Lauren Caley
Last month, Shelter Cymru hosted a webinar on the Welsh Government’s Homelessness and Social Housing Allocations Bill. This webinar offered an opportunity for people from across the housing and homelessness sector (and beyond) to come together and hear from a range of Shelter Cymru experts on what the Bill says, what it means, and what the potential positives and negatives of it are.
More than 150 people joined us on the day for this webinar, and the sheer number of questions asked made it impossible for us to cover everything in one go. To compensate for this, we’ve produced this blog pulling together all the questions raised and providing answers where we can.
Shelter Cymru can speak to our interpretation and understanding of the bill but any questions about intent or resourcing will need to be raised with the Welsh Government directly.
You can also find the full recording of the webinar here >
There are some welcome changes introduced by this bill and while Shelter Cymru will continue to work to seek clarity or amendments where we feel they are needed we would like to congratulate the Welsh Government on a progressive step forward to ending homelessness in Wales.
This is a big change and a lot of documentation to absorb and understand so we hope that the webinar, the below and the work that Shelter Cymru will continue to do on the bill will be helpful in improving understanding by everyone with an interest.
What is meant by priority for care leavers? is this Band A plus?
Every local authority in Wales has their own policy for prioritising people for social home allocations. Section 37 of the Bill sets out a new reasonable preference category for care leavers who are aged 18-21 whether or not they are currently homeless. How each local authority translates this reasonable preference into their own allocations policies will be up to them to decide but the intention is for people who are 18 to 21 years old to be a priority within social home allocations across Wales and to prevent homelessness being the primary route to a social home for this group. This is a positive step that should help see care leavers able to access the help they need much sooner.
When the deliberate manipulation test is applied & the applicant has lost their priority with RSL, they are still going to be stuck with the local authority. Is there any other way out?
This is one of Shelter Cymru’s concerns about the deliberate manipulation test and something we will continue to seek clarity on. Our reading of the proposals in the bill are that applicants who are considered to have deliberately manipulated the housing system to try to secure a social home would be able to continue to reside in temporary accommodation and continue to access support to secure other forms of longer-term housing. This would not be the case if the local authority feel that the applicant has acted in a way that would trigger the ending of duties powers in section 20 – i.e. if they have been threatening towards staff, if they have damaged property, or if they are considered to be not engaging with the process.
Given the cost implications of temporary accommodation, Shelter Cymru are concerned that applicants considered to have deliberately manipulated the system may be handled more punitively by local authorities via these section 20 powers. If this were the case then the distinction between the proposed deliberate manipulation test and the current intentionality test would be narrower in practice.
We are also concerned about the drafting of this section of the bill. As Crash Wigley raised in her oral evidence to the Local Government and Housing Committee, one of the three ways that someone can be found to have deliberately manipulated the housing system doesn’t set out that the person should have acted with intent to manipulate the system.
“Before someone can be found to have deliberately manipulated the system, all it requires them to do is to have done, or failed to do, something in consequence of which they ceased to occupy accommodation that was available and reasonable to occupy, and that before doing or failing to do that thing, they received information, advice or other support from the local authority that was adequate for enabling the person to live in the property. There’s nothing in that section that requires the person to have done, or failed to do, something with the intent of manipulating the system. My reading of that section is that, actually, it’s not a very different test to intentionality at all.”
Shelter Cymru are hopeful that this subsection will be redrafted to tighten how the deliberate manipulation test will be used in practice.
What power do Local Authority/Local members have if opposed to their authority adopting a Common Housing Register? Also if forced upon them will their be funding provided by the Welsh Government to assist with new systems and staffing?
This is an incredibly interesting question and Shelter Cymru would be keen to speak with local authorities who have concerns about adopting a common housing register. Our understanding is that 19 of the 22 local authorities in Wales already have a CHR and Shelter Cymru believe that CHRs simplify the process for people looking to access a social home as well as ensuring that local authorities have greater oversight over how social homes in their area are allocated.
Ultimately, this would be a mandatory change when the Bill comes into force and questions about funding should be directed to the Welsh Government.
Does Section 20 cover care leavers and are there going to be exceptions due to being a care leaver ?
It is Shelter Cymru’s understanding that the ending duties criteria set out in section 20 will apply to all applicants and we do not believe there are any exception within this. There is a subsection in each of the criteria setting out that the section 20 powers only apply if the criteria is met AND if “there are no special circumstances that would make it appropriate for the relevant duty to continue to apply.”
