Cambridge House logo

Tag Archive for Cambridge House

Buying a House Takes More Than Hard Work and Willpower – Contrary to Government Belief

Alice Belotti speaking at Cambridge House's Housing Conference, May 2016

Alice Belotti speaking at Cambridge House’s ‘Can We Afford To Lose Council Housing?’ conference in May 2016

Home repossession, evictions, and homelessness are on the rise. At the same time, the lack of decent, affordable, and stable accommodation causes huge strains in people’s lives. But what will the government’s ‘landmark’ Housing and Planning Act 2016 do to tackle these problems?

The housing crisis we are experiencing is made up of three interlinked components: a lack of supply where there is more demand; soaring rents and housing prices; and unaffordable home prices for lower-income households, leading to a rapid expansion in private renting. These components play out differently in various local markets, with huge regional variations. But the depth of the current crisis is experienced by people living in London and the South East.

Private renting and affordability

Through the Act, the government is committed to exposing rogue landlords; but this is not enough, as they are a small part of the problem. What really plagues the housing sector are high rents and a lack of security. Private renting has grown rapidly over the last 15 years. More and more people – especially families with children – are living in private rented accommodation.

Yet private rents have been rising, especially in London and the South East, where rents amount for no less than 50 per cent of median gross monthly salary. Young couples are finding it a struggle to have kids while renting; many young people also have no option but to share a house with others (up by 70 per cent since 2011) or live with their parents. Their savings towards a step up on the property ladder are eaten by the extortionate rents set by a self-regulating market.

https://pixabay.com/en/london-building-panorama-947381/

Image Credit: Pixabay

Homeownership and affordability

And although the government may hope to help first-time buyers through Starter Homes, the scheme misses those on average income and below. The government’s new flagship policy will offer a 20 per cent discount to first-time buyers who are between the age of 23-40; but a 20 per cent discount will still be out of reach for those in need of an affordable home, given that Starter Homes could cost up to £450,000 in London, and £250,000 in the rest of the country. To discourage buy-to-lets and property speculation, Starter Home buyers will also be forced to repay a percentage of the discount if their home is sold or let within 20 years of the purchase. (However, if property prices continue to grow at today’s pace, it will not take much to pay back the discount early.)

Social housing provision

There was a time, only fifty years ago, when housing was seen as a basic right, and social housing was growing fast. Under both Labour and Conservative governments, the race was to build council homes. Five decades later, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 may be signaling the end of social housing as we know it, according to Lord Kerslake, former Head of the Civil Service. Social rented housing will be lost as a result of policies such as the new Right to Buy and the forced sale of councils’ ‘higher’ value voids. Estate demolition and rebuilding is also displacing large communities and gradually eroding the social housing stock.

In theory, housing associations and local authorities should build one-to-one (or two-to-one) replacement homes for any home lost through the above policies. But the new homes will not have to be like-for-like, and it is not clear where the money for local authorities will come from. The result will be a net loss of social housing. The 1 per cent rent reduction also means that the much-needed new social rented housing will not materialise.

And in light of new unexpected budget pressures, the majority of social landlords are drastically scaling back on development programmes, while others are deciding to build less social housing, and instead build more private homes for sale. Local authorities will have the duty to provide at least 20 per cent Starter Homes in any new development, which will count as affordable housing for planning purposes. A recent survey by Inside Housing of 97 English councils reveals that a third of them will see their affordable housing requirements completely taken by Starter Homes, not social renting.

The Chartered Institute of Housing also estimate that around 350,000 social rented homes be lost by 2020 through affordable rents and Right to Buy sales, high value sales, and demolitions of former council estates, whilst only 3,500 new homes will be built. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill has risen from £11bn in 2000-01 to £25bn in 2015-16 to subsidise private landlords, rather than to support social landlords.

What’s the solution?

