Red Brick

By Monimbo
Back in March, Red Brick had a good moan about the government’s draft allocations guidance, which was intended to help councils get to grips with the changes brought in by the Localism Act.  The government clearly decided afterwards that consulting about allocations policy was a mistake, since not only did it take little notice of criticisms but the final guidance issued last week has left out almost all the advice to councils to consult stakeholders and residents about any changes they plan to make in their local schemes.
Given the controversy that often surrounds issues about who gets houses and why, this seems extraordinary, and I imagine most councils will still consult widely.  Of course, the government might be tipping a wink to authorities that want to have much more restrictive allocations schemes that they can also go ahead without paying much attention to any criticisms.
One authority that is planning such a restrictive scheme is Red Brick’s old favourite Hammersmith and Fulham, though to be scrupulously fair (as always) we should point out that their proposals are up for consultation. Like the government, H&F are making great play of how in future they will be much more generous to ex-service personnel, and indeed this is one of the few aspects of the final DCLG guidance which is actually longer than the draft version.  But as the DCLG’s summary of responses shows, a lot of authorities already give extra priority to former armed forces people and in fact the last government issued specific guidance on doing so in April 2009.  One suspects this is all about being holier than thou and is very little about any practical improvement in the chances of ex-service personnel getting social housing.
It is also about hiding the nasty side of the new changes.  Despite criticisms, for example by Garden Court Chambers, there is no extra advice for councils about how to exercise their new powers to decide for themselves who can apply for housing in the first place.  So we find that in Hammersmith and Fulham’s press release welcoming the guidance, two-thirds is about the armed forces issue and only at the bottom is there a reminder that they plan to exclude from their waiting list applicants who earn more than £40,200.
Last week’s guidance says no more about this issue than did the draft. In fact it says less, as the reminder to follow equal opportunities policies has been taken out.  Given the significance of new powers such as this and the future ability of authorities (H&F take another bow) to issue only fixed-term tenancies, the limited coverage of them is staggering.  The same goes for the recommended priority for ‘hard working’ households or people who are ‘contributing’ to their community, where nothing has been added to say how these might be defined. One suspects that the minister was happy to say as little as possible and civil servants were happy not to set themselves any traps.  The Nearly Legal blog, which looks at various snags and wrinkles in the latest document, says that authorities would do well to ‘tread carefully’ on these issues and I’m sure that’s correct.
In fact the main difference between the final guidance and the draft is that it is now down to 46 pages rather than 64.  However, Mr Shapps might not like to be reminded that the equivalent publication from his predecessor, John Healey, which is still available on the DCLG website as ‘new guidance’, came in at only 30 pages, despite having a whole section on consulting people about allocations schemes locally.  One important reason for this is that John Healey’s document said almost nothing about immigration, whereas Grant Shapps devotes 17 pages to the issue.  Ironically, he could have saved most of this space, since all the detail (and much more) is already available from a well-used website which his department helped establish.
P.S. A wonderful typo in the ministerial Foreword has Mr Shapps promising to lever in less than £20 of new housing investment.  Even Red Brick didn’t think things were that bad.
In Shapps own words…….

That is why we have taken decisive steps to tackle this problem, including an affordable homes programme set to exceed expectations and deliver up to 170,000 new homes and lever in £19.5 of new investment…

By Pete Challis
It may not be the main topic of conversation at ‘country suppers’ but the Prime Minister displays appalling ignorance of the way housing benefit works.  Here are two examples – but readers may have others.
People working
Cameron appears not to know that one in six people claiming Housing Benefit has got a job and that the fastest growth in HB spending has been amongst working people who can’t afford their housing costs.  He seems to have been afflicted by the same memory loss that Iain Duncan Smith frequently displays.  Or perhaps he’s learning to ignore facts altogether, like Grant Shapps – see Twitter hashtag #shappstistics
The other day Cameron contrasted people in and out of work with young people ‘living at home’ and young people getting ‘housing benefit’.
We are sending out strange signals on working, housing and families. Take two young people: one who has worked hard, got themselves a reasonable job and is living at home thinking, “Can I afford to buy or rent a flat?” whereas another has got himself on to Jobseeker’s Allowance and then gets housing benefit.
Since Conservative Minister Peter Lilley changed the rules in 1996, young people under 25 have only been eligible for the ‘shared accommodation rate’ of housing benefit. It is not £90/week as Cameron claims. The rate ranges from £45/week in Sunderland to £123.50/week in Central London. There are only 3 of the 152 Broad Rental Market Areas (the areas used by Rent Officers to determine the maximum that will be paid) where it is more than £90/week, and in 116 it is less than £70/week. The average is £65.30/week. The Government extended this to single people under 35, in January.
The full list can be found here http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/RentOfficers/LHARates/lhaJuly2012.html
Non dependant deductions
Cameron’s wide ranging ‘Welfare’ speech exposed contradictions between his rhetoric and Government policy on Non Dependant Deductions (NDDs).
“If a family living on benefits wants their adult child to stay living at home they are actually penalised – as soon as that child does the right thing and goes out to work. You get what’s called a non-dependent deduction, removing up to £74 off your housing benefit each week.  I had a heartrending letter from a lady in my constituency a few weeks ago who said that when her son leaves college next month, her housing benefit will drop significantly, meaning her family may have to split up.  This doesn’t seem right”
 David Cameron 26 June 2012
What he failed to mention was that his Government has been making things far worse.  In the 2010 Budget George Osborne not only ended the freeze on NDDs that had been in place since 2001 but increased them faster than inflation in order to return them to 2001 levels in real terms – as the Impact Assessment from DWP makes crystal clear:
12. The decision to uprate the non-dependant deduction rates in three stages to what they would have been had they been fully uprated since 2001 in line with growth in eligible rents and Council Tax was announced in the June 2010 Budget as part of a package of measures designed to bring Government expenditure under control and reduce the fiscal deficit. Uprating the non-dependant deduction rates is a reverse of the policy since 2001-02 to freeze the rates and is intended to provide a fairer deal for taxpayers and provide an expectation that adults make a reasonable contribution towards their housing costs.
Source: Equality Impact Assessment: Income related benefits: change to the on dependant deduction rates: Feb 2011
June 2010 Table 2.1. Budget Policy Decisions
Deductions for non-dependants: reverse previous freezes on uprating and maintaining link with prices from 2011-12.  £ million.
2010-11    0            2011-12    +125           2012-13    +320         2014-15    +340