The guidance to come may give us greater clarity on this and we sincerely hope that it is intended to be understood through the trauma-informed lens that underscores so much of this bill. It may be the case that what is meant by “special circumstances” will be decided by case law after the bill has been implemented. If that is the case, Shelter Cymru will look to share future case law examples with partner organisations who are advocating for people impacted by the proposed duty-ending powers to enable organisations to advocate effectively for the communities they serve.
Shelter Cymru are very concerned about the section 20 powers generally, the drafting leaves them quite open to interpretation. This will be one of our areas of focus in our ongoing campaigning as the Bill progresses through the Senedd.
What is your view on the duty on the health sector to not discharge people into homelessness– a duty that existed in the white paper that is not in the Bill?
Shelter Cymru are disappointed that theses white paper proposals, which would protect patients from homelessness at the point of discharge from hospital, have not been carried through to the bill. The explanatory memorandum suggests that this proposal has not been carried forward due to concerns from health teams about delayed discharges from hospitals and the additional burden on hospital administration.
We recognise the pressures that our colleagues in health are facing but sincerely hope that the homelessness prevention mechanisms of this bill are able to evidence their effectiveness in coming years and that the conversation about hospital discharge could be picked up again. The pressures across the public and third sectors are very real and are not improving. Until health boards can feel confident that the housing system will be able to intervene rapidly if an in-patient is at risk of homelessness then their concerns will continue to be around managing their own resources.
Shelter Cymru welcome the provisions in the bill for the Cabinet Secretary to review and amend certain areas and believe there may be a route to achieve something akin to the hospital discharge protection proposals through the “Ask and Act” and cooperation duties in the bill if expanded to other teams over time.
We know the current legislation is implemented differently between LAs – how do we get some more consistency in this area with the implementation of this bill?
Abolishing the priority need test and the intentionality test are two clear routes to improving consistency of practice across Wales. We know that these tests are disproportionately used by some local authority teams over others and Shelter Cymru welcome the commitment to ending these practices.
Similarly, the introduction of mandatory Prevention, Support and Accommodation Plans and the proposal for Common Housing Registers to exist in every local authority will help to improve consistency of practice.
Primarily though we will achieve consistency of practice by investing in our local authority housing teams across Wales. In our view, inconsistencies appear when local authority teams are restricting access to support, in some instances support they have a legal duty to provide, because they are struggling to manage demand on their existing resources and staffing levels.
We firmly believe that the vast majority of local authority housing staff set out to help people in housing need and that outdated concepts of deserving/undeserving that underpin gatekeeping practices start to appear when resource is stretched thinly.
The recent oral evidence provided by local authorities largely echoes what many put forward in their written evidence to the White Paper consultation– that they are supportive of the ethos and intentions of change but cannot see how they would achieve progress in their current resource levels. The Welsh Government have set out a compelling case for the financial savings that the bill would produce if implemented effectively but it’s not yet clear how local authorities will manage the early implementation phases where their costs will increase but they won’t yet see the financial benefits of progress. Phased implementation can only go so far in balancing these costs and savings.
With the current section 75 duty, we’re worried that people who’ve declined a place because they can’t take their pets with them, will have their duty removed. What do you think of the changes to section 75 in general, and are you going to campaign for change as Shelter Cymru or Homes for All Cymru?
Shelter Cymru feel that there are some areas of this bill that pet owners should welcome. Primarily, the shift towards a prevention-focused approach will, we hope, ensure pet owners can stay in their existing homes with their pets rather than face periods in temporary accommodation where many are forced to rehome their pets.
The expanded rights of review will also give additional opportunities for pet owners to continue to make the case for the importance of their pets to their wellbeing and potentially their health. The bill intends to introduce a right to review the content of PSAPs for applicants as well as extending the window in which someone can pursue a suitability review about an offer of accommodation to six months.
While this will not resolve the challenges pet owners face in securing pet friendly homes it will hopefully increase the opportunities at which they can make their case heard.
During the consultation there was a suggestion temporary accommodation for single people would have to be in self–contained properties, including for young people who would only be entitled to shared–room rate Local Housing Aallowance in the private sector. Do you have an understanding as to whether this proposal has made it to through to this stage ?
This proposal does not exist in the bill as it is currently drafted. The White Paper proposed that people under 25 should not be placed in temporary accommodation options such as B&Bs and hotels for any length of time but this has not been taken forward. The explanatory memorandum points to implementation concerns from some stakeholders as the reason this proposal has been shelved.
The ongoing reliance in Wales on B&Bs and hotels to provide temporary accommodation, particularly for single people, suggests there were practical considerations that local authorities don’t feel can be overcome in the timeframe for implementation of this bill.