The government’s new housing agenda is all about home-ownership and incredibly penalising towards social housing and its tenants. The government’s policy, however, is based on the wrong assumption that home-ownership is possible for everyone through hard work and willpower. What it can be said it ignores is the fact that social housing provides a decent and affordable option for people who need it. So, if anything, we need to build more social housing, devise better and easier ways for people to access affordable housing, and revitalise low-demand areas to bring empty homes back into use.

https://pixabay.com/en/london-flats-urban-architecture-448552/

Image credit: Pixabay

In the absence of government funding, more responsibility rests on local authorities and housing associations to sustain social housing. Local authorities have the ability to borrow towards their assets and build more homes. There are interesting models of cross-subsidy of social rented housing which are being tested out by housing associations that want to remain a viable business while enhancing their social commitment. At the same time, devolution in the North could re-balance regional differences and uncover creative, innovative ways to improve the economic and housing fortunes of older industrial cities and regions.


Alice Belotti, research assistant at LSE’s Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines (STICERD) and an expert on estate regeneration, recently took part in our Housing Crisis Conference. The Conference brought together council tenants, politicians and housing and legal experts to discuss the impact of the housing crisis and possible solutions. Find below Alice’s informative article on the Housing and Planning Act.

Article originally posted on the LSE BLOG – http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/homeownership-in-housing-and-planning-act/

What’s a Mayor to do about the housing crisis?

Welcome to The CH@T ~ Broadcasting straight from Cambridge House, we’re asking: what’s going on with housing in London? How can a new Mayor tackle the housing crisis?

Tackling some of the toughest issues facing society today, The CH@T brings you insights and stories straight from the frontline of social action in the UK. From our base in Camberwell, we’re taking the big questions to the grassroots to get to the bottom of the biggest social issues facing London and the UK today.

Photo Credit: Dave Kleinschmidt via Flickr

The CH@T premieres with a series of episodes focusing the housing crisis in London, chatting with experts in housing, gentrification, and the legal system to get to the bottom of one of the biggest issues on the agenda.

In our premiere, we’re busting a few big myths about the housing crisis, hearing about who’s being hit hardest, and – most importantly –  finding out what Londoners can do in the coming mayoral elections to help protect Londoners from losing their homes.

Listen in to our chat with Research and Knowledge Exchange Coordinator, Dr Hannah White, about a research project she recently completed into housing in South London. In late 2015, Dr White explored the reality of the housing crisis for Londoners by shadowing the Lambeth County Court Duty Scheme, which provides free legal advice for people with issues with their housing, speaking with people facing eviction from their homes to hear their stories, find out why people are facing such challenges, and to inform recommendations for policymakers to help people hold on to their homes.

housing crisis, mayoral election, podcast,

Photo Credit: Garry Knight via Flickr

If you enjoy it, drop us a comment or, even better, give us a review on iTunes – get in there quick and get a shout-out on the next episode of The CH@T.

You can support Cambridge House’s work tackling poverty and social injustice by heading to our JustGiving page.

  • To read Dr White’s research in full, click here
  • To learn more about our Research and Knowledge Exchange Activities, click here
  • To learn more about our Law Centre and what we do to help people protect their homes, click here

Government plan to close Lambeth County Court will leave court users struggling to get justice

  • Government proposal to close Lambeth County Court will make it harder for those facing eviction to mount an effective legal challenge.
  • Proposal to close courts is based on ‘wildly optimistic’ estimates of journey times for court users.

 

People battling eviction proceedings in South London will face greater hurdles to keeping their homes if government plans to close down courts and tribunals in London go ahead.

Credit to secretlondon123. Used under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Lambeth County Court, London

Lambeth County Court, one of the country’s  busiest courts when it comes to housing possession cases  and evictions, is among 10 courts and tribunals in London slated for closure under the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ‘Estate Reform Programme’.

Under the MoJ’s proposal Lambeth County Court’s workload will be moved to Wandsworth County Court, leaving those who would attend proceedings at Lambeth facing longer journey times, and putting a greater strain on resources at Wandsworth. The proposal also fails to take into account the true length of time it would take those using Lambeth County Court to attend Wandsworth.

Stuart Hearne, the manager of the Cambridge House Law Centre in Camberwell, said:  “Taking someone’s home away from them is a serious legal sanction and anyone facing eviction deserves to be able to put their case forward and have a fair hearing.

“The current system is already under strain and closing Lambeth County Court will seriously affect access to justice for people in the local area. It will mean anyone who has to go to court to challenge an eviction order will have to travel further and face a court that is even more overloaded.

