Calling on Sussex Members of Parliament to ensure letting agents are required by law to belong to an ombudsman scheme

On Tuesday, the House of Commons is discussing an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Bill.  If approved, the changes would see letting agents required by law to belong to an ombudsman scheme. I have written to the six Members of Parliament in the areas in which BHT works, to encourage them to support the amendment.  The MP’s are Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye), Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne), Norman Baker (Lewes), Simon Kirby (Brighton Kemptown), Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion), and Mike Weatherley (Hove).

Since 2008 estate agents have been required by law to be part of an approved redress scheme, but letting agents are not.

The Property Ombudsman received more than 8,000 complaints about letting agents from landlords and tenants in 2012 – an increase of 9% on the previous year.  Yet only 12 prosecutions were carried out last year by trading standards teams in 20 of the biggest councils in England, Scotland and Wales.

Baroness Hayter has said: “Legislation already requires estate agents to be part of an ombudsman scheme. What this amendment would do is extend that so that letting agents would also have to be members of an ombudsman scheme.  At the moment anybody could set up as a letting agent. They don’t have to promise to give minimum standards to the tenants or to the landlords.”

A spokesman from the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “People living in private rented homes should be treated fairly and honestly, but we want to avoid excessive red tape that would push up the cost of rents and reduce choice for tenants.  The first priority must be to make sure that landlords and tenants are well informed and empowered to exercise their rights. Agents are subject to consumer protection laws and dissatisfied customers can report bad practice to local trading standards officers.”

My concern is that with changes to Legal Aid, specifically the reduction in what we can do under legal help, as well as a reduction in the numbers we can assist, it is unlikely that tenants will have the necessary power to exercise their rights.

Landlords, too, do not get a fair deal from letting agents.  The Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA), the leading trade body, has said it was disappointed by the low numbers being prosecuted and that if there was seen to be a robust procedure then that in itself would be a deterrent.

The Housing Minister has said he is not keen on new regulations, but I understand that he has said he is open to debate.  I have urged the six MP’s to support the amendment on Tuesday.

Ill-considered statements about immigration and housing can play into the hands of racists

Last week the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced plans to limit the availability of social housing for non-EU immigrants. We have been led to believe that local English-born citizens are being denied housing because immigrants are ‘jumping the housing waiting list’.

The reality, though, is much different. The Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has reported that just 9% of social lettings were to non-UK born households. Yet in 2011, 13% of the population of England were born overseas. That means immigrants are less likely to secure social housing than the rest of the population.

Most local authorities have local connection policies. It is very unlikely that those new to an area, including those from elsewhere in England, will get social housing. There are no figures showing the number of overseas-born households getting social housing within two years of arriving in England. But according to Inside Housing, anecdotal evidence from social landlords “suggests that the figure is close to zero”.

Yet in spite of the facts, there is a perception that “the indigenous community” is being squeezed out of housing by incomers. There are anecdotes about newly arrived households moving into social housing and, for some in the media, anecdote is more compelling that fact.

But there is some basis for these anecdotes: the illegal sub-letting properties, and the right to buy.

There are believed to be 160,000 social tenancies that are illegally sub-let. Those in most need can include newly arrived households who are exploited and required to pay rents well above those being paid by the social housing tenants to their landlords. It is understandable that neighbours, whose own family members might be on the waiting list, conclude that a newly arrived household have secured social housing when the reality is that they are being exploited, with no rights and paying the highest rents.

One in three properties sold through right to buy are now being let within the private rented sector, yielding rents far in excess of those previously paid to social landlords. (There are clear lessons to be learned here regarding the increasing housing benefit bill). Again neighbours might conclude that their family member has again been disadvantaged, believing that the flat next door has been let through the local authority to newly arrived landlords when it has, in fact, been transferred to the private rented sector.

The only beneficiaries of this situation are those who are exploiting housing need (including those illegally sub-letting social housing) and the far right who seek to ferment racial discord, often in areas with a mix of high cost housing, housing shortage, and large immigrant communities.

I think politicians should be very cautious before they make pronouncements that are not based on facts on an incredibly emotive subject.

The public debate on welfare reform has been based on ignorance and prejudice

Last week there was a contentious vote in the House of Commons regarding welfare benefits. Much has been written elsewhere regarding the impact of the reform of welfare benefits.

What has saddened me is the widespread ignorance relating to the level of benefits and the prejudice being shown towards claimants.  The Daily Express headline the following day, “Party is over for benefit skivers”, summed much of what I find distasteful about the way the debate has been conducted.

Here is a small test to help you assess your own understanding of welfare benefits. It is based on a YouGov poll that was carried out just before Christmas. If you don’t know the answers (I knew very few myself) make your best guess on the basis of what you have heard or read.

