The Gerald Ratner of the HA sector

Last Night, Thursday 29 September 2011, saw Grant Shapps the Housing Minister being lauded for his “Affordable Homes” programme by a “housing worker.”

The same “housing worker” after heaping praise on Shapps then asked him to reconsider HB direct to the landlord and cited the recent study which said greater than 90% of tenants want that, yet they are being denied that choice by DWP.

Personally and professionally I agree that tenants claiming benefit should have the choice and would argue strongly that from a tenant perspective its the right thing to do.

Yet, any “housing worker” praising Shapps “Affordable Rent” programme must in my view be ignorant of what it is.  In simple terms the national averages reveal that the 80% of gross market rent “Affordable Rent” figure would be £131.44 per week and the average overall social rent is £76.17 per week.  Hence the increase is a whopping 73%.

The ‘housing worker’ mentioned he was from CDHT / Cosmopolitan and this morning it was revealed on twitter by his own staff that he was none other than John Denny, the Chief Executive.  A quick google search reveals his picture to put the issue beyond any doubt.

Part of me understands heaping (false) praise on the Housing Minister on national television then asking him to reconsider one element of a policy.  And if it was false praise it of course isnt sycophancy.  Yet John Denny didn’t mention this 73% increase at all or the hugely damaging impact it has on a tenant and on benefit dependency and all the other aspects that any tenant would have with a staggering 73% rent increase.  The national average figures would mean a working tenant would need to earn £4720 more per year in gross terms to stand still. So the absence of any criticism reveals his comments to be sycophancy and not false praise for a bit of horse trading.

In doing so John Denny sold the great history and charitable ethos of the housing association movement down the river and that is deeply offensive and quite simply a disgrace.

What is the rationale and ethos of any housing association other than providing secure and affordable accommodation?  Yet John Denny’s praise of Shapps flawed model means a 73% average increase for tenants. So to hell with tenants, to hell with the great history and ethos of the housing association movement, as long as we get HB direct is precisely what John Denny was saying on Question Time in front of a national TV audience.

John Denny has brought disrepute on the HA movement in being so openly one-sided, sycophantic and giving the perception that all HAs care about is the bottom line.

That is something no Chief Executive in any sector should do and stay in post.  It was and will be remembered as the HA sector’s Gerald Ratner moment and for the sake of the sector the same outcome should follow.

Housing Benefit Facts

Housing Benefit Facts (as at 30 September 2011)

1.       Latest overall HB bill is £22.345bn at June 2011

Overall HB bill has risen by £1.49 billion since May 2010

HB bill has risen by £3.8m per day since May 2010

2.       National averages:

Council house rent is £71.14pw – 100% paid by HB

Housing Association rent is £80.11pw – 100% paid by HB

Social rent (av council / HA combined) is £76.17pw – 100% paid by HB

Privately rented (gross market rent) is £164.55 pw – 70% paid by HB

Average private rent is therefore 118% more than council rent and 105% more than HA rent

3.       Shapps “Affordable Rent” is 80% of gross market rent is £131.44pw

Council rent to “Affordable Rent” is an 85% increase

Housing Association to “Affordable Rent” is a 65% increase

Average social rent to “Affordable Rent” is a 73% increase

If all new 170,000 “Affordable Rent” properties go to those now;

(a)   renting privately – HB bill will increase by £181m per year  - and a working tenant will need to earn £1600 gross per year more to afford

(b)   renting from council – HB bill will increase by £536m per year – and a working tenant will need to earn £4720 gross per year more to afford

(c)    renting from housing association – HB bill will increase by £455m per year – and a working tenant will need to earn £4058 gross per year more to afford.

Regulated private renting can be cheaper than social renting

Does increase regulation of the private rented sector have to mean increased cost of rent?  That in  my view is a myth propagated and repeated to defend the indefensibly high cost of the unregulated private rented sector.

Yet before I discuss that in detail I’d like to draw attention to an interesting and thought provoking blog http://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/for-a-change-more-light-than-heat-on-the-prs/ on Red Brick on Monday 26^th concerning the regulation of the private rented sector (PRS) and the PRS willingness for regulation rather than the need for it to be imposed makes a nice change. It is not the proverbial leftist public good / private bad discussion which unfortunately typifies the rented housing press.