“The government’s proposal seems to suggest that closing Lambeth will only marginally affect court users, but in fact it will increase journey times quite considerably and make it more difficult for people to attend hearings that can dramatically affect their lives. The government’s estimates of how long it would take court users to attend Wandsworth County Court instead of Lambeth seem to me to be wildly optimistic.”

The government says court users will be only marginally affected by its proposed closures because London’s public transport system makes it relatively easy for people get to a different court.

But data compiled by Cambridge House – using the postcodes of court users, rather than the generalised data used by the MoJ – shows this to be an inaccurate assessment. For example:

  • A journey from SE1 5RB in Bermondsey that currently takes 44 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 36 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court;
  • A journey from SE15 6AX in Peckham that currently takes 39 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 45 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court;
  • A journey from SE16 2XH in Rotherhithe that currently takes 53 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 49 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court;
  • A journey from SE21 8HS that currently takes 40 minutes by bus one way to Lambeth County Court, would take 1 hour 15 minutes one way to Wandsworth County Court.

The concern is that the closure of Lambeth County Court will lead to an increase in evictions and homelessness putting an even greater strain on already stretched resources.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Cambridge House Law Centre

Cambridge House is a south London charity based in the heart of the borough of Southwark. Since 1889, Cambridge House has stood up for those who lack the ability and capacity to protect their own rights. By offering free expert legal advice and professional advocacy services we ‘give voice’ to the most vulnerable people in our society, increase access to justice for those without the means to pay, promote social inclusion, tackle inequality and address gaps in statutory provision.

The MoJ’s proposal

The MoJ’s proposal documents for its Estate Reform Programme can be found here.

London’s Dispossessed: Local authority possession orders and homelessness in South London

Cambridge House receives funding from Leicester University to carry out research on housing in South London

The London housing crisis shows no sign of abating. Average property prices have reached nearly half a million while increasing numbers of people are being priced out of the rental market. At the same time social housing is in decline, and Government ‘reforms’ intended to cut the welfare bill such as the bedroom tax, benefits cap and recent withdrawal of tax credits have hit the poorest hardest. This has seen rising homelessness, displacement and overcrowding with central London becoming, according to Matthew Taylor in last weekend’s Observer, a no-go zone for below average income households.

Cambridge House image

Aylesbury Estate, London Borough of Southwark

Southwark where Cambridge House is based, is also undergoing rapid transformation as a result of Government policy and foreign investment. For the moment it remains polarised with areas of extreme wealth and poverty. The most deprived wards (Camberwell, Faraday, Peckham and Livesey) sit sandwiched between the recently regenerated south bank of the Thames (City Hall) and the leafy suburbs to the South. This however is set to change. Southwark Council one of the largest social landlords in the UK has been selling off run-down accommodation it can no longer afford to maintain. This has seen developers moving in to take advantage of the investment opportunities presented by estates such as the Heygate and Aylesbury situated less than a mile away from the river.

There is an emergent academic literature examining how the ‘new’ urban renewal is encouraging the gentrification of previously devalued council estates and its impact (Hyra 2008; Watt 2009; Lees 2014). However, less is known about who is at threat from eviction or homelessness or the effects on the individual. Further, there has been little investigation into how service providers should respond in order to best support vulnerable residents and adapt services to the challenges and requirements of living (or attempting to stay) in the capital.

Cambridge House is pleased to announce that it has recently received funding from the University of Leicester to help plug this gap. Working with Professor Loretta Lees an urban geographer who specialises in gentrification and urban regeneration and supported by Cambridge House Law Centre, the research will provide in depth insight into the experiences and circumstances of those facing the threat of eviction or who are already homeless in South London.

The research objectives are as follows:

  • To establish who is vulnerable from eviction and/or homelessness and why
  • To examine the personal impact of possession orders and homelessness on the individual
  • To determine in what ways service providers can better support those at threat from, or who are already, homeless

If you wish to find out more about the research or would like to be involved please contact  hwhite@ch1889.org

Supreme Court announces historic decision on priority need for vulnerable homeless

Landmark homelessness case to improve right to housing for people in priority need, successfully pursued by Cambridge House Law Centre

Homlessness, disability, supreme court, priority need, vulnerability, Credit to Franco Folini. Used under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Street homeless: vulnerable?

