Housing law

Housing law

Challenges encountered in ensuring meaningful support for those in need

Homeless are people without a permanent shelter of any type, living in congested premises, temporary accommodations, and those living in unsafe premises. Homelessness has been a long-rooted problem in the United Kingdom and globally. The homeless reduction act of 2017 has imposed legal duties to the English council to prevent and relieve homelessness in the United Kingdom. The English board has ten priorities towards homelessness, which they intend to address. These priorities are;

1. Protecting the housing benefits from a reduction in the national budget share.
2. It is reforming the housing act so that it supports the transition to work that always pays.

• Ensure that meaningful homelessness prevention and assistance is provided to those in need.

1. Ensure continued support to those at risk of losing their homes due to economic changes.
2. Continue with the commitment of ending rough sleeping
3. Invest in new housing across all terms.

• Address issues of security, stability, standard, and affordability in the private sector.
• Protect the homelessness grants and supporting people’s budgets.

  Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

  GET CUSTOM PAPER

1. Also, Ensuring flexible support and retraining to help the homeless and those far from the labor market.
2. Increase the access and availability of specialist support housing projects.

Homelessness is often a problem caused by other factors in the United Kingdom. The most excluded members of society are more vulnerable. They include people with mental health problems, people with low income, drug users, and those with limited educational achievement. The issue of homelessness is usually triggered by a row of events such as family breakup, violence, or abuse. A person leaving a correctional or total center can also become lender one homeless.

Besides, there are many hitches faced by the English council in their course to reduce homelessness in the United Kingdom. One of these challenges is the high cost of eradicating homelessness. The UK government uses a considerable sum of money to support this program. It is estimated that the government uses about £400million on helping homeless people every year and £800millions on social service and benefits for these people every year. However, due to the pressing state of the economy, the poverty and unemployment levels have increased. The availability and accessibility of credit facilities have also declined in the United Kingdom. These problems have also affected the government’s ability to fund and the housing associations and to construct more homes.

The other problem is the change in government policy for housing, which includes redefining the priority needs groups. The government, therefore, adds or removes some groups from the priority list, thus making it difficult for the local council to handle the different cases. The English council is also faced with constraints of affordable houses and the high cost of properties in most rural areas. Due to the high price and inadequate funding, the council usually get a hard time financing the ever-rising cases of homelessness.

Lastly, the other challenge facing the English council is the social trends in society. These trends characterized by increased family break up, immigration, and thus leading to an increased number of people in need of homes. Besides, weakness in other supports systems. The other sectors include the health sectors, which contribute significantly to the number of people that require help.

Can local authorities refuse assistance under homeless legislation because they have other remedies for his or her protection?

                The local authority is mandated to determining the genuine cases of homelessness that need the English council interventions. The local authority can, therefore, refuse to assist a homeless person based on the circumstance by which he or she became homeless.  Section 175(1) of the homeless reduction act states that one is homeless if there is no accommodation available for him and which he has rights to occupy. Section 175(3) continues to explain that if the accommodation is not sensible for the person to carry on living, then he should not be treated as having housing. However, if a person becomes homeless intentionally, then authority has no choice but to deny assistance.  Under the homeless act section 192(1), a person becomes deliberately homeless if he takes no action in response to the circumstances to which he lost his accommodation.

 Bond V Leicester city council 2003,

In this case, the appellant was a woman with two kids aged three and four at that time. She left 28 Edmonton road, where he lived between 1995 and 1997 because it was too congested and dump. She then lived in 13 Northfield Road until 18 August 1997 but also left due to racial bother. The woman was homeless because of continued violence by the husband, Mr. Martin O’Neill, between 6 October 1997 and 20 April 1998. She later alternated between her mother’s and friends’ homes for accommodation. After approaching the council for assistance, the council rejected her application by arguing that she did not take any preventive measures like reporting to the police. It is however

Yemshaw v LB Hounslow UKSC (2011)