Yet despite this the first commenter states

“If regulation means that the unfair competition by those undercutting by providing poor quality accommodation is removed, then that means a better standard of accommodation. Which is surely a desirable objective. The problem is that this will may also mean an overall rise in general rent levels in the private sector.”

I’ve emphasised the last sentence as it is often stated that increased regulation of the PRS equates with and must lead to increased cost.  Some may say the Zoopla report of the same day http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2011-09-27-Buying-now-cheaper-than-renting-across-90-of-Britain which said that renting is more expensive than buying a home in 90% of British cities, supports that view.  Yet doesn’t that conflict with the efficient private sector and inefficient public sector arguments of the right?

What is little known and even more infrequently discussed is that the PRS comprises regulated and unregulated tenancies.  The fact that there are only 45000 or so regulated tenancies compared with 1.265 million unregulated ones can’t hide the fact that regulate ones receive £79.45 in housing benefit as a national average compared to the £113.78 the unregulated ones receive. That’s a whopping 43%  more for the vast majority of unregulated private tenancies and yet the unregulated ones must be making money at £79.45 per week.  Hence the unregulated PRS must be on a gravy train and be pillaging the public purse? Yes and No and as always it’s not as simple as that.

If UK plc were to pay unregulated PSLs at the same rate as regulated ones the overall HB bill would reduce by £2.59bn is a statistical fact.  It makes a mockery of Shapps and the Coalitions general aims of getting value for money and exposes his hypocrisy when he states there is no need or it will be too costly to regulate the unregulated PRS.  A £2.59bn saving to the public purse is one hell of a saving foregone for what can only be reasons of political dogma.

But, aren’t most private rented properties priced at BTL mortgage cost plus profit is an oft-proffered, albeit simplistic view of the high cost of unregulated private tenancies and therefore they must cost much more than ‘subsidised’ social housing. Or why shouldn’t they be allowed to get whats in it for them?

If they are just short-term investments then that holds some economic validity, yet all research emanating from the private sector sees the hundreds of thousands of ‘amateur’(and some not so amateur) private landlords, no doubt inspired by the myriad of TV programmes dedicated to being a private landlord, being longer-term investors and using their single figure number of properties as their own pension equity.

So short-term investors out to make Milliband’s ‘quick buck’, these valueless bad businesses as it were, may have just cause to charge higher than social rents, but 43% above regulated private tenancies in benefit is stretching that point absurdly.  It is even more absurd when the gross market rent according to the latest survey is £164.55 per week as a national average. This suggests that the £113.78 in LHA represents just 70% of the overall rent charged and that this compares very unfavourably to the average gross social rent (Council and HA combined) of £76.17 which is all met by HB.

The national average unregulated PRS gross rent is therefore 116% higher than the national average social rent.

That is a startling statistic and suggests strongly that there is a huge element of profiteering at play in the unregulated PRS market.  It has got to such proportions that the question of whether to regulate the entire PRS is no longer a question of choice or dogma.  It is one of national necessity and one with an aim of reducing cost even with regulation.  But is this feasible?

Yes and here’s why.

In the late 1990s I worked at a Northern council who became newly responsible for the impending asylum seeker dispersal programme as part of a Northern consortium of councils. All councils in the consortium were to be paid the same rate to accommodate asylum seekers in a combination of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties to accommodate families or single asylum seekers and all properties had to be fully furnished right down to crockery and cutlery.

The council had few difficult-to-let properties and some areas were (and still are) 99%+ white only areas and much attention was given by the local media along the lines of what nationally, the Daily Mail was saying.  This largely jingoistic media attention made the dispersal programme a politically charged issue.

The solution was to use the PRS 100% which provided better properties at a better standard and 13% less than the council could do even if it wanted to.

It was also the cheapest cost in the whole consortium and enabled the council to profit by over £300k  per annum.

Because the PSLs were engaged, as were the local NLA/RLA representatives and because they got 260 weeks of guaranteed rent whether properties occupied or not and because they had to have their properties inspected and up to standard before they were considered, the private landlords were able to significantly improve their stock.  Indeed many came to me asking would their chances improve of getting on the list is they installed a gym in the basement or additional white goods such as dishwashers in the kitchens.  Such was the attraction of 260 weeks guaranteed rent.

In short:

(a) The council made money, deflected the political risks and the economic ones, sated the few jingoistic councillors AND had a modern, regulated and higher standard private sector stock than all of their
neighbouring councils.

