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

1. Insert your logo here Securing resettlement for single homeless people in London’s private rented sector Adam Stephenson (2011)

2. Contents • Introduction • Methodology • Findings • Conclusions

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. Changes to LHA • Summary of measures affecting single homeless:

10. 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

11. Findings • Organisation, sector, scheme & location

12. Findings • Type of scheme

13. Findings • Services for clients

14. Findings • Services for landlords

15. Findings • Access to scheme

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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