The appellant was Nathalie Lieven; the major bone of contention was the definition of violence. The appellant challenged against the court of appeal definition, which insisted violence is limited to physical contract. The housing act, however, provides that somebody is vagrant if there is no housing which she is entitled to occupy. The individual is also homeless if the house she currently holds is probable to cause violence. In this case, too, the appellant is a woman with two kids who left their matrimonial rented home in 2008 and therefore left with nowhere to go. When interviewed, the appellant said that the husband hates her, and she usually sees him with another woman. She also fears that if she confronts him, the husband may hit him. She also complained that her husband is inhumane and shouts at her in front of the children. The council, however, argued that she was not homeless since the spouse never really hit her or threatened to beat her. The council also noted that she left her matrimonial home not because of domestic violence, but due to her feeling that she was not loved. In this case, therefore, the term violence may be used beyond the narrower meaning to include physical, psychological, or sexual molestation.

In the case of Moran v Manchester CC (2009)

This case concerned the finding that a woman asylum somewhere to live in, which it was reasonable to remain, she loses her accommodation. The court of appeal ruled that the refuge where Ms. Moran was living was capable of being here accommodation, and therefore she could have remained in it. Women in the shelters are not classified as homeless. Section 177(1) states that it is not reasonable for a person to continue living in a property where there is a risk of violence. (Part 38) means that one can be accepted as homeless even if he or she is capable of staying in the accommodation for a while longer.

Statutory overcrowding case studies

Haruki v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea RLBC (2007)

            This case was an appeal made by Harauki against a decision by a county court. Haruki argued that it was irrational and against section 327 of the housing policy for the court to ask her and her family to continue dwelling in an accommodation that was already overcrowded. Haruki occupied a three-bedroom house leased by Kensington to her and her husband and their five children. Although the authority agreed that her accommodation was not ideal, they said that the house was not too overcrowded and thus not too difficult to access. The housing officer referred to section 177(2) of the housing act 1996. The section says; although someone’s accommodation may be overcrowded, that does not make it unreasonable to occupy if there is a shortage of houses in the area. The officer added that there were twenty-one other households on the register that was in dire need for housing than the Harouki family.

Part 7(section 177) of the homeless act 1996 says, “in determining whether it is sensible for a person to remain occupying a housing, get a reference from the general circumstance in that district.”  The code of guidance in determining whether a person is homeless says that statutory overcrowding may not be sufficient, but can contribute if there are other factors. The court of appeal found that contrary to the appellant submissions, the housing officer followed the code of guidelines as expressed by the law. Moreover, overcrowding did not prevent Harouki and her family to continue staying in that house. If the court reached the contrary conclusion, it could have been too difficult for the council to find alternative accommodation each time an applicant claim of statutory overcrowding. The court ruled that the housing officer had not acted irrationally by ordering that Harouki should continue to occupy the house until it is her turn to be rehoused. According to this case scenario, one could be right by saying that a family cannot be homeless at home.

Birmingham CC V Ali and others (2009) UKHL

In this case, Ms. Fazia Ali, who is a single parent of two kids, made an application in October 2006 under part 7 of the homeless act.  Her request was accepted that she was homeless, and she was therefore offered a house under section 193 of the law. An offer was then made for Ms. Ali of a flat in Sutton Coldfield, but Ms. Ali refused. The authority wrote to her on 14 November 2006, notifying her that the council was satisfied that the accommodation she refused was suitable. The council considered it had done its duty but informed her of the review process under section 202 of the homeless act.

Ms. Ali requested a review, and the analysis was done in February 2007, and the reviewing officer agreed that a further offer is made due to an administrative error. An additional offer was established in March 2007 and a letter sent to Ms. Ali on 14 March 2007. The letter was clearly written that this was the final offer, but she refused the offer. It was accepted before the judge that the message was sent and an oral communication made. However, Ms. Ali denied having received the letter, and thus a dispute arose. On 29 March 2007, another review was done by an officer who was not involved in the previous decision as specified under section 203 of the act. Ms. Ali was given another offer at Teviot Tower under different power due to her position on the waiting list. The appeal was heard by an experienced judge MacDuff QC. After listening to Ms. Ali and thee reviewing officer, the judge concluded that the decision made by the council was right, and therefore, the court will not re-determine the issue. The judge also acknowledged the differences between the choices; that the property is not suitable, and the letter has not been received. He added that if the court determines the case, then he will undermine the whole statutory scheme.