(b) The PRS landlords had the money to invest in their own stock and the surety of 260 weeks guaranteed rent (subject to regular inspection and monitoring of the properties)

(c) Both the council and the PRS had a much stronger working relationship and the programme was mutually beneficial. This continues to this day and the LHA costs in this council are the lowest in the area and I would strongly argue this area has the best PRS stock in terms of quality.

When councils see and accept that private landlords are motivated by profit but even more motivated by longer-term involvement and not take an ‘us and them’ approach then the result is mutually beneficial.  Costs reduced radically with this systemic regulation but it must be said the 260 weeks of guaranteed rent (building voids and non-regulatory compliance aside) was a strong pull.

Why can’t something similar be done on a national scale?

We can see the NLA / RLA lobbying for direct payments of HB yet many still see this as wrong despite the fact that the HB regulations actively discriminate against it.  After all the market is about risk and reward so reducing the risk of arrears should according to market principles reduce the cost.

It did with the dispersal programme.

We can see the NLA/RLA (and other PRS lobbies) now joining with social housing lobbies on such matters of direct payment and on other issues such as length and security of tenure. That should be welcomed rather than discouraged.

We see proposals to allow homelessness duties to be discharged by councils to the PRS.  So isn’t  it in council interests and the national one to ensure such properties are up to scratch?

Even the quote I first used above and I criticised can be seen as constructive when it says the good PSLs want regulation as it exposes the bad PSLs.  Rather than concentrate on the ‘bad’ PSLs that the housing sector has focused upon for far too long, shouldn’t it focus on the ‘good’ PSLs that the entire housing rented sector needs and as my example above proves can deliver better quality accommodation at a cheaper price than public sector landlords can?

The asylum seeker dispersal programme I detailed above focused on the good private landlord and the good quality private property and in fact it necessitated the latter ‘competed out’ (ugly phrase I know) the bad private landlord and bad private property and achieved it at a lower cost than even social housing and WITH regulation.

It’s time the public sector took off its blinkered approach to closer and fully integrated working with the PRS and saw that the Cui Bono approach can be mutually beneficial.

Why Shapps Affordable Rent Model MUST increase overall HB bill and why he is wrong to say it wont

Continuing my consideration of the absurdly misnamed “Affordable Rent” model put forward by housing minister Grant Shapps.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2011/mar/31/grant-shapps-housing-minister-your-questions?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487) Sorry link missed off first post.

A Guardian Q&A session with Grant Shapps on 31 March 2011 has just been brought to my attention and specifically this part

“Please can you explain what the understanding is between yourself/CLG and Iain Duncan Smith/DWP on how the total housing benefit bill will stack up in the future? Affordable rent will inevitably mean housing benefit payments will rise, and yet IDS seems set on reducing the HB bill. How do you square that circle?

The response from Grant Shapps:

“I appreciate that at first sight your logic seems sensible. Build affordable rent, allow all of the up to 80% rent to be covered by Housing Benefit (HB) and surely the bill must rise. However, this misses out an important factor from the equation. Many of the people likely to move into Affordable Rent homes are living in the Private Rented Sector and may be receiving HB for all of their current higher rent. Therefore in HB terms there isn’t much impact through our Affordable Homes programme.” (My emphasis)

So let’s assume 100% of those in Shapp’s Affordable Rent model will transfer from private tenancies to his AR model.

The national average paid to claimants in private tenancies is £111.18 per week.  80% of gross market rent (£164.55) is £131.64.  This means an increase of £20.46 per tenancy per week and there are 1.563,240 private tenants getting this.  So by simple arithmetic the HB bill would increase by £31,983,690 per week or £1.68 billion a year more.

Shapp’s logic that the AR model of social housing will only be taken up by ex private tenants is wildly optimistic and yet even if it did happen to 100% private tenants claiming HB it would still cost the public purse £1.68bn a year more.  His logic is fundamentally flawed and how he can still use ‘affordable’ in the name of this fundamentally flawed model is baffling as it is defies even the most optimistic description of what it is.

If all 100% of the first phase of 170,000 AR tenants is ex private tenants then the HB bill increases by £181m per year.

The other extreme is that they are all ex-council tenants currently paying £71.14 – again as a national average and again from the official HB statistics his government released last week – then the increase is £60.50 per property per week to £131.64 – a £10.285m weekly increase and a yearly one of £536.66m.

So Shapp’s so-called “Affordable Rent” model will see the HB bill rise somewhere between £181m and £536m each year.