For the first time since the homelessness provisions came into force in 1977 the meaning of ‘vulnerability’ has been considered by the highest court in the land. This is of critical important for homeless people, particularly those with disabilities who do not have children and other groups who are often not considered in “priority need”.

Increasingly vulnerable single homeless people have been refused housing and left to fend for themselves as cash strapped councils have turned away people with disabilities on the basis they are not a priority because they are able to cope or at least cope as well as an ‘ordinary homeless person’.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide how Local Authorities should approach the statutory test of vulnerability contained in the Housing Act 1996. Under the Act a homeless person without children is considered to be in priority need for accommodation if they are “vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason” S189(1)(c) HA 1996. In a series of appeals brought by Southwark and Solihull Councils, the Court of Appeal had previously ruled that a person was deemed to be vulnerable and in priority need, only if they would suffer more than an “ordinary street homeless person”.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mr Patrick Kanu against Southwark Council’s decision that he was not in priority need for housing finding that his suffering should not have been compared with a street homeless person, but rather an ordinary person who stood to lose his accommodation. The Court also rejected the submission that the Equality Act 2010 could never add anything in vulnerability cases and that instead each case should be received on an individual basis.

In response to today’s judgement Mr Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre, and the case lawyer stated:

“This is a very welcome judgement. I would hope that it will also be welcomed by Local Authorities. It will make it much clearer who should be assisted. In the past Local Authorities were having to compare homeless applicants with other homeless people to consider who is more vulnerable – this was a very difficult decision and one that led to disputes and some very disabled people being refused accommodation. It is not in anyone’s interest, including that of Local Authorities, that people who have disabilities or mental health issues should not be housed or left street homeless.

Rough sleepers have a lower life expectancy than the general population and are more likely to have mental and physical health problems.

This decision should now mean that the vast majority of homeless people who have a physical disability or have mental ill health should be accepted as being in priority need for accommodation”.

Available for comment:

Stuart Hearne Cambridge House Law Centre Manager and Case Solicitor

shearne@ch1889.org

Karin Woodley Chief Executive of Cambridge House

Kwoodley@ch1889.org

Notes to editor

The Supreme Court, in three appeals heard together, Kanu v Southwark LBC, Hotak v Southwark LBC and Johnson v Solihull BC was asked to decide how Local Authorities should approach the statutory test of vulnerability contained in the Housing Act 1996.

Mr Patrick Kanu had physical problems: including hepatitis B and hypertension as well as psychotic symptoms and suicide ideation.  He was cared for by his wife but despite her care, stress was raising his hypertension to what doctors characterised as “quite dangerous levels”.   Southwark Council had accepted that Mr Patrick Kanu would be in priority need for accommodation if he was on his own but decided that as he had a wife then he was not in priority need.

Mr Sifatullah Hotak is an adult with significant learning difficulties, with measured IQ on one test of 47 and a history of self-harming and depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.  His brother, Ezatullah looked after him but was also homeless.  Southwark Council decided that as Mr Hotak had a brother to care for him he was not considered to be in priority need.

The Court has overturned previous case law and guidance and has now established that:

  1. An authority’s duty to the homeless under Part VII Housing Act 1996 is not to be influenced or affected by the resources available to the authority.
  2. The correct comparator when assessing whether someone is vulnerable for the reasons in s189 (1)(c ) is an ordinary person if made homeless.
  3. Support from a third party can be taken into account when assessing whether a person is vulnerable but that needs to be applied with “considerable circumspection” and that the fact of support in itself is not enough.
  4. In the case of an applicant who has or may have a disability then at each stage of the decision making process the decision maker must have due regard to the need to achieve the goals of the Equality Act 2010 which include the need to eliminate discrimination, advance the equality of opportunity between those that have a disability and those that do not and to take active steps to meet the needs of those with a disability. S149 (1) (a)- ( c) Equality Act 2010.
  5. That the consideration of the public sector equality duty must be exercised “in substance, with rigour and with an open mind”.

The full judgment can be downloaded from the Supreme Court website:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html

Mr Patrick Kanu was represented by Mr Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre.  His barristers were Mr Zia Nabi of Doughty Street Chambers and Ms Helen Mountfield QC of Matrix Chambers.

css.php