I have 96 pages of information from the DCLG. The following is of interest and looks at the wording of the Homelessness Legislation. The first entry by the JSHAO sums up the lack of knowledge service personnel have about their future housing needs in civvie street. It would be interesting to know the % of service personnel that aren't getting out of the forces that attend the Housing Options briefings. These briefings are mostly attended by service leavers, aren't they?
That's why I believe it's very important to have a greater spread of briefings at all military locations. As said before, they could be attached to the CDT Teams that visit all military location at least once a year.
Regards
Hitback
P.S You can still sign the Petition by using the link at the bottom. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Nov 06
We come across lots of people that are under the misapprehension that Time in Service Accommodation establishes a local connection particularly at our Housing Options briefings.
This is further complicated by the fact that a minority of local authorities do acknowledge that lengthy periods in the same location qualify or at least accumulate points on Housing Needs Registers. Some will recognise time spent in SFA but only as an irregular and normally only if you have been an IO for more than 6 months.
The irony is of course that with key worker status an individual could now establish a local connection and purchase a property through NewBuild HomeBuy. A colleague who could not afford HomeBuy would leave without a local connection.
I do however have a great deal of sympathy with local authorities. The rules as they stand at present (first promulgated in DE circular 14/93) are designed to spread the load - the alternative would put huge demands on what in some cases are small local authorities
I think we should tread carefully, we run the risk of upsetting some local authorities big time and losing what little good will we currently have.
OIC JSHAO
HQ Land Command
Wilton
Salisbury
Tel: 01722'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]> 30/11/06 10:28:41 >»
I am currently gathering evidence for you , but in the interim have a look at xxxxxx attached email . It articulates the peculiarities that exist with eligibility of granting Key Worker Status that I previously discussed with you. By simple default of KW status eligibility - local connection has already been established. So I am really confused as to why accruing local connection points whilst living in an area whilst still serving, is so difficult to sustain with DCLG.
Not withstanding xxxxxxx other comments about flooding local authorities - I come back to the same point that I made during our first meeting in that
this is about parity of treatment - regardless of how long somebody has to wait for accommodation to become available when they leave the Services,
they should start as equal to the rest of society. In other words create a level playing field before personnel leave the Armed forces.
Suggest we meet to see how we can take this forward. What is your diary like for the 14 Dec?
AD Housing 020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frances Walker
Sent: 10 January 2007 17:38
Subject: Re: Local conection
Thanks for your email and sorry to take a while to get back to you. I am afraid that I did not pick up till now your offer to meet in December. I did not mean to be rude and am certainly very happy to do so now, if this would be helpful. My diary is relatively free at the moment.
I wonder whether it would help if I try to clarify the position on the allocation of social housing and local connection. I am not sure whether we are at cross-purposes to some extent.
When it comes to letting social rented housing, local authorities (LAs) must comply with part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This was revised by the Homelessness Act 2002 -which came into effect in Jan 2003. Prior to the 2002 Act amendments, LAs could decide who qualified to go on their register. They would often impose residency qualifications, or a local connection.
As a result of the 2002 Act amendments, LAs can no longer set their own qualification criteria. Anyone is eligible to go on the housing waiting list, except certain persons from abroad and people guilty of unacceptable behaviour. However, the allocation legislation allows but does not require LAs to take into account certain factors in determining between people in the "reasonable preference" categories. The reasonable preference categories are those people who should be given priority for social housing. The allocation legislation gives examples of the sort of factors which could be taken into account, including -
"any local connection (within the meaning of section 199 [of the 1996 Act]) which exists between a person and the authority's district".
Section 199 is part of the homelessness legislation and provides -
"(1) A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he has a connnection with it -
(a) because he is, or in the past was, normally resident there, and that residence is or was of his own choice,
(b) because he is employed there
-------I believe some information may have been removed from here?
(2) A person is not employed in a district if he is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown.
(3) Residence in a district is not of a person's own choice if -
(a) he becomes resident there because he, or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown
-------
I believe some information may have been removed from here?
I thought it might be worth setting out the above, so that you are clear that the definition of "local connection" in the allocations context is set out in statute - it is not simply a matter of what DCLG can or cannot sustain. This provides that service personnel do not have a local connection through employment or residence of choice, where they are serving in the armed forces. If the Government wanted to change this, a change to the primary legislation would be required.
Having said that, LAs do not have to take into account local connection in determining priorities. Where they do so, this will have to be clearly stated in their allocation scheme. Also, even if they do take into account local connection, the fact that a serviceman or woman may not be able to demonstrate that he has one -
- will not make him/her ineligible
- will not necessarily mean that he/she has no priority.
It will simply mean that he has less priority than someone who does have a local connection. However, clearly in very high demand areas this could mean that he/she has little chance of being housed until he/she has acquired such a connection (in other words until he/she has found other employment or lived there for a certain amount of time after leaving the armed forces).
I have just written to the LAs which house the larger military establishments (you kindly sent me the list) to try to find out what their allocation scheme provides, and for any data they can give me about service personnel on the waiting list and/or allocated accommodation. I am attaching copy of the letter. Hopefully, this may give some idea of the extent of the issue.
suggests in his email, there is a sound policy rationale for the local connection provisions as they relate to servicemen. In the allocations context, this is to avoid creating disproportionate pressure on waiting lists in those districts which host military bases and at the expense of other residents of the district. Any proposal to change the legislation in the allocations context could well generate strong localised opposition.
I am afraid that I am a little bit puzzled by the reference to key worker status and NewBuild HomeBuy. I am not sure how someone would establish a "local connection" in this context and, even if this were a relevant for NB HB, what effect this would have on the statutory provisions which govern local connection in the allocations context. Could you explain a bit more? I am probably being a bit dim.
Sorry for the length of this email. Look forward to hearing from you.
Frances
Frances
Social Housing Management Branch
DCLG
020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Jan 07
Frances
Thank you for this. Your email confirms my understanding of the housing Act. It is item 2 of Section'199 that I am wanting to remove. Service families can be posted into an area for virtually the whole of their career so from their perspective they are fundamentally contributing to the community - Council tax , supporting and contributing towards the local economy , spouse employment, dependants in education etc. I just want a level playing field for them to accrue points as everybody else who resides and works in that locality.
I have also been collecting data which I will send later. This will give an indication of likely numbers and geographical spread.
think it would be useful for us to speak , I am free 23, 25,26 Jan
AD Housing
SpPol 020721M
I have e-mailed my thanks to the MP for Birkenhead for supporting this EDM