Campaigning and advocacy voices who were strongly supportive of this proposal can continue to monitor the types of TA being used in Wales and the bill sets out a requirement for the Cabinet Secretary to review use of temporary accommodation every five years, with the first report due before the end of 2030. The White Paper had proposed a review every three years and Shelter Cymru continue to support this shorter timeframe given the impact that unsuitable TA has on people and budgets in Wales.
Is there a case to work with health stakeholders such as the Royal College of GPs more on this legislation? With the Welsh Government‘s commitment to becoming a Marmot nation and its work on health inequalities, this could be used as a springboard to bring stakeholders across the two sectors together?
Shelter Cymru’s understanding is conversations between Welsh Government officials and colleagues from the health sector have been extensive.. While we are, of course, disappointed that primary care services are exempt from the “Ask and Act” and cooperation duties we are confident that officials in the Welsh Government have pursued (and continue to pursue) all reasonable avenues in their engagement with the health sector in Wales.
The introduction of powers for the Cabinet Secretary to amend the list of teams/organisations who are subject to these new duties means that we remain hopeful that the Cabinet Secretary and officials are considering these duties as a work in progress that will expand as conversations continue.
There are examples of proactive and inclusive practice from a number of primary care teams already in Wales and we would look to those teams to showcase both why primary care teams should hold these responsibilities and how they can take on these responsibilities without overburdening their staff.
Does that mean that duty cannot be ended if evicted from temporary accommodation?
The reasons that someone may be evicted from temporary accommodation may intersect with the criteria for local authorities to end duties as set out in section 20 of this bill. If someone is evicted due to violent or threatening behaviour, damage to property, or non-engagement then Shelter Cymru would consider it highly likely that the eviction from TA could be triggered by or come alongside the ending of wider duties to the applicant.
We are hopeful that organisations supporting and advocating for people facing eviction from TA will be involved in the drafting of guidance that will be set out for section 20 to ensure that these powers are used as a last resort, that local authorities are working in a trauma-informed and empathetic way, and that all reasonable opportunities to continue to offer support are considered.
Over the next 12 months, what will Shelter Cymru’s priorities be in terms of campaigning and discussions during the phases prior to voting, and what are the areas that you feel there may need to be concessions over?
Shelter Cymru are broadly supportive of this bill and recognise it as a progressive step towards ending homelessness in Wales. There are some areas where we will continue to campaign for review as the bill moves through the Senedd, namely:
- The timelines for implementation of different elements in the bill. We would look for the abolition of the priority need and intentionality tests to be brought in significantly sooner than the 2030/2031 set out in the explanatory memorandum as the earliest that this abolition will be enacted.
- The powers to discharge duties for the conditions set out in section 20 of this bill. Everyone should have a safe environment to work in and there must be a practical mechanism to close down applications that are no longer needed but the criteria in section 20 go far beyond this. This section has the potential to create a punitive system that will see inconsistent application across Wales and provide a route to gatekeeping behaviour by some teams. Implicit in this section is an acceptance of homelessness for some people in Wales that is not reflective of the trauma-informed understanding of the Welsh Governments wider aims.
- Clarity for the public sector on the “ask” requirement of “Ask and Act”. As we discussed in the webinar, the “ask” element of this new duty is for the professional to seek consent to share someone’s information when they believe the person/household is experiencing or at risk of homelessness. This may create a low-threshold for referrals which would be welcome but it also may not encourage the wider professional curiosity that will be needed to make this new duty effective.
Alongside this we will continue to highlight that the duties and powers of this bill will need to be backed by suitable funding to achieve real-world change for people in Wales. This shouldn’t mean that we delay bringing about these necessary changes or tie progress to wider system factors that may or may not ever be realised – e.g. sufficient supply of social homes.
What would some examples of deliberate manipulation look like?
As set out above, Shelter Cymru have some concerns about how this section of the Bill has currently been drafted but we are hopeful that these will be reviewed and are not part of the intention behind the deliberate manipulation test. That subsection sets out a broader range of applications than the other criteria for this test.
If this criteria is brought in line with the others and the need to evidence intent to manipulate is included then the test will rightly set out a narrow window in which someone could be considered to have knowingly and intentionally manipulated the housing system for their benefit. Because of this, I’m struggling to create fictionalised examples of when it might apply.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean it will be only be used in the limited set of circumstances in which it is likely intended to be used in. Even if the drafting concern is resolved, we anticipate future casework for Shelter Cymru due to instances of misunderstanding or misuse of this clause.
