogger at nearlylegal.co.uk