1. What percentage of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people?
2. On average what percentage of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently according to the government’s own figures?
3. What percentage of people who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year?
4. How much does an unemployed couple with two school-age children get in Jobseeker’s Allowance per week?
5. How much better off, or worse off, per week would this family with two school-age children be if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job?

Jot down your answers before you read further.  I was surprised by my own personal ignorance, and concerned how I had bought into some of the mis-information that has done the rounds.

I asked 30 colleagues at BHT to do this test, and again I was taken aback by how much they, collectively, had had their perceptions skewed by the tone of the debate.

So how accurate is your perception?

1. On average people think that 41 percent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 percent.
2. On average people think that 27 percent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government’s own figure is 0.7 percent.
3. On average people think that almost half the people (48 percent) who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is just under 30 per cent (27.8 percent).
4. On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker’s Allowance – more than 30 percent higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive – a £35 over-calculation.
5. Only 21 percent of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.

It is the last question that really hit home to me.  I was miles out.  I thought the family would be just marginally better off with a job that pays the national minimum wage.  It shows that benefit levels are well below even the national minimum wage.

So much for life on benefits being a party!  No doubt an intelligent sub-editor wrote that headline, and other intelligent people will have framed the debate in such a misleading way.  I feel we, as a society, lost some integrity last week.

We need to put an end to rough sleeping once and for all

A 21-year-old homeless woman was killed on Saturday night when a large spruce tree fell on the tent she was living in. Police said that three other people were injured by the tree which was brought down in the severe weather that lashed parts of the country at the weekend.

Last Thursday night, in terrible weather, colleagues from BHT, CRI, local authorities and the police did the annual headcount of rough sleepers in Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings.  In Brighton the new official figure was 43, up six from the previous year.    There is a general consensus that the actual number is probably nearer 60.

Why is it in this day and age, in one of the richest countries in the world, do we still have people living on the streets?

There is some brilliant work going on by many agencies, and CRI’s No Second Night Out initiative is the latest in a long line of services that help people make that transition from street homelessness into accommodation.  The worker in this particular initiative has, over the last three months, engaged with 31 individuals , 30 of whom she has got into accommodation.

As we approach Christmas, members of the public are extremely generous to organisations such as BHT.  In fact, we rely on this generosity to sustain us throughout the year.  People are more inclined to donate at this time because it is the Season of Goodwill and because of the appalling weather that we are now experiencing.

Even though we are having gales blow down trees and flooding across the country, this is not regarded in government circles as “severe weather” and homeless people remain on the streets. Successive governments have had a policy that emergency provision only comes into being if the forecast has temperatures falling to below freezing for three consecutive nights.  Two nights of freezing weather, no emergency shelters.  Gales and flooding, similarly, no emergency shelter.

It is time that the government rethinks its policy for emergency shelters at times of severe weather.  Last Saturday’s tragedy could have been avoided.

Actually, a lot more is needed. We need to put an end to rough sleeping once and for all.

 

The case for advice, and the case for investment in advice services

One of the unfortunate aspects of politics over the last 20 years has been ‘Government by Anecdote’ where a handful of extreme cases are used to justify fundamental changes to the welfare state. For example, we have heard a great deal in recent months regarding people on housing benefit claim over £100,000 per annum. In reality, this has happened on just three occasions. I would agree that this is three cases too many. Unfortunately, such anecdotes are used to justify the wholesale changes to housing benefit provision currently being introduced.

Similar stories have been told regarding ‘fat cat’ lawyers getting rich on legal aid. The reality is that most legal aid practitioners work for far less than they could earn if they were in private practice. So why do they do it?

People sometimes have complex problems and sometimes they need technical and practical assistance to give them breathing space to get on with their lives. Such technical and practical assistance often comes from legal aid practitioners. They do it because it is the right thing to do, not because of the money.

If this specialist advice was to be lost, more individuals would flounder, with consequences for their health, their mental well-being, their homes, and their families. For society, the financial costs can be enormous. The cost of legal aid is small by comparison.

I believe Parliament has been short-sighted in deciding to restrict the availability of legal aid. But we are where we are. Legal aid is being restricted, saving the Treasury just £450 million a year. This saving may well be exceeded by the fall out of not ensuring that people are properly advised and represented.

One consequence of changes to legal aid provision is to put in jeopardy independent advice centres up and down the country. Shelter, for example, has recently announced that it will be closing eight of its legal aid centres.

BHT’s own legal aid centres in Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings have an uncertain future. Our legal aid funding is likely to be reduced by about 40%, thereby undermining the financial viability of these services. Already they run at a loss of over £200,000 each year.