For care experienced young people seeking housing are there any significant changes that we need to be aware of for advising our young people?
There are some welcome changes for care experienced young people aged 18-21. This includes an amendment to the Social Services and Wellbeing Wales Act placing an additional duty on local authorities to secure suitable accommodation when people aged 18-21 is leaving care. This comes in alongside an amendment affecting social housing allocations policies that will see young people leaving care given reasonable preference in all allocations policies. Both of these steps aim to ensure that young care leavers are accessing social homes without having to enter the homelessness system first.
Similarly, the bill sets out that local authorities must create a joint protocol between their social services and housing teams to provide joined-up support for “cases involving 16 and 17 year-olds who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, the accommodation and support needs of care leavers, and 16 and 17-year-olds leaving youth detention”. This will put social services as the coordinating team in most cases and will hopefully ensure there is a more holistic approach to supporting these young people.
Can you clarify changes in the 56 day prevention duty, if any, as I often come across this in my role?
In the proposals in this bill, the prevention duty for local authorities will begin when the household receives a written notice of eviction, when a court application for possession is made or if it likely that the person will become homeless within six months. This is a welcome extension of the 56 day prevention duty that will offer people help to prevent homelessness at an earlier stage.
Is there sufficient levels of social housing scheduled to be built in Wales over the next 5 to 10 years. Do you know specifically/broadly, how much social housing is going to be built across Wales over the 5 to 10 years?
Shelter Cymru’s research sets out that, at current rates of delivery, it would take 35 years to offer a social home to everyone currently on waitlists: Waiting for a home: An update on social housing waitlists in Wales – Shelter Cymru
With over 94,000 households waiting for a social home in Wales, Shelter Cymru believe that further investment in social homes and greater clarity on the challenges that are preventing delivery on planned sites are both urgently needed. While social housing waitlists aren’t a direct proxy to evidence need for social homes, they help us to understand demand. That demand is driven by a range of factors but each of those households believe that a social home is the best option for them and their family.
We aren’t in a position to make projections over the next five or ten years. The 26/27 budget will be the last set before the Senedd elections next year. We know there are voices across the sector, including Shelter Cymru, who are speaking to all political parties about the importance and benefits of investing in social homes for Wales.
Can you clarify the intentionality test as we work with some people that have had to give up their property when going into prison?
Our colleagues have created an explainer page on our website for the intentionality test that you can find here: Intentional homelessness – Shelter Cymru
We also have an advice page specifically for people leaving prison here: Prison leavers – Shelter Cymru
If you think that someone you support has wrongly been deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless please do reach out to Shelter Cymru advisers: Get help – Shelter Cymru
For teams who think they are regularly seeing poor decisions taken by local authorities and would like to be better equipped to advocate for the communities your serve you may want to reach out to our training team: Shelter Cymru – Training and events from Shelter Cymru
There is a section in the bill which states that a person can receive a notice “whether the notice is otherwise valid”, does this mean that people will not need to show a potential RHW16 form to the council to access homelessness support? but rather just an intention from the landlord to evict the client?
The amendments that section 1 of this bill sets out are broad with the intention of creating a wide safety net. The language of the existing 56-day prevention duty is that the duty begins if “it I likely that the person will become homeless within 56 days” – how this is assessed has been set by local authority practices and where the need to provide specific forms of evidence, such as an RHW16 form, has come about.
The amendments that this bill would bring in clarify that the new 6 month prevention duty begins if written notice has been received, if a possession application has been made to a court, OR if it is likely that the person will become homeless within 6 months even if there isn’t evidence for one of the other two criteria.
The language that you are referring to confirms that support should be given even if the notice isn’t valid. So if a landlord issues an English section 21, that doesn’t legally apply here in Wales the local authority would still have a duty to offer preventative support to the household. This is great to see in the bill and sets broader parameters on “risk of homelessness” which will hopefully see preventative work come in at an earlier stage.
How all of this will work in practice will likely depend on local authority resources and the intention for a wide net will be undermined if local authority teams are struggling to manage caseloads.
Additionally, something that comes up perennially is whether or not there is a need for a regulator or some sort of ombudsman to ensure consistent application of the new duties, across a range of different public bodies, not all of which are subject to the Public Services Ombudsman?
Local authorities that we have spoken with over the weeks since the bill was published have raised concerns that the teams and organisations that will be subject to the “Ask and Act” and cooperation duties won’t step into these responsibilities fully or consistently. The bill doesn’t set out consequences when teams fail to act in line with these duties and at Shelter Cymru we agree with this decision not to take an enforcement approach to these new duties.
