The previous New Labour Government did much to try and tackle the enduring problem of homelessness in the United Kingdom. Although such an undertaking was never going to be an easy one, many of the initiatives aimed at tackling and eradicating homelessness had limited success, whilst many others had suspect or ulterior motives.

This article will examine the main homelessness initiatives introduced under the Homelessness Act 2002. The article will find that the main thrust of the initiatives were targeted at reducing the ‘thin layer’ of homelessness, rather than the underlying social, economic and political causes of homelessness. These underlying factors have not gone away, and homelessness remains as entrenched as ever.

Main Provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002

The Homelessness Act 2002 received Royal Assent (The final stage of legitimising legislation) on 26th February 2002. It was the first piece of substantive housing legislation from the New Labour Government following its general election victory in 1997. The Act amended rather than replaced the Housing Act 1996, which contained the main homelessness provisions. The provisions of the new Act included most or all of the homelessness initiatives contained in the previous Green and White Papers.

The Act imposed a duty on local authorities to introduce or develop strategies, in partnership with other public bodies and non-governmental organisations, aimed at preventing homelessness. These initiatives were targeted at certain categories of persons, like young single households and rough-sleepers for instance, rather than the generality of the homeless or potentially homeless population. The Act also required local authorities to implement initiatives to enable frontline housing and other staff to work more proactively in the community to help prevent people from becoming homeless. These initiatives would appear to the casual observer to be praiseworthy and uncontroversial.

Criticisms of the Homelessness Act 2002

The Homelessness Act 2002, on the face of it, would appear to mirror previous legislative antecedents. For example, the Act has preserved the rationing regime and distinction between eligible and ineligible persons. However, closer inspection would suggest the contrary for three main reasons:

First, the relationship between Government and local authorities, in relation to the allocation and rationing of social housing, has further shifted away from a consensual approach to a centrist one, albeit under the pretence of the reverse situation.

Second, all or most of the changes introduced by the 2002 Act reflected Government policy and ideology in pursuance of its wider neo-liberal and behavioural approach to the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens. Although the Act has widened the categories of persons whom may regarded as a priority for housing, the Act has given local authorities the power to deem an applicant as ineligible because of his or her ‘unacceptable’ or ‘anti-social’ behaviour. This behaviour can include another member of the applicant’s household.

Third, the apparent radical change in the way social housing provision is allocated by replacing the strict needs-based system with a choice- and needs-based system. At first glance, this seems like a positive and radical advancement. However, such a cultural change could never be radical, in the truer sense, if it was not accompanied by additional resources: any change in the allocation regime would only mask rather than address the underlying problem of the severe lack of affordable and available social housing.

Wider Criticisms of the Homelessness Act 2002

Further scrutiny of the Homelessness Act 2002 would suggest that it was never intended to tackle or eradicate the underlying causations of homelessness. Namely, the chronic shortage of social housing stock, and the societal and multiplex problems associated with homelessness. The New Labour Government did very little during its tenure to enable local authorities to build or procure new social housing stock. This situation was made worse by the dwindling social housing stock, due to the ‘Right to Buy’ provisions, and also the increasing numbers of people on low and moderate incomes who could no longer afford to buy their own home. The situation has now developed into a real crisis thanks to the present economic climate.

The previous Government also did very little to recognise and tackle the reasons why people become homeless. Although it would not be too difficult to carry out empirical research in this area, the rationale behind the Homelessness Act 2002 was that homelessness was a singular housing issue. That is to say, the homelessness provisions of the Act were intended to reduce the incidence of homelessness according to Government data and statistics. The Department of Communities and Local Government records publishes data on homelessness trends. The key performance indicators for homelessness would imply that the initiatives, enacted under the Homelessness Act 2002, have been a runaway success.

However, these performance indicators only record the number of people who have applied to local authorities for assistance under homelessness law, and also those people whom have been deemed to be eligible to housing from local authorities. The Department of Communities and Local Government, regrettably, has yet to commission research on the deeper impact of the homelessness initiatives. Nevertheless, there are three possible reasons for the apparent downward trend in homelessness:

First, the preventative measures of reducing homelessness have included assisting people to find accommodation in the private rented sector. This has been helped by changes to the rules governing Housing Benefit. This may seem laudable, but some commentators would view this as quasi-privatisation of homelessness, which also serves to undermine the principle that access to social housing is a fundamental right.

Second, recent housing case law would support the viewpoint that many people who approach local authorities for assistance under homelessness law are being turned away, under the cloak of homeless prevention measures. In doing so local authorities may be acting unlawfully, and possibly manipulating the homelessness statistics as well. See, for example, R (Awey & Others) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC 52 and R (Kelly and Mehari) v Birmingham City Council [2009] EWHC 3240. It is highly regrettable that some local authorities, like Birmingham City Council for instance, may use the homelessness provisions to prevent people from applying for or being eligible to social housing.

Third, local authorities continue to deem vast swathes of people as ineligible to housing on the ground that they became homeless intentionally. This is by far the most common ground for refusing to house people under homelessness law, although this ground was available under the old provisions in the Housing Act 1996. However, it is possible that more people are being deemed as intentionally homeless as a direct consequence of the previous Government’s policies and rhetoric on unacceptable or anti-social behaviour.

The Future

The present Coalition Government are about to embark on unprecedented cuts to our public services, and these cuts will include housing and welfare provision. The exact details of these cuts are not yet fully known, although further details about the cuts are due to be announced in the forthcoming departmental spending reviews. However, it is very likely that the most vulnerable and needy people in our society will bear the brunt of these cuts, in particular homeless people or people threatened with homelessness.

Conclusion

The impact of the homelessness provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002 have been a mixed bag. Some of these initiatives should be cautiously welcomed, in particular the homeless prevention measures, and the requirement of local authorities to work more proactively with stakeholders and the community. The introduction of consumer choice in the allocation of social housing should also be cautiously welcomed. However, any allocation regime should continue to be based on need, particularly on those most in need. Further, re-arranging the deck chairs will not solve the problem of the chronic lack of social and affordable housing. Social housing still has its place in the housing economy, and the Government should embark on a major housing programme to increase the supply of affordable housing. This should include procuring excess capacity from the private sector in light of the current economic climate.

The Department of Communities and Local Government should commission empirical research on the deeper impact of the homelessness initiatives introduced under the Homelessness Act 2002. There is potentially a bigger societal problem here. Homelessness is not just a housing issue. There are many reasons as to why people become homeless, and invariably homelessness is symptomatic of the wider social, economic and political problems of our modern society.