A report in September by the homeless-youth charity Centrepoint has found that 546 young people in England had been prevented from accessing social or temporary housing in the last year by a process known as ‘gatekeeping’. It refers to local authorities using illegal means to control and limit access to vital housing services, lying to and ignoring applicants to keep them out in the cold. These underhanded tactics accompany a raft of legal methods already deployed by councils, who refuse to expand diminishing social housing stocks.
Of the 546 young people highlighted by Centrepoint, over 200 were deliberately deprioritised by having their circumstances mis-recorded. Over 100 were falsely recorded as having no local connections or of having refused help before. And a further 100 found they couldn’t contact the council or support service at all; either nobody was manning the phones or they were switched off. They also recorded cases of young, pregnant women having evidence of their pregnancy dismissed or being told they need to come back when they’re further into their term, as well as women with children having their needs ignored. Overall, Centrepoint’s youth data bank found that a third of young people applying for statutory housing support were never properly assessed.
Local authorities also deliberately delayed application processes. A decision should be given within 56 days, an already potentially lethal amount of time to be sleeping rough. But ombudsmen have found cases of people having to wait two years or more just to be told they’re low priority.
However, while these injustices can be highlighted as ‘illegal’, the reality is that local authorities have other, perfectly ‘legal’ tools at their disposal to limit working class access to a diminishing pool of social housing. A particular favourite is to designate households as ‘intentionally homeless’ if they’re unable to tolerate the difficult conditions of temporary or support accommodation or refuse to move away from their area (see ‘No such thing as intentional homelessness’, on our website). At the same time, councils can also deny people housing for not being from the area and having ‘no local connections.’ This negatively affects people fleeing dangerous situations, such as women fleeing domestic abuse or migrants in search of a better life (See ‘Racism permeates housing at every level’, FRFI 261). In addition, families already struggling financially are further punished: a Freedom of Information request by iNews found that 200 local authorities in England bar people from even applying for social housing if they are in arrears or have debts. This has left nearly 4,000 people, including 1,600 households with children, unable to even try to access social housing.
More people are being threatened with homelessness (up 10% in a year according to The Big Issue, Oct 2024) and the total amount of social housing is in decline; there are three-quarters fewer social houses now than there were 40 years ago (Commons Library, March 2024). Councils are selling off this stock to allow private landlords and developers the space to grow their portfolios. Housebuilders are making huge profits with margins of 17%-32% per year for the last decade, according to Cardiff University. Local authorities are acting in the class interests of the property profiteers and directly against the class interests of most of their constituents.
None of this will change under