One of the tough decisions for local councils is to decide whether to fund such services. Everyone knows that local government is having to make huge savings from their own budgets. To expect them not merely to maintain their investment in advice services but to increase it might appear, on the surface, to be unreasonable.

Yet there is a strong case for increased investment. Take BHT’s Brighton Advice Centre. It advises and represents 4,500 residents of Brighton and Hove each year and prevents 2,500 households from becoming homeless.

BHT does its part.  We bring into the City over a £1 million from the Legal Services Commission, Big Lottery funding and funding for work in the private rented sector.

So what does Brighton and Hove get from this investment? First and foremost it ensures that its residents have a first rate legal aid centre so that those who might otherwise flounder, who need breathing space, can have their complex problems dealt with through specialist advice and representation.

Using the concept of the ‘Local Multiplier’, the £1.5 million cost of our Brighton legal services is worth over £4 million to the local economy. The Local Multiplier has it that investment in jobs within the local economy sees that investment recycled within that economy to the factor of up to 3 times.

All of this leads me to say how delighted I am that the draft budget for the City Council is seeking to invest in advice services provided by BHT and others.  This is a matter above party politics and I hope that there will be all-party support for this part of the council’s budget.

Housing Benefit and Under 25’s

In a speech later today, the Prime Minister will say that he is considering removing housing benefit from those under-25s.  This appears to be one of the most ill-thought through, headline grabbing policy announcements that I can recall.

There are some questions that demand answers:

• How can parents be obliged to take their adult children back into the home, and what happens to those young people where they can’t ‘go home’?
• What protection will there be for children and young people who have left their family home to avoid abuse and domestic violence?
• What happens in those cases where the parents have “done the right thing” by moving to smaller houses once their children have move out and there is now no spare room?
• What happens if there is no room in the parent’s home for other reasons, such as second families with children?

I have to ask why David Cameron is bringing this proposal forward now?  We are already witnessing the most profound changes to the benefit system in my lifetime.  If this is such a pressing issue, why was it not identified and enacted when all the other changes were introduced?

The BBC’s political correspondent, Vicki Young, has suggested that Mr Cameron’s speech will be seen as an attempt to reconnect with disgruntled Tory backbenchers.  I don’t know if that is true, but if there is even a hint of reality in her analysis, it ill becomes a Prime Minister to risk a huge rise in youth homelessness for internal party expediency.

This isn’t the pressing problem it is being made out to be. Those under 35 living in the private rented sector are entitled to just £77 housing benefit per week. Just 6% of those under 25 living in the private rented sector currently receive housing benefit.

92% of new claims for housing benefit are from those in work.  They are already “doing the right thing” but this measure will hit young people already in jobs.

The consequence of this proposal will be an increase in overcrowding, homelessness, begging, crime, and prostitution.

Can we afford welfare and housing?

Next Saturday (19^th May 2012) I am speaking at a Brighton Fringe event being organised by the Labour Representation Committee on the theme ‘We can afford Welfare and Housing’.

I am slightly in awe of others on the panel, not least Kevin Maguire (Daily Mirror associate editor & New Statesman columnist) and Teresa Pearce MP who sits on the House of Commons Work & Pensions Select Committee.

Of course, as the seventh richest country in the world, the UK can afford welfare and housing.  An alternate view is that the UK cannot afford not to afford welfare and housing.  Social coherence depends on it, and the reputation of the UK as a civilised country would be, perhaps is being, undermined by an ever increasing number of men and women sleeping on our streets.

In Brighton and Hove we have seen the number of rough sleepers increase from 14 in November 2010 to almost 40 a year later, and now there is a consensus that the number is in excess of 70.

The reality is 70% of the cuts already agreed have yet to bite.  And one of the key safety nets, the availability of legal aid, is being eroded.

The post-war consensus on the Welfare State is being challenged; indeed, it could be argued that it has been destroyed. A new settlement is required that looks at how state-subsidised welfare and housing is provided, and what impact it should have.

In the 1980’s, the subsidy provided to social housing was moved from the subsidy of bricks and mortar to subsiding rents.  That shift is being accelerated by increasing the subsidy provided to those buying their council houses.  Such subsidy does not add value; rather it moves public money into private hands.  That way the affordability of social housing is undermined.

Future discussions should be based on an understanding that welfare and housing can be afforded.  The tough discussion is how that subsidy can best be used.

Parliament should hang its head in shame as the Commons votes to cut access to legal aid

At 6:45am each morning, I listen to Yesterday in Parliament on BBC Radio 4. This morning there was extensive coverage of the statement by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, regarding the arrest and possible deportation of Abu Qatada.