The Government’s plans to remove the homelessness safety net are proceeding apace.  There is only a month left to respond to the consultation about the suitability of accommodation when local authorities discharge their main homelessness duty by securing private rented accommodation for a homeless household.
By definition under the Act, households to whom local authorities owe a ‘main homelessness duty’ are not intentionally homeless and fall within a priority group, mainly households with children or those who are vulnerable due to old age, disability or other reason.  Despite a backdrop of much tighter gatekeeping and an increasing refusal rate, after many years of declining numbers homelessness has started rising steeply again, leading for example to the greater use of bed and breakfast hotels.

By Pete Challis
Continuing our Orwellian theme: despite Government claims to the contrary, rents are rising and so is housing benefit.
Recent data, published by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Valuation Office Agency show that rents are increasing and housing benefit expenditure continues to rise, calling into question the claim made by David Cameron.

By Pete Challis
According to Wikipedia, the first meaning of the adjective Orwellian is that it ‘describes official deception’.
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four the three slogans of ‘The Inner Party’ are “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”.
In true Orwellian style, Grant Shapps has now added “UNAFFORDABLE IS AFFORDABLE”.

Today’s final report from the Institute for Public Policy Research’s comprehensive review of housing has a huge array of good ideas for new investment, home ownership, and private renting.  It bravely attempts to take an overview of the whole housing system and the long term policies that might improve access and affordability for everyone.  Inevitably there are questions about funding and practicability, and occasionally principle, with regard to many of the proposals, but that is only to be expected in this type of forward-looking report.  In my view it goes awry on two topics: an extreme version of localisation of all housing expenditure and an approach to social housing that buys into the Tory view of social housing and social tenants.

The Government’s plan to introduce a caravan tax on static as well as mobile caravans, reduced by U-turn from 20% to 5% VAT, brought much needed attention to the mobile homes industry, which has been quietly growing over the last few years.
The Communities and Local Government Select Committee has been holding an inquiry into ‘park homes’ and their report is published this morning.  It shows an industry urgently in need of reform and regulation to protect residents from malpractice.

Jon Cruddas’ first interview since joining the Shadow Cabinet to coordinate the Policy Review was encouraging.  In particular I like the fact that he seems to be able to look beyond the sterile argument about whether Labour should appeal to middle England or its traditional support.  He knows Labour needs to appeal to both and that low turnout amongst Labour voters is just as damaging as failing to attract floaters.  He is portrayed as a man of the left but his flirtation with Blue Labour and his support for David Miliband as Leader show a much more complex political position.  He has a sensible critique of the Labour Government, working on the inside for Tony Blair at Downing Street before becoming alienated from the ‘policies and language’ in the later years.

Long-suffering readers of Red Brick are used to being recommended long and, it has to be said, occasionally boring texts on housing.  We like to keep you up to date with the latest research and even try to read it ourselves to give you a flavour of what it concludes.
But if you could only read one thing, once again the most authoritative and useful document of the year is the mid-year Briefing published to complement the Annual UK Housing Review.  The Briefing is only some 20 pages long but it races round the whole housing racecourse commenting on all the major trends and giving the latest housing facts.  Written by Hal Pawson and Steve Wilcox, published by Chartered Institute of Housing and the Orbit Group, it starts with wider economic prospects, summarises changes in the housing market, and examines latest trends in housebuilding, affordability, welfare reforms, and homelessness.  It also takes a look at trends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and points the way to more detailed sources if they are needed.