Contested medical evidence case studies

Hall v LB Wandsworth and Carter (2004),

In this case, the complainant appealed the refusal of their application by the housing council, whereas they had housing priority need. The complainant housing need was a priority because of their mental illness. The complainants also argued that they had not been given the opportunity to make their representation about the decision. The act required that the reviewing officer to provide a notice in advance and allow illustrations by the applicants. In this case, however, the reviewing officer failed to recognize the description, and this gave rise to the legal challenge of the decision made.  The reviewing officer, therefore, could not have made any assumption of the right to make self-representation in the first decision. Judge Carnwath LJ, therefore, concluded that the reviewing officer could have treated Reg.8 (2) as applicable always, but not only he find some errors. In such a case, the reviewing officer should give a notice of what he intended to do and provide an opportunity for written or oral representations.

Bellotti v LB Wandsworth (2005)

            This was an appeal by Mr. Bellouti, whose petition in the county court was dismissed on 22 November 2004. The court ruled that he was not a person having an urgent requirement of accommodation as spelled in Sect 189 (1) of the housing act. This section says that a person of priority need is one who is susceptible due to old age, physical disability, mental handicapped, or any other particular reason. The appellant, however, insisted that he fell under the category of people with physical disability. According to the report from the hospital, the doctor agreed that Mr. Bellouti was indeed having some back problems, neck pain, and depression. Dr. Sultan, however, added that the appellant was capable of obtaining his own accommodation as his condition was not too bad.

According to the medical report, his health condition was not severe, and he was being treated. His condition did not, therefore, necessitate him to be admitted to the hospital.

Shala v Birmingham CC (2007)

The main issue, in this case, was mental health, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder as indicators of vulnerability. The critical point is the medical reports from the specialist doctors and their recommendations. In this case, the council’s decision was overturned by the court of appeal. The judge said that the council should not compare the reports of a non-specialist against that of a psychiatric specialist. Dr. Keen’s report was accepted as expert advice but should not be applied without examination, as stated in paragraph 22 of the housing act. The authority must consider whether the applicant was examined or not when making their decision. The body should also ensure that the legal needs are met but not the medical adviser’s thoughts.

Thomas v Lambeth LBC (2017)

            The appellant, in this case, suffered from depression, which included suicidal thoughts and attempts for the applicant to herm herself. The authority sought a piece of medical advice from a local hospital. After a series of examinations, the report had it that there was nothing to show that the applicant required urgent psychiatrist intervention. There was also no evidence of mental illness significant for the case. The county court judge argued that the applicant was at the safe end of the scale for mental illness and, therefore, should not be considered as vulnerable. The court of appeal judge, however, overturned the decision siting that it was irrational to argue that because there more severe case of depressions, then the appellant was no#]

t vulnerable.

The article and the cases discussed above under the contested medical evidence case studies tell us that we should be more rational in dealing with matters of health and vulnerability. Section 189 (1) of the housing act should always be consulted when trying to determine the condition of an applicant and his weakness.

Intentionality case studies

Stewart v Lambeth

This case raised the question of whether the housing authority was responsible for providing accommodation for a person who was sentenced for five years. The administration argued that the claimant rendered himself homeless intentionally by committing a crime. While in prison, he was evicted from the flat for not paying rent. While in prison, the applicant had made arrangements with her sister to continue paying her rent, but her sister failed to pay. Mr. Stewart’s submission was thus overruled on the basis that he had rendered himself, vagrant, intentionally. Section 191 (1 and 2) of the act provides that somebody becomes deliberately homeless if he purposely fails to do anything to the circumstances in which he became homeless. In this case, Mr. Stewart failed t pay his rent and thus was evicted from the flat he was initially occupying.

On 27 February 1995, he was given a notice of Lambeth’s intention to seek possession for defaulting payment of rent.  The court of appeal stated that the applicant was serving a jail term for drug-related offenses and while in jail, he did not make arrangements to manage his affairs. The court of appeal, therefore, upheld the council’s decision to deny Mr. Stewart’s accommodation.