However, that does create a big task for the Welsh Government to shift hearts, minds and workplace cultures to ensure that the teams subject to these duties are active partners in homelessness prevention. Funding was provided for registered training providers to provide “Ask and Act” training to support teams in meeting their responsibilities around identifying and reporting concerns of VAWDASV.
Local authorities will be best placed to monitor locally when these new duties are not seeing the impact they are intended to and we hope that there will be a route to flag this and support then be offered to teams.
Regarding the new rights of review (‘After accepting an offer, applicants can request a review within six months of the accommodation being made available…’). Currently, if a homeless applicant is allocated a property their section 75 duty would be ended and they have 21 days to ask for a review if they don’t feel it’s a suitable offer. Going forward an applicant might be completely happy with their offer, accept and move in. Four months later they have a fall-out with their neighbour – and they can ask for a review!? Do you accept that significant additional funding and personnel will be needed, from a local authority perspective, to manage this?
Shelter Cymru are concerned that in the early years of implementation there will be an increased workload for local authorities and we will continue to advocate for additional funding to ensure successful implementation of the bill.
However, we know that we have a huge issue of repeat homelessness here in Wales and social home allocations have a role to play in that. The extension of the right to review the suitability of a social home will see local authority teams returning to someone’s case before, hopefully significantly before, a homelessness risk occurs.
In Shelter Cymru’s casework we unfortunately see instances where people felt pressured to accept an offer of a social home that they felt would not be suitable for them – either through a mis-explanation of the intentionality test or policies that a refusal of a social home end duties for people living in temporary accommodation. We aren’t currently doing enough to ensure that people understand their rights within this system and the 21 day review window doesn’t give people long enough to see independent advice.
While processing a review is undoubtedly additional work for a local authority, if it means that we can keep people in suitable homes longer-term and prevent homelessness then it will be better for people and better for the local authority teams managing massive workloads.
With the removal of the section 73 duty, is the plan to accept the final section 75 duty once the section 66 duty comes to an end?
That is our understanding of the bill.
If everyone is in priority need and risk of homelessness is increased to 6 months, is Shelter Cymru concerned that genuinely vulnerable households in urgent housing need will not receive the priority they currently do due the number of households LA’s will be assisting?
We understand that local authority teams are facing immense pressures and that systems that categorise need can be helpful for workload management.
However, the phrase “genuinely vulnerable” is not reflective of quite how vulnerable experiencing homelessness can make people from a range of backgrounds. The priority need test puts a decision making power on to local authority teams that doesn’t reduce need for local authority help but instead pushes people out of a system because the system isn’t sufficiently resourced to help everyone.
The priority need category of “vulnerable as a result of some special reason” has been left open to subjective interpretation and the spirit of the inclusion of this broad category has not been echo-ed by practices across every local authority – although it has in the majority. Similarly, the introduction of the new priority need category for “people who are street homeless” has resulted in some local authorities funding third sector teams to conduct street homelessness verification assessments which can delay people accessing the right support and interim accommodation for weeks.
In our own work we’ve spoken to a trans man in his early 20s who was sleeping in a field for weeks after notifying the council that he was homeless. His local authority still uses the priority need test and felt he didn’t meet the criteria for any priority need category – which included them not believing that he would be street homeless if not provided with interim accommodation.
Shelter Cymru is not blind to the pressures facing local authority teams, but the answer is not to close the door on people who need help because we feel they fall short of an arbitrary definition of “vulnerable enough”. It has a devastating impact for those households but it also means there is a greater longer-term cost to the public purse through other areas such as health, social services or criminal justice.
Removing priority need will need to be properly resourced, particularly in areas where it has been used routinely as a caseload management tool. If funded to be implemented effectively then removing priority need will ensure consistency of practice across local authority areas, ensure people access the help they need, and reduce public spending across a range of areas.
Local authorities will continue to have the power to decide their own prioritisation policies when it comes to allocation of social homes. Under the bill as it currently stands local authorities will be able to refuse applications for social homes if they do not meet certain qualifying criteria.
Is there anything within the bill to prevent or support children and families facing homelessness?
There are not changes within this bill that are explicitly setting out to impact children and families but many of the measures in the bill will see improvements for families facing or experiencing homelessness. The longer prevention duty, the expanded rights of review, the removal of the intentionality test, and the duties on the public sector and others to support the prevention of homelessness are all welcome measures that have the potential to improve the circumstances of everyone facing homelessness, including children and families.
One area the Bill could go further would be extending the public sector duty to refer to cover staff working in schools (e.g. headteachers).
