Allocations Policy (Homelessness)

Right, the incompetence of the Council is widespread but I think it is only fitting that we first highlight the problems concerning it's Allocations Policy. The brilliant 'Freedom of Information Act' has allowed me to obtain the structures of the relevant departments, so I can also inform you that the'Allocations Team' is headed by a Parveen Akhtar".

There are several problems with the 'Allocations Policy' and the cause of this is that total incompetents appear to have written it. You will no doubt have firstly heard that Birmingham City Council is the latest to have their allocation policy found unlawful in the High Court in London. The case,, named R. (Aweys and Others) v Birmingham City Council describes Birmingham as having operated a two tier policy for priority in housing allocation for homeless. What this means is if you are ‘homeless at home’ (due to unsuitability, statutory overcrowding etc.) you 'were' placed in the lower priority band B, whereas those in temporary accommodation where placed in the top priority band A. Further, the homeless at home were expected to stay where they were in often totally unsuitable accommodation. Birmingham City Council was positively discriminating against homeless applicants so that it could cook its return statistics to the Department for Communities and Local Government and obtain additional money for reducing homelessness.

Quite rightly, the Court gave this short shrift. Firstly, once a housing duty is accepted the Authority has a duty to secure suitable accommodation. Meaning the homeless at home can’t simply be expected to stay there forever whilst those who go into a hostel or B&B get favourable treatment and re-housing with a Band A award under the policy. Interestingly, the Court gave a guideline for how long the homeless at home might be expected to remain where they were, before suitable accommodation (temporary at least) should be found. Six weeks - anything over that would need clear justification.

Secondly, the Local Authority’s duty is to secure suitable accommodation and there is no basis in Part VI Housing Act 1996 for an allocation policy that states that some homeless will wait longer than others before this happens, simply because they are not in temporary accommodation (and here the Authority’s excuse for not offering them temporary accommodation was the difficulty in finding suitable temporary places - so the homeless families were effectively being penalised becase of Birmingham’s own problems). The Court found there was a clear duty to give priority to all homeless (where the duty is accepted). It is unlawful to give priority to a subset over others within the policy.

I am frankly puzzled that Birmingham thought it would get away with this. But it would appear that this is only the first of many problems with the allocations team and its allocations policy. I am reliably informed that they have also been working to two completely different allocations policies without realising it. It would appear that they published a somewhat different policy on its website so my question to Birmingham City Council is what on earth are you doing? do the allocations team actually have any idea what is going on and how there incompetence has a knock on affect for the vulnerable people of Birmingham.


To come:

"rat infested temporary accommodation" - "the home options policy and why I think it is just a gate keeping excercise" and "you have 8 weeks in which to expect a decision on your homelessness review, but we dont want to give you that, it will take us 8 months"

Welcome Note

Hello and a very warm welcome to my blog on the very important issue of homelessness.

I have started this blog to highlight and discuss the very blatant incompetencies of our Local Authority in dealing with this immense problem. I work as an independent advisor in Birmingham and over the last few years the majority of my work has centered around people who are now struggling to access and benefit from the statutory services Birmingham City Council should be providing its residents.

I intend to make it my mission to highlight the problems and push forward for improvement.

I welcome your feedback and your thoughts.