Kendal v city of Westminster (2009)

The complainant, in this case, was Ms. Kendal, who was a drug addict, particularly cocaine for several years. She was put in custody for one year in 2007. When she came out of care in 2008, she approached the county authority seeking for assistances a homeless person. The local housing council found out that the applicant was evicted from her last settled accommodation in 2002 due to rent arrears, and therefore the committee concluded that she was homeless intentionally. On her part, Ms. Kendal defended herself by arguing that she was not able to pay for her house because of the addiction. On her petition, she depends on paragraph 11 of the code of guidance, which states that one should not be accused of deliberate action when the action was due to limited mental capacity or substance abuse. The judge, however, ruled that the council was wrong and failed to interpret the code of guidance well when making the decision. The board was unable to take into account the applicant’s drug addiction factor, and also they assumed that her failure to pay rent was a deliberate act of ignorance. The council, therefore, thought that other factors could not have contributed to her omissions in paying rent.

Changes implemented under the care act of 2014

The care act 2014 is a very vital section of regulation because of the collaborative nature of the legislators’ during its passage. After public participation, a committee was formed to go over the draft bill and come up with recommendations. Many of the proposals were adopted, and the amendments agreed upon as a bill made its way through the parliament. These changes came to the rescue of people who may need lifetime support with things like dressing, emotional support, washing, eating, etc.

Among the changes implemented includes the local council’s duty to promote people’s wellbeing, which now caters even for the caregivers; this is under section 1 -7 of the care act. The under-18-year-old children who provide for adults, children, or families have also been included in the law. Secondly, people receiving care from a regulated provider and arranged by their council, whether at home or residential setting, will now be covered by the human rights act.

A statutory obligation has also been imposed on the authority to set up a Safeguarding Adult Board (SAB) for its area. This is to ensure that the adults receiving care in their area are protected from the risk of experiencing abuse or neglect. The section 44 is also amended to safeguard the adult reviews in some instances. The SAB is also concerned with protecting adult’s views, which are involved with some cases when an adult under care dies or the adult may be still arriving but neglected.

The council should also avail independent advice on financial matters to the people in their area of jurisdiction. This advice will help people to cope with the challenges of accessing the care funds. The act adds that this advice should be available to all and must be relevant to each individual’s needs, including advocacy where applicable (section 45). An amendment was also made, which made it possible for the applicants to challenge the local council’s decisions concerning their eligibility to support in a court of law. Section 46 of the care act was also amended by abolishing the local authority’s power to evict a needy person under care from their homes.

Section 47 on caring for possessions of adults being taken care of far from home was amended. The council was tasked with taking appropriate mitigation measures to avoid damage to movable assets of adults who have been admitted to the hospital or to a residential care home. This responsibility was initially laid in section 48 of the national assistance act 1948.

Impacts of these changes to the service users

The amendments in the care act of 2014 have made it possible for the service users or the carers to have an influence on their own needs and eligibility. Before the amendment, the council only considered the needs of the individual but failed to find the wellbeing of the adult and how he will fit in the specified category. The act, therefore, looks into an individual’s context so that the impacts on his wellbeing can be taken into account. The law also makes the statements more straightforward to comprehend across different kinds of persons. The document is thus presented in the form of the first person.

Challenges faced by local authorities in implementing the changes are;

            The valuation in the care act is now stated as intervention rather than merely granting or denying access to funded services. This poses a challenge to the authority as there is no current information concerning the local amenities, management, and defined timeline to guarantee that the assessment is completed timely and in a holistic manner. The requirement for the council to provide equivalent and relevant evaluation also needs the local authorities to be extra dynamic in administration and collaboration with other organizations, which is more time consuming and cumbersome.

The care act amendments are particular for every user and carers, and thus this creates a challenge to the way local housing authorities’ should monitor and evaluate the efficiency of service delivery mechanisms they have adopted. The authorities are also faced with the challenge of providing adequate and appropriate information to all would-be carers concerning their entitlement to possible financial support.

