The ultimate betrayal – moving people out of their homes

Rosemary Trustam reports on how some authorities are filling housing voids
In the face of financial pressures and a vulnerable group less able to speak out or understand their full rights, authorities seem prepared to trample over these rights or to find ways round them. The scandalous case in Londonderry highlights the consequences of this policy (see News, page 5).

One authority in the North West (not a housing one) had been under-writing voids in some very high cost tenancies (for example, £300 a week per person in a shared tenancy of three) to find appropriate homes for people with learning disabilities. With the development of a large number of voids and under financial pressures, providers are either moving someone into a void without ensuring they are compatible with the others in the house, or even moving people between houses to reduce voids or empty a house.

Compliance
A defence of the practice has been that people have agreed to move. However, we know that people often feel they have no choice, have been almost trained into compliance or may even be persuaded into something without realising how much it will change things for them. If a move is appropriate, it should be in their long-term personal plan as a goal, should have clear benefits in meeting their needs and wishes or, as for the rest of us, because they wish to be nearer to family, work, chosen activities and friends, want to get married or divorced, or share with someone particular. Where someone lacks capacity, a best interests decision should be made involving those who know them, the family or an IMCA. For those with capacity, there should surely be some appropriate external scrutiny to protect the person’s decision-making.

The feedback from service users in my local area is that they lack choice about who they share with and sometimes have ‘house rules’ imposed they have not been involved in making.

No-one would argue with the need to manage voids but this should be done in a way which opens up possibilities for tenants; for example, formal tenancy swaps to support choices or to live with a friend or someone they would like to share with. This would take short-term finance and some hard work but would be likely to lead to improvements for people and savings for the authority.

Concerned people in the area have responded by asking for good practice principles to be established in any potential move. However, this authority has gone further and implemented a policy on voids in shared housing without even consulting providers, let alone tenants. It appears that, whilst the hours of tenants left in the house would be reviewed, (legally required as the person leaving takes their shared hours’ costs which would need topping up), some 1:1 hours would contribute to the loss of shared hours. There would be no change to people’s personal budgets unless they have changed needs. A top-up would be paid to the provider to make up for shared hours but only for up to six months.

Providers would have to meet any extra costs after the six months as this authority’s rates make no allowance for voids in shared housing. Providers may say tenants have to meet the cost but the local authority does not allow anything in the personal budgets for voids so there are no savings from which to pay for lost shared hours. In the light of the recent judgment on care home fees (www.bailii.org/ew/
cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2676.html), can authorities dictate price to providers whose businesses are increasingly put at risk by unfair pricing practices?

Legal action
Authorities which refuse to meet the extra costs of support to someone in their own home during whatever period of voids are risking legal action. Landlords should be building in the right level of voids to take account of very much less turnover and when there is a void a much longer period to fill it. Up to now it has been possible to negotiate with housing benefits for an increased rent long-term if it is not viable to have the same number sharing, though planned changes may make this more difficult.

Authorities appear to be taking ad hoc actions without working out their consequences. They need to learn to commission intelligently for the future, not just work out a solution for the moment. It is not right that someone’s security in their home should be put at risk. Ultimately, if someone is to be evicted from their home, it has to be scrutinised by the courts.

As we go to press, there are reports of other authorities wanting four or more in shared tenancies. Are we reversing a policy developed over decades and spelt out in Valuing People Now’s priorities – to support people in ordinary housing in the community? If so, this is the ultimate betrayal.