Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation Bill

This Bill trundles its way through the legislative process.  The inestimable Jennie Bibbings has provided a great summary of the changes made at and following the Stage 2 proceedings before the Local Government and Housing Committee.  Jennie’s summary also highlights how, even in devolved areas, legislation is an negotiation between the WG and the UK government about what is possible (eg around the duty to ask and act).

One significant concession has been the removal of the right of local authorities to create their own categories of “qualifying persons” for an allocation of housing.  Experience elsewhere has not demonstrated that such a provision is always used in intended ways, and there has been much litigation over it.  So, it is good to get rid of it in Wales (and good riddance).

One clause which I think is of particular interest in the Bill and (I think) has flown under my radar – unaccountably given I have a significant research interest in the issues – is what will be the new sections 96A and 96B of the 2014 Act.  These will require a RSL to comply within a reasonable period with a request made by a local authority to make a homeless applicant an offer of suitable accommodation in its area.  Further, the RSL “must comply with any reasonable request for information in relation to that accommodation made to it by the authority in connection with the exercise of the authority’s functions under this section”.  The similar duty to co-operate in England is much weaker and isn’t really serviceable.  In our work on nominations, we found that RSLs commonly cherry-picked applicants (or were accused of doing so) and nominations agreements were either forgotten, not adhered to, or honoured in the breach.  There isn’t much a local authority in England can do in these circumstances, but refusals are not litigated (interesting).  The Bill provides that the Welsh Ministers may give guidance in relation to “good reason”, “reasonable period” and “reasonable request”, but an amendment now makes that a duty.  Again, good.  These provisions are likely to cause some friction, I suspect, in practice, and, perhaps some rather different allegations between partners in meeting housing need (some kind of reverse cherry-picking).  If you are interested in this area, we published a rather academic piece back in 2009 with the title, “Trust, distrust and betrayal”, about the nominations process in England.  Absolutely key here will be information sharing protocols.

Stage 3 plenary proceedings are slated in for 3rd February.