Statutory duties to 16 years and 17-year-olds studies

The children act 1989 states that if a juvenile of 17 years meets the criteria of section 20, then the local authority has a duty to organize for his housing under section 17. The appellant in the case R V Southwark (2009) was born in Somalia in 1990 and migrated to the United Kingdom with the mother and other family members in 1998. The appellant was allowed unlimited permission to stay in the UK in 2005. In 2007, his relationship with his mother deteriorated, and he was excluded from the house. After mediations failed, the child presented himself to the local authority seeking for urgent assessment of his necessities under children act 1989 and accommodation under section 20 (1). The completed evaluation suggested that he should be granted accommodation and also referred to other support agencies to support his needs.

The authority, however, responded that he did not need accommodation under article 20 of the act but help with accommodation under article 17. He then applied for a judicial review, which subsequently failed. Section 20 (1) states that every authority shall offer housing for any child in need due to three conditions:

1. a) Lack of anyone with parental responsibility,
2. b) If the child is lost or abandoned
3. c) If the person responsible for him prevented prom caring.

The Judged ruled that all factors were on Azem’s, and therefore the authority had the responsibility of granting him accommodation. She added that the burden had risen, and therefore, the authorities are not permitted to ignore that duty.

The key points outlined in the Homeless code of guidance in February 2018

3. The guideline states that advisory services must be designed to meet the needs of persons in the authority’s district. (section 3.4-3.5)
4. The duty to refer requires public bodies to identify people threatened with or experiencing homelessness(chapter 14)

• Housing authorities will be required to conduct an assessment and develop personalized housing plans, developing a positive collaborative approach towards applicants. (sections 11.2, 11.11)

1. Punishment for deliberately and unreasonably refusing to collaborate with the housing authority is defined though people with good reasons should be spared. (section 14)
2. Applicants can review decisions made by the housing authority (Chapter 19)

Equity act and public sector equality act 2010

            The equality duty was created to harmonize the previous, disability, race, and gender equality duty. Under these acts, the local authority has to carry out some requirements when considering whether one is homeless. The broad responsibility of this act is to ensure equity in all public sectors in the process of service delivery. The act, therefore, obliges the organizations with the responsibility of ensuring that they contribute positively towards equality and positive relations. The specific duties of the authorities, according to the equality act, are planned in a way to help the authorities meet their duties equitably and also ensure openness and accountability.

The equality act adds to the housing authorities in several ways, as discussed. The equality act, therefore, requires the housing authority to make decisions that reflect equality in its design, policies, and delivery of service. The local housing authorities, therefore, must reflect the effect of their judgments on people who possess protected features like the aged, pregnant, disabled, sex, religion, etc. The authorities should thus eradicate unlawful discrimination, bother, ill-treatment, and any other behavior forbidden by the act.

The local authority is also tasked with the responsibility of positive discrimination. This entails treating some people exemplary well to facilitate their equal opportunity to meet their needs. For example, people with disabilities may need extra support than non-disabled people. The local housing authority should thus make reasonable provisions and adjustments to treat them better than the disabled ones. The local authorities should also foster good relations between people who share a similar protected characteristic and people who do not have it through the accommodation provisions.

References

Hohmann, J., 2013. The right to housing: Law, concepts, possibilities. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cowan, D., 2011. Housing law and policy. Cambridge University Press.

Paudyal, V., and Saunders, K., 2018. Homeless reduction act in England: impact on health services. The Lancet, 392(10143), pp.195-197.

Paudyal, V. and Saunders, K., Homeless reduction act in England.

Griffith, R., 2007. Domestic abuse: The role of the law. British Journal of Midwifery, 15(4), pp.228-229.

Herring, J., 2011. The meaning of domestic violence: Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow [2011] UKSC 3. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 33(3), pp.297-304.

Manthorpe, J., and Moriarty, J., 2014. Examining day center provision for older people in the UK using the Equality Act 2010: findings of a scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 22(4), pp.352-360.

Colgan, F., 2011. Equality, diversity, and corporate responsibility: Sexual orientation and diversity management in the UK private sector. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(8), pp.719-734.