Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Boroughs seek agreement to avoid housing chaos

  • 3 Comments

London boroughs are to fast-track the introduction of a ‘rehousing protocol’ to inform regional authorities when residents are moved outside the capital.

The pledge to “escalate” the new rules comes after England’s largest local authority landlord warned that the £26,000 benefit cap, which will be rolled out from July, would create a spike in placements outside London.

Stephen Hughes, chief executive of Birmingham City Council, said the cap would “make it more difficult for London authorities in particular to meet their housing obligations in an affordable way”. It was “inevitable” that boroughs would increasingly place people outside the capital, he said.

Official figures suggest the cap will hit 56,000 households, almost half of which are in Greater London. On average, families will lose £93 per week.

The protocol is being drawn up by London Councils and the LGA and is expected to include a duty to inform receiving authorities about placements and to share data on market rent levels. One London Councils source said the agreement would be “escalated” in the next few weeks.

LGC research has already identified several London boroughs planning to move residents outside the capital.

Harrow LBC has placed 37 households outside London in the past 12 months; Waltham Forest has 20 households in temporary accommodation outside the capital and Hillingdon LBC has placed eight households in Slough and one in Hertfordshire.

The pledge to accelerate the introduction of the protocol comes amid signs of growing tension between regional authorities and London boroughs.

Thanet DC has resorted to Freedom of Information laws to force the capital’s councils to reveal where they have housed people in its area. Its investigations have already shown that four other London boroughs - Hillingdon, Waltham Forest, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea - have done so.

Kent CC leader Paul Carter (Con) told LGC that he would lobby ministers for a law to prevent boroughs moving families into already struggling areas such as Margate.

“A protocol would be too easy to ignore,” he said.

  • 3 Comments

Readers' comments (3)

  • Perhaps the UN could help with how to deal with benefit refugees.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I wonder what the government would say if this kind of social engineering took place in another country particular in an "unfriendly" one , there would be howls of indignation ,calls for democracy and freedom ,and accusations of people's liberty being squashed ,referrals to UN would no doubt be considered . This is more akin to tyrannies and dictatorships than a democracy .This is not an economic issue or a management problem but a moral one ,it is plain simply wrong .It will also put huge pressures(unfunded) on councils outside London esp those hit the hardest by government cutbacks because it is here that the rents are the lowest and consequently they will be the most"attractive" localities to place these refugees

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In response to comments made , I can add that this policy is fundamentally flawed because it is trying to solve what is essentially a shortage of affordable accommodation and corresponding high rents, mainly but not exclusively in and around London, by adopting a benefits cuts approach and "exporting" people to other localities where councils are already hard pressed rather than tackling the problem itself. A case of ideology triumphing over rationality and a total disregard for any meaningful Localism ,local councils are being put in an impossible situation and yes it is wrong both ethically and morally because in reality people are being forced to go wherever they are placed whether they like it or not or irrespective of consequences for all parties

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.