Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Sheltered housing developments ‘shelved due to benefit cuts’
Yes, as a general rule of thumb under the rules as they currently apply in the private sector:
- single people under 35 get the shared accommodation rate irrespective of where they live
- single people and childless couples of any age get the shared accommodation rate if they live in shared accommodation
There are some exceptions but that’s the basic principle.
I know I keep banging on about this, and you might think I am naively trusting to believe it, but we must not forget that the proposed social sector LHA is only half the story where supported accommodation is concerned: if the policy does end up applying to supported accommodation it will be as part of a wider reform to separate the higher costs of providing and managing supported accommodation from benefits altogether: instead schemes will be commissioned with devolved funds. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: reputable providers will be protected, this really could be win-win. Instead of a demand-led HB scheme where often quite frankly preposterous amounts of HB are paid to shysters who satisfy a very low definition threshold, authorities will only commission the good guys. I really do not think anyone in government has any intention of restricting supported accommodation to the LHA and just leaving it at that. I realise the uncertainty over exactly what form this will take is making providers and commissioners nervous right now and stalling new schemes. I wish the government would get on with it.
I know I keep banging on about this,
Keep banging.
and you might think I am naively trusting to believe it,
No
but we must not forget that the proposed social sector LHA is only half the story where supported accommodation is concerned: if the policy does end up applying to supported accommodation it will be as part of a wider reform to separate the higher costs of providing and managing supported accommodation from benefits altogether: instead schemes will be commissioned with devolved funds. ,
I wonder what model of devolved funds you are talking about…..DHP ? Maybe LWP ? Maybe something similar to the old method of funding supported people…(why did that fail) ? Ring fenced?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: reputable providers will be protected, this really could be win-win. Instead of a demand-led HB scheme where often quite frankly preposterous amounts of HB are paid to shysters who satisfy a very low definition threshold, authorities will only commission the good guys.
I am yet to come across these shysters….maybe they are shy….but I am coming across reputable providers who are worried.
I wish the government would get on with it.
So does everybody. The problem is…... it is not a simple decentralise the budget, impose local commissioning, impose a quality assurance framework, develop improved prevention and personalisation, everybody crack on and it is a win-win and a saving to boot….....
I don’t think DHP is the right model. Something more like Supporting People I would think. I suspect the localism agenda will mean there isn’t a national quality framework, unless commissioning authorities decide to cooperate and set one up: it will be left to each commission body to apply its own quality controls. Just a guess: I don’t have any inside knowledge.
If you talk to any HB department anywhere in the country you will find very few people who want to leave exempt accommodation just as it is. There are unfortunately many providers who are taking advantage of a legal definition that is quite easy to satisfy: the threshold of “more than minimal support” provided by the landlord is a low one. The abuse takes many forms including:
- providing grotty HMO accommodation of sub-LHA quality, with excessive rents paid to private landlords for leased accommodation
- furniture and white goods charges that bear no relation whatsoever to the cost and quality of the items supplied
- rather insubstantial not-for-profit layers inserted into commercial businesses for no reason other than to attract exempt accommodation rates of HB (typically the owners of a commercial care/support provider will create a company limited by guarantee which has no staff but is interposed in the chain of leases and subleases - you see hundreds of examples of that model)
I am afraid registered housing associations are not immune from this - there is one in particular that exists purely as a vehicle for an offshore investment fund manager, some readers of this forum might well know who they are.
The review does provide an opportunity to get to grips with these issues, either by tightening the definitions to ensure that only reputable providers can satisfy it or, as suggested above, by changing the funding model entirely so that it isn’t demand led. The words “baby” and “bathwater” come to mind.
A lot of purported exempt accommodation providers really should not be getting any more than LHA
Right on cue, a Guardian article arrives.
With cuts to local authority budgets, the forced sale of council housing, and mooted cuts that will hit supported housing budgets, this fear is not abating. Services are caught in the centre of a storm, while the need for their services is ever greater, with homelessness rates rising and rent rises forcing people from their homes.
It’s this climate that makes it easier for unscrupulous companies to spot the opportunity to turn a profit by providing inadequate services while squeezing as much money as possible from local authorities. Poor services leave women without proper support and homeless people essentially abandoned, but if the service provider can undercut others, councils will feel unable to shift contracts elsewhere.
The unscrupulous firms profiting from homelessness and domestic abuse
Thanks Paul ........
You always send me away depressed for the weekend. Government cuts/Anorakian shysters and councils unable/unwilling to enforce basic housing support contracts, all in one article..
You really know how to make a guy feel bad.
Thanks Paul ........