There were soundbites from a number of MPs who were self congratulatory, taking the moral high ground, and talking about the irony of Abu Qatada taking advantage of the checks and balances within British law to prevent his deportation. These checks and balances, they said, were the very things that Abu Qatada was pledged to destroy.

Yesterday I watched four hours of live coverage from the House of Commons on the Parliament Channel, as these self same politicians debated the future of legal aid. Some of the checks and balances that have been in place for many years were systematically undone as the House of Commons voted to reverse amendments to the Bill recently agreed in the House of Lords.

It wasn’t Abu Qatada who yesterday destroyed some of the checks and balances that enabled ordinary, specifically poor, people from accessing justice.

Yesterday was a sad day for British justice as MPs voted to destroy many of the measures that have, for many years, allowed fair and equal access to the law.

Housing associations risk becoming victims of their own success in the Court of Public Opinion

A big challenge for the housing association sector over the next couple of years will be balancing the contrasting attitudes of financial institutions and the general public.

Several years ago I went on two visits to the Netherlands. During the first visit the housing association sector in that country was characterised by supreme confidence. It had healthy balance sheets and there was little that it could not achieve.

However, just twelve months later, we found the sector in crisis. The Dutch government, in order to deflect criticism resulting from social disorder, high unemployment, and economic problems, had turned on the housing association sector. The public, politicians and the media demanded to know why this sector, with such healthy balance sheets and surpluses, was not doing more to “nurse” the communities within which they work.

The Dutch housing associations did not know which way to turn and were fearful of their own shadows.  The same could become true for housing associations in the UK if politicians and the media need a scapegoat should current economic and social policies fail.

Just before the abolition of the Tenant Services Authority at the end of March, the TSA published the global accounts of housing associations which revealed pre-tax surpluses had increased from £609 million in 2009/10 to £1.16 billion in 2010/11.

Notwithstanding this, landlords have warned that their balance sheets could not be able to sustain taking on more debt to fund a second round of affordable homes in which landlords let properties at up to 80% of the market rate.

Financial institutions will understand this concern, but it is a very different thing when the sector tries to explain this to politicians at national and local levels, the media and the population at large.

Housing associations must begin, right now, to redouble their efforts to engage with local communities to explain what they are doing to address housing need in different localities. If the sector finds itself on the back foot having to explain huge surpluses and healthy balance sheets, the battle will already be half lost.

The National Housing Federation does a brilliant job promoting the value of housing associations, and David Orr is most impressive when appearing on radio and television. However, it is housing associations themselves that must be seen to be delivering locally.  The move to large, national groups does not assist with this.

Of course housing associations must maintain the confidence of the banks, but if they do not retain confidence at a local level the sector could find itself at odds with the popular and political mood.

Reflections on the debates on drugs organised by Caroline Lucas and Mike Weatherley

During September two of our local Members of Parliament, Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) and Mike Weatherley (Hove), had the courage to organise debates on a major issue facing Brighton and Hove: drugs.  I say courage since drugs is an issue that many politicians will shy away from.

The two events were quite different, one behind closed doors with senior officers from statutory and third sector agencies, the other in public.  I am grateful to both Caroline and Mike for the invitations to speak at both events. 

The topics under discussion ranged from health and social care to decriminalisation and legalisation.  If I may offer one criticism of both events, the subjects under discussion were too wide-ranging.  To do justice to each topic, they should have been considered at different meetings, health and social care at one, decriminalisation and legalisation at another, rather than all issues being discussed at both meetings.

While Caroline and Mike are not often found lining up together, they are both to be applauded for their separate initiatives in addressing the reasons for Brighton and Hove’s high rate of drug-related deaths.  They work together through the All Party Group on Drug Reform.

I remain firmly of the view that there needs to be a move away from a medical approach (as opposed to a health and social care approach) when dealing with drug addiction.

A medical intervention is important in stabilising individuals and then detoxing them quickly and with as little discomfort as possible.  After that there is little need for any medical involvement (unless there is a co-existing yet separate medical condition).  After that social care, housing and self-help interventions should take over aimed at helping clients to become independent and to sustain a drug-free lifestyle.

I am not a supporter of decriminalisation, and a strong opponent of legalisation.  I have always felt that helping addicts achieve and maintain abstinence is the best form of harm minimisation and removes the need for criminal activity.

What the impact will be of the events organised by Caroline Lucas and Mike Weatherley is unknown.  I know what I want to see: all local agencies, and all their staff, championing abstinence, and I hope to hear fewer people writing off the potential of all addicts with comments such as “abstinence is not for everyone”.  My advice to them is it’s not your place to say that.