There are no circumstances if landlords use 80% of gross market rents in which the HB bill will reduce, it will always increase whether its 1% of private tenants and 99% social tenants or vice versa.

Please note as well that the term ‘gross market rent’ as used in the Affordable Homes Programme Framework also includes service charges such as ground rent etc which are not included in the figure of £164.55pw given above.  For a full analysis of this and all the points above see my blog here

http://wp.me/p1vuvL-2t

Food banks for the UK poor – New Jobcentre guidance?

Reported in the Independent today that JobCentres will be guided to refer crisis loan claimants to charitable food banks!! http://t.co/glUAmerQ.  Ive had a quick look at the Trussell Trust the Christian charity operating these and many of them are open 3 hours on Mon and 3 hours on Friday. So if youre hungry for cash instead dont apply for a crisis loan on a Monday or a Friday!!

Big Society in action anyone?

HB – It is not sweet and noble to lie to your country Mr Shapps – Updated 20 September 2011

Housing Benefit reforms were first outlined very soon after this coalition took office in May 2010.  The extract below from the July 2010 Housing Benefit Digest issued by the DWP explains:

The Chancellor announced a package of Housing Benefit (HB) reforms in his Budget statement on 22 June. It is the most significant and comprehensive reform programme for HB since the scheme was introduced in the 1980s. The background is the budget deficit and the reductions in public expenditure that the Government is making to tackle it. Ministers are clear that the overall cost of HB, forecast to be around £20 billion this financial year, must be controlled and reduced. The package of reforms will save nearly £2 billion by 2014/2015. There are also important policy considerations around fairness and work incentives that lie behind the reforms”

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/issue-103-july-2010.pdf

I’ll leave aside the socio-political policy considerations around fairness and work incentives, not because they are not important or as important, and many believe they are more important as I do, but because the financial savings claimed are simply not going to materialise.  Instead I address the statement that: -

“Ministers are clear that the overall cost of HB, forecast to be around £20 billion this financial year, must be controlled and reduced. The package of reforms will save nearly £2 billion by 2014/2015.”

The definite use of ‘will’ as in the “…package of reforms will save nearly £2 billion by 2014/2015” is very assertive but highly unrealistic I argue using the latest statistics and figures. (http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb)

The £20 billion or so forecast with nearly £2bn saving sets the coalition aim of the overall HB cost to be circa £18 billion per year – an ambitious and I argue an unattainable target

At the time of the announcement of these reforms in May 2010 the coalition were working on the basis of the February 2010 HB figure which was £20.48bn and the “…forecast to be around £20 billion this financial year” quoted concurs with this.  Or simply if it is a forecast for 2009/2010 financial year then the latest figures didn’t include March 2010 and so must be February 2010 figure.

The latest (June 2011) overall figure is £22.345 billion and so has already risen by £1.87 billion.  As such the “…nearly £2 billion by 2014/2015” aim or target needs to find £4.345 billion pounds of savings to meet the target HB figure.

HB costs have risen by approximately £120m per calendar month in that time and the first reforms don’t come into effect until January 2012 (and even then with a phased implementation) and based on current trends the overall HB bill will increase by a further £840 million or £0.84 billion to reach £23.2 billion and this is £5.2bn above the target figure.  The HB reforms will therefore start from a position of being £5.2 billion and 29% above the target figure.

As I blogged late yesterday http://wp.me/p1vuvL-1y in an update to the original article there is deep hypocrisy and duplicity in the inactions of the Housing Minister Grant Shapps to regulate private tenancies, and if he did then the figures show we pay £2.7bn more for unregulated private tenancies than we do for regulated ones.  Yet in June 2010 when he announced the HB reforms Shapps ruled out any regulation of private landlords – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jun/10/landlord-regulation-proposals-scrapped and one can only assume this was a political decision and the economic rationale is simply not there as the official SBHE figures prove.

UPDATE 20 September 2011 – The venerable Mr Shapps has been tweeting today that John Prescott’s plan to regionalise fire services wasted £496m and thereby cost every tax paying family £20 a year.  Ergo his failure to regulate PSLs that costs £2.7bn per year at the test figures and rising must cost the average tax payer £110 per year!!

