So far in these posts, I have focused mostly on the homelessness stuff in the Bill.\u00a0 Today’s post straddles both parts and deals with clauses 10 and 36.\u00a0 Or, more prosaically, it deals with intentional homelessness.<\/p>\n
Lots of academics have written about intentional homelessness and its baleful effects.\u00a0 It was not in the original Bill in 1976-7 but introduced by amendment to deal with what was regarded as the problem of people making themselves homeless in order to take advantage of the new Act and “jump the housing queue” (the so-called “perverse incentive”).\u00a0 Even in Parliament, it was described (I think by Jack Straw) as “gobbledegook” and Courts have struggled to interpret it.\u00a0 In the earliest cases, they had to interpret it by reading different tenses in to the provision.\u00a0 Lord Denning described people found to be intentionally homeless as having “the mark of Cain” (in true-to-form Denning hyperbole).\u00a0 Most recently, the Supreme Court grappled with it in Haile v Waltham Forest LBC<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 I have read the judgment in Haile<\/em> numerous times, and I still can’t quite work out how they came to the outcome that they did.\u00a0 I guess I am making two points: it’s a really hard provision to implement; and it’s a really hard provision to interpret.\u00a0 Those two things add up to resource intensity.\u00a0 As a result, the provision was not used much in Wales, but<\/em> it was used, and the Expert Group noted (at p 22):<\/p>\n Stakeholders and experts by experience expressed that the intentionality test is not trauma-informed and that it encourages judgement around who is or is not deserving of support. Many people drew upon experiences which align with the extensive body of research that shows people found to be \u2018intentionally homeless\u2019 usually have clear unmet support needs and are often the most excluded from services and support.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not surprisingly, they recommended that the provision should be removed.\u00a0 However, they were also concerned that “some individuals may \u2018actively worsen\u2019 their situation or mislead the authority in order to gain priority access to social housing” and so they recommended that people who “deliberately manipulate” the system should not be given reasonable preference for an allocation of social housing.\u00a0 Similarly, the White Paper recognised that the cultural shift to prevention and relief of homelessness has meant that intentional homelessness has become of far less significance in Wales, although there was evidence of significant variation across Wales in its use (144-5).<\/p>\n Clauses 10 and 36 effectively do what the Expert Panel recommend.\u00a0 Clause 10 omits intentional homelessness as a key concept.\u00a0 Given the above, one might say that, although slightly controversial, it is unobjectionable.\u00a0 Indeed, frankly, along with (no doubt) most academics in this field and lawyers, I welcome it.<\/p>\n Clause 36, however, requires more thought.\u00a0 It introduces new subsections in to the allocation scheme provision of the Housing Act 1996: s 167.\u00a0 This is the provision which sets out what authorities have to do in their allocation schemes – they have to give reasonable preference to certain groups; they can give additional preference to one of the groups; and they give the Cabinet secretary various regulation making powers (see Deep Dive 1<\/a> for discussion).<\/p>\n The provision is amended so that where the authority “is satisfied that the person is trying to manipulate the housing system”, the person loses any preference that they might have for an allocation of social housing.\u00a0 A new section 167A sets out what “trying to manipulate the housing system” means – and, lo and behold, it is pretty much what intentionality was for homelessness:<\/p>\n … the person deliberately did or failed to do something in consequence of which the person ceases to occupy accommodation that was available for the person\u2019s occupation and which it would have been reasonable for the person to continue to occupy<\/p><\/blockquote>\n