You always send me away depressed for the weekend. Government cuts/Anorakian shysters and councils unable/unwilling to enforce basic housing support contracts, all in one article..
You really know how to make a guy feel bad.
Sorry Martin :-(
At least the football starts on the weekend :-) I’m sure that Engurland will cheer the nation with their surging victory over Russia tomorrow evening…...
This article is an even more depressing….if that is possible…than the one above.
Very depressing but I would also flag this statement as being very important to remember.
Gill Payne, director of policy and external affairs [at NHF], added that this was “an isolated case” and should not be used to justify cuts to funding for supported housing. Removing the exemption would cause thousands of units to be closed, she added.
I think Anoraks point is… that this is not an isolated episode….....I must admit I was a bit surprised by his initial post, (“as it wouldn’t happen round here” as the rather complacent saying goes) but this is evidence that abuse of rules of supported exempt can take place. The question is why did it occur and how can we stop it happening again. The answer is of course not cost cutting, but better regulation and listening/believing service users when they raise issues.
The issue is not “A lot of purported exempt accommodation providers really should not be getting any more than LHA” the issue is that the vulnerable clients who use this accommodation need that extra support/intensive management .....and if it is being paid for, we need to ensure it is then given.
Still clearly, without proper regulation this can be abused.
...authorities will only commission the good guys.
My worry is that, like most other services, they will only commission the cheap guys.
...authorities will only commission the good guys.
My worry is that, like most other services, they will only commission the cheap guys.
We need national guidance/insistence on fixed price contracts that must contain certain core service elements. Then you could only decide on additional service provision…. (?) Maybe.
You will still need regulation though.
This article shows supported housing in a much more positive light…
Note the savings made to health budgets if you actually support these schemes.
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jun/15/loneliness-kills-housing-threat-older-people
Latest from Homeless LInk.
“The current situation is that the Government’s Review into the size and costs of supported housing is due to be published in July. We do not have an exact date yet but it is likely to be before the 21st July when Parliament breaks up for the Summer recess.
It is also likely that when the Review is published there will be indicators from the Government as to their next steps with the possibility of a draft proposal on future funding options or, much more likely, some form of consultative process.
It seems logical that they will also announce something on their plans for LHA Caps in supported housing post-April 2017 (when the current exemption ends). This is because, in reality, resolving the two issues of LHA caps and Future Funding have become inextricably linked.
However, we think it’s safe to say that Government is now fully aware of the potential cataclysmic effects on supported housing of introducing the caps without some remedial action. They have also been thoroughly briefed on the impacts that the current uncertainty is creating around development, service modelling and lease renewals.
For many homelessness organisations, even if the LHA caps were removed there would still be major problems created by the roll-out of Universal Credit and the fact the default model is one monthly payment to the tenant. The current exemption of most supported housing from Universal Credit is not sustainable in the medium-term because of the abolition of Housing Benefit by 2021.”
Home Group care and support blog.
“We will soon get the findings of the review commissioned by government and conducted by Imogen Blood into supported housing. The results are likely to be a double edged sword. They will go some way towards showing the positive impact of social care but they will also uncover a multi-billion, perhaps as much as £4-6bn, cost through housing benefit.
Alongside the findings we fully expect Welfare Minister, Lord Freud to outline a new direction of travel. That’s something that the sector needs to grasp. Too much of the debate has focussed on the wrong thing. We all of us only have a limited amount of time. So we face a stark choice, expand our energy in defence of the status quo - That’s understandable as the desire to protect what we have is a very human one.
Or we can, as I believe we must, accept that the present system must change if it is to survive and start to articulate a bold new vision for supported housing.
Crucially this shouldn’t be seen as Supporting People 2.0. The mechanism and evaluation of SP meant it was all too easy to cut back on. One way in which the new funding mechanism needs to be better is in the monitoring of hard outcomes. As a sector we measure a lot but still seem to lack the hard data we need to support our case.”
See more……
Inside Housing report that welfare reform minister Lord Freud faced criticism for failing to provide details of the government’s plan for funding supported housing, despite recommendations from the sector to solve the impasse. Speaking at Housing 2016, Lord David Freud said a government review of its funding is “nearing completion and will be published soon”.
But he did not comment on a National Housing Federation (NHF) submission to ministers over how schemes should be funded. On the government review, he added: “This is the first review of the sector we’ve had for 20 years. It is nearing completion and we hope to publish it shortly.”
Jane Turner, senior housing manager at Brighter Futures, said: “Our board needs assurance that the properties we’ll be building will be able to get a sustainable return on them, and rent them out at the prices we need. Knowing that there’s a pause in a decision doesn’t help at all with those development plans.”