Rather Shapps has developed the contrived and ineptly named “Affordable Rent” model of social housing which will see social housing rents increase from £76.17 per week as a national average to £130.16 http://wp.me/p1vuvL-2l an increase of 71%.  So much for ‘affordable!’  As a further update as at today 16 September 2011 a report (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14934316)  states that the national average ‘gross market rents’ have increased yet again meaning the 80% AR figure for social  lets will be £131.64 and an increase of 73% on national average social rents.

Finally, it is time for the social housing lobby to stop making argument about the impact of the HB cuts.  Yes they are offensive and will have a life-changing impact, but such arguments as to social impact are not working.  As is ever the case undermining the bottom-line financial argument made by government is a stronger argument in my view.  And as some of my earlier blogs reveal we currently spend £3.27 billion more on private tenancies than we do for the same number of council tenancies.  Joe Public is horrified with the 10 cases (yes thats all and this is 0.00002% of all cases!) out of 4.9m claimants getting over £100k per annum in HB as this amount to over £1 million per year, I’m sure they will be just as angry at the £9 million PER DAY excess their taxes pay to one type of landlord over another, and especially when they provide a lower quality product and service.

The fact that we now pay more in HB per property to Housing Associations (av. £80.11 per week) than we do to regulated private landlords at £79.45 per week just exposes the madness of paying £113.74 pw for an unregulated private tenancy.

It’s time for the housing sector to expose the financial duplicity of this coalition and hold the coalition and Shapps in particular to their oft-stated aim of getting value for money with the public purse.

non dulce et decorum est pro optimus frustro vestri patria

Affordable Rent Model – higher than LHA

The Affordable Rent Model proposed by the coalition is set at up to 80% of market rents.  Yet not many realise that the rent level that can be charged by social landlords will be more than the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) paid to private tenants and private landlords.

Confused?  Yes so are many but here is how that works. The market rent is not the LHA level but the gross market rent of properties in the area and I use national in-payment figures to explain.

A) Gross market rent as a national average is reported to be £705 per calendar month which is a weekly rent of £162.70.

B) National average LHA in-payment figure according to the Single Housing Benefit Extract – the official figures – is £114.36 per week as at May 2011.  This means average LHA is 70% of the gross market rent.

C) Social landlords will be allowed to charge up to 80% of gross market rent which is £130.16 [£162.70 x 0.80]

The Affordable Homes Programme Framework document states this both implicitly and explicitly at 3.3 on page 15 and at 3.11 on page 17 and the document is to be found at

http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/sites/default/files/our-work/affordable-homes-framework.pdf

3.3 states: – “Affordable Rent is a form of social housing. Homes will be made available at a rent level of up to 80% of gross market rents.”

3.11 states: – There may be specific circumstances where it is appropriate to set rents at less than 80% of market rents.  For example providers may wish to charge lower rents where a rent of 80% or market rent would exceed or be close to the relevant Local Housing Allowance (LHA) cap”

This last paragraph answers the question I have been asking on what is the definition of ‘market rent’ for the Affordable Rent Model.  3.11 makes it absolutely clear that the market rent is the gross market rent of currently £160.72 per week and not the LHA in-payment rate of £114.38.

So a social landlord adopts the AR model and charges a rent of 80% of gross market rent and this is £130.16 currently.  The tenant loses his job and claims HB and receives what level of housing payment?  Is it the average social landlord level of £76.13 or the LHA of £114.38?  If it’s the former then the tenant needs to make up a whopping £54.03 per week, if the latter (and how can a social tenant get LHA?) then its £15.78.

Any tenant that takes on an AR tenancy will take on the risk that losing job is losing home.

AR is more of a risk to a tenant than a private tenancy.  A private tenant paying £162.70pw national average gets £114.38 in LHA and has a shortfall of £48.32 per week; whereas a social tenant (as AR is a model of social housing see 3.3) has to make up more at £54.03 per week - an added 11.2% risk if we choose to quantify it.

The AR model would see a social tenant receiving just 58% of his “Affordable” rent when we currently see a private tenant getting over 70%.  How long before we see HB or the housing payment which replaces it for social tenants not covering full rent as we see now for non AR rent cases?  If its ok and socially ‘acceptable’ for all private tenants and some social tenants (AR cases) not to receive full rent benefit, then how long before this government decides its unfair to pay full rent on ‘normal’ social housing lets?

Monthly Housing Payments IDS wish

Iain Duncan Smith or IDS as he doesn’t like to be known after his disaster as Tory leader when even his colleagues purportedly used IDS to refer to “In Da Shit” has announced this morning that Universal Credit is to be paid monthly.  His rationale is that as 75% of workers receive monthly pay packets then this should be adopted for UC rather than the typical fortnightly payments of benefits including HB is paid now.

As is typical with IDS and UC there is no impact assessment for this change its the usual policy on a whim and the timing of the announcement is offensive and deceitful.

IDS did not suddenly have a road to Damascus incident last night and then announce this change today – when the Welfare Reform Bill goes to the Lords; it must have been in his mind for some time. Yet he has deliberately chosen to keep this quiet until now and the scale of change and impact this move will have is massive.  So we can see IDS has kept this quiet to deny discussion of this through the House of Commons and he has misled Parliament in doing so.

Denying debate is the preserve of the dictator and this is just the latest example in UC which lest we forget IDS set up his own think tank to create and remains his ‘baby’ and must come onto effect regardless of how it gets there.  The Machiavellian zeal and blind faith IDS has in Universal Credit is astonishing as he like to believe he is Beveridge reincarnate saving the welfare state from the 10 – Yes 10 only properties – just 0.000002% of all rented properties out of 4,890,000 that get more than £100k in LHA and the 14303 properties – just 0.3% that are currently paid above the HB caps set.  Anyone think of a national social policy initiative that was introduced that didn’t apply to 99.7% of the population?  No, me neither!

I don’t need to state the obvious that monthly benefit payment will see so many more benefit claimants struggle and fall into the hands of loan sharks and doorstep lenders, or fall into arrears with rent and utility and other payments.  Its stating the bloody obvious that they will.

Private tenants will be an interesting case.  Typically monthly tenancies with payment in advance and so one days delay in payment will see the tenant being more than 8 weeks in arrears.  Perhaps his private landlord Tory party donors will appreciate they can claim HB direct from this – oh hang on they can’t can they in IDS’s thinking!  Oops IDS better make that part of UC process clear straight away else PSLs will definitively flee the benefit claimant market post haste.

This quick response to this bloody stupid idea will of course be updated just as soon as IDS updates the rest of us with all the other snippets of UC process he will release AFTER it has been through Parliament. Those who want to know more of this magalomania only have to look at the other blogs here on 24 – 65% cuts that will close hostels and DV refuges (http://wp.me/p1vuvL-P) or  that the HB caps will deny access to the few remaining hostels and refuges applicants as the overall benefit cap part of the UC mean they are unaffordable.

The more and more that Universal Credit is considered – and of course that can only happen when we know how its proposed to work which IDS is deliberately keeping from all and sundry – then the more this massive social welfare experiment becomes nonsensical and dangerous.  IDS is a dangerous megalomaniac who is releasing details of his ‘baby’ piecemeal and after the event and he frankly doesnt care what the implications are to the many millions it will adversely affect, after all not even the Tories would have him back as leader.  The fact that Cameron is allowing him his place in history and not scrutinising UC and the impact it will have is also a chronic case of woeful leadership on his part.

SP – how to challenge the cuts agenda

Since SP went live in April 2003 over 90% of my personal caseload has been helping SP providers to challenge SP decisions of local councils.  The interim contract was a national one and provided many routes to challenge decision on reviews and on decommissioning and remodelling and the like.  I was the advising consultant in the Supportways case back in 2005 the first SP case to go to the High Court and Court of Appeal.

This found that Hampshire had conducted a flawed review yet the law was unable to make them go back and do it again a bizarre and truly offensive decision as to the inadequacies of the law in such cases.  However the publicity it created prevented councils from embarking on such lax processes for the SP contract and with my involvement negotiating on providers behalf persuaded them to rethink and usually the “Joe-you-misunderstood-we-were-never-going-to-cut-the-service” refrain was heard.

Yet the last few years have seen councils imposing their own very much more favourable SP contract terms and challenge has become much harder, though as the following points out, far from impossible.  Below is one of the main legal routes used and with a large amount of success.

A news release today here (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/09/09/117416/Court-allows-challenge-to-council39s-rise-in-care.htm) announces that the latest council to be challenged through the lack of ‘due regard’ to consultation under the DDA is Isle of Wight council.  This was also used successfuly against Birmingham city Council this year.

This same legal argument was successfully used to prevent Barnet and Portsmouth reducing SP services last year see here:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/3261.html.

I was recently involved with three other cases against proposed SP cuts and after receiving letters before action all of the councils wisely abandoned their proposed cuts all of which had paid ‘scant’ regard to consultation.  These lax processes have become known as ‘nonsultation.’ They have all agreed to go back and do a proper consultation process in accordance with the DDA and once that is done and only then can they re-start the tender processes they had embarked upon. At least they were spared the six an seven figure legal costs!

These successful challenges – and I’m currently working on another four – means that councils incur huge costs and also create significant delays in tender processes, which if they had done as they were supposed to do in the first place, of course they would not have incurred.

Some of these successful challenges have been in services that accommodate and support or just support a small minority of disabled service users and so this form of challenge is not restricted to ALD or MH or Deaf services, but it applies and has applied successfully to all SP client groups.

Thats the overview to what can be a complex process yet accurately describes these successful challenges which if councils had got it right first time wouldnt be so.  As always, if you wish to discuss in full and absolute confidence, and without any obligation then simply email me below and I will call you back.

Joe

Eviction by the back door? Safeguarding My Arse

The furore created by the London Borough of Wandsworth and specifically its Leader Ravi Govindia in issuing a news release to say they were going to evict the Mother and 8 year-old daughter of a suspected ‘rioter’ and ‘looter’ filled many column inches on housing websites and across social media a few weeks back, and rightly so.

Why any responsible public official would be so quick to pre-judge and rush to be first in getting an eviction on this basis is deeply offensive.  It’s not the fact that Ravi Govindia ’conveniently’ forgot we are all innocent until proven guilty (after all his bio for the councils states he read law); or the fact that this is a discriminatory punishment that doesn’t affect and can’t affect non-tenants: It’s not even the fact that some maintain this is a double punishment and therefore against the Human Rights Act and even the Geneva Convention, or even the excellent blog on the Nearly Legal blog that states in great detail the legal complexities of this. – It’s the fact in my view Ravi Govindia placed an eight year-old child in danger.

I stated this argument immediately this offensive news release became known and I said that Ravi Govindia should resign before he is pushed and become the subject of an external ‘safeguarding’ enquiry for placing a child in such danger.

Yesterday it was revealed on numerous sites that the 18-year-old son has been released from custody and one of his bail conditions (on top of a 7pm to 7am curfew) is that he doesn’t enter London apart from going to court.  Why is that?  Or more correctly, why did a judge set such a condition if his safety and that of his Mother and 8-year-old sister was not an issue?

His Mother and sister are living approximately 100 miles away and it is presumed he is living there as well and, disgracefully, some media sources mention the exact address where they reside.

I find this whole case deeply disturbing and it does appear to be an eviction by the backdoor and all caused by the political chicanery and offensive self-publicity of Ravi Govindia the leader of Wandsworth.

For the past year or so I have had cause to look very closely at national Safeguarding Guidance issued by central government and very specifically at how an interested and affectedd party can launch a safeguarding enquiry against a local council.  Yet nobody can give me an answer as to how this can be progressed and its as if the national guidance presumes that actions or inactions of a council couldnt and doesn’t envisage a set of circumstances in which a council should be the subject of  safeguarding enquiry.  Yet here we have a classic case of such circumstances.

One would think that there would be a process in which a national body or even a neighbouring council could action a safeguarding enquiry against a council.  Yet I can find nothing in the guidance or any opinion or view from any agency that this can happen.  This is quite simply a huge oversight in the guidance and can only be based on the errant presumption that councils don’t place children or vulnerable adults in danger.  But they do and I have many other cases of this that can go nowhere and can’t be progressed.

In this case we see what is in effect a backdoor eviction and an uprooting of a vulnerable 8-year-old child to a different location, different schooling and a whole host of upset and change.

What is to stop other councils naming and shaming individuals to achieve a similar backdoor eviction?  Nothing!

What is to stop other councils using this as a way of achieving such a backdoor eviction and place more children at risk? Nothing!

While this case may well result in the son being found innocent can this family return to Battersea and live there safely after this?  I doubt they can and this case is deeply disturbing in its many consequences that were all brought about by one self-serving, publicity-hungry councillor who placed his own political ends about the safety and health and welfare of a child.

He should hang his head in shame and resign.

Finally, with all the enquirys about to start into what caused the ‘riots’ and similar investigations, it is crucial for a thorough investigation into ‘safeguarding’ is also conducted to avoid the abuse to which this poor, vulnerable and innocent  8 year-old has been subjected.