Councils give those in work the edge when applying for a social home
New allocation rules favour workers
Councils are using new legal freedoms to give people with a job an advantage over the unemployed when it comes to gaining a social home.
They have been rewriting allocations rules based on guidance published by the previous government in December 2009, giving councils more flexibility over how they allocate social housing.
Significant numbers of councils have since redrafted their policies – with most giving applicants who can prove they are making a ‘contribution’ to the local area an advantage.
Manchester, Rochdale, Newcastle, Barnet, Uttlesford and Westminster councils, which manage 85,894 homes between them, are among those which plan to give people in work or training an advantage over those who are not.
Bill Shepherd, executive member for regeneration at Newcastle Council, said: ‘We hope to reward people who are economically active in the city or who are coming to the city to be economically active.’
The Chartered Institute of Housing said it had seen many councils across the country favouring applicants with local jobs in their allocations policies.
Senior policy and practice officer John Thornhill said the trend would have to continue or policies demanding housing applicants have a local connection would scupper plans for a national mobility scheme.
Barnet Council is also consulting on assessing would be tenants on their contribution to the community and whether at least one member of a household is employed.
Housing minister Grant Shapps announced on Sunday that the government intends to introduce legislation to give local authorities even more freedom over allocating their homes.
Manchester Council is at the forefront of work on allocations. Its new policy includes incentives for social tenants to return to work, and an emphasis on making a ‘local contribution’, including being in work, to gain an advantage on the waiting list.
Paul Beardmore, director of housing, said local housing authorities around the country were rewriting their policies. He added: ‘We have pushed the boundaries of what the current legislation allows councils to do.’
Other councils in the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities are considering following Manchester’s lead, including Rochdale.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (42)
Anonymous | 3-Sep-2010 0:29 am
Numbers please.
This is probably spin. As long as "needs-based" allocation remains there will be a presumption that the most least deserving will get preference.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 3-Sep-2010 7:33 am
Obviously a step in the right direction at long last. But yes, will Shapps grasp the nettle and tackle the 77 Housing Act that brought in the monster of so-called "needs" based allocation? Devolution of power to LA's to set their own allocation policies is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Unless this is repealed, expensive legal challenges could be the result...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 3-Sep-2010 8:09 am
This is laughable... council are busy redrafting something that will never be applied, or if applied only in very rare occasions.
Assuming that everything else was equal and there is only one property would get it? A homeless person with a job and the person without a job?
In 99% of case will be the unemployed.
Shapps should help councils to house people not to busy them with rewriting policies. What a waste of time and money.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 3-Sep-2010 8:34 am
This should be welcomed, it will be for the greater good of the community. Areas that are let solely upon the basis of need will quickly become sink estates, people think being unemployed is the norm, the black economy can flourish and generations of families get caught up.
Hopefully those who are unemployed will question each other why the person at nuber 23 has a car, new clothes, manages to go abroad for a holiday, and will associate that with the fact they have a job, and may aspire to also gain a job.
Clearly it will have to be policed to make sure those allocated the homes are not on large wages, but it shouldn't be set up so it's only those on minimum wage either, there needs to be some flexibility and you wouldn't want those in the houses to be barely scraping by, as that hardly sends out the message that it pays to be in a job either.
It's certainly worth investigating, maybe 20% of lets or similar?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Deonne Connelly | 3-Sep-2010 9:38 am
I completely agree with Harry and ILAG. Why should we not promote people who bring some sustainability into a community. What inncentive will people have if all we do is throw more benefits and more perks at the issue of being unemployed. I believe the issue of minimum wage is also a big problem as this will help to encourage people into work so they can afford to live. Finally some common sense and a step in the right direction.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
martin haddelsey | 3-Sep-2010 10:20 am
It's important to remember that local authorities must still give 'reasonable preference' to those people who can demonstrate a housing need (as defined by the Housing Act 1996, part VI). However, they now have the flexibility - when determining priority between applicants with a similar level of need within a given 'band' - to award extra priority to working people. This seems problematic to me because there is an inbuilt assumption that the person who is not working has made a conscious decision not to do so, when it may well be that work is simply not available. The 'mixed communities' mantra must not become a front for punishing the poor.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 3-Sep-2010 10:44 am
There is a fundemental point being missed here. The unemployed will still be housed somewhere (or are they to be gleefully made to live on the streets?) This will mean that if not housed socially they will be housed in the more expensive private market. As they are 100% benefit dependent then this will cost all of us more. Alternatively - the 'Hooverville' solution would cost even more through social impact and the establishment of longer term dependency, health, and welfare costs.
However the facts are wiggled, providing more affordable housing is the only viable and affordable solution.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Only One | 3-Sep-2010 10:46 am
Mixed, sustainable, and cohesive communities - where does it say that housing need is based on income (or lack of it)? Flexible allocations can only be a good thing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 3-Sep-2010 11:39 am
The best way to encourage people in employment who are homeless is to set up some social schemes for them to buy or rent buy, even if their income is limited.
The existence of such schemes would push many unemployed - probably the greatest majority of them) into findin work, knowing that even with a low salary they can still have a home.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 3-Sep-2010 12:04 pm
Mixed communities are a great idea but its a tad patronising to assume people will only want jobs in order to keep up with the Joneses. What's more, a critical mass of working residents would be needed in the worse unemployment black spots but where is the guarantee that void properties will crop up where the most "inspiration" is needed?
Is this move really a part of a coordinated approach to regeneration or merely a facet of a political return to ideas of the "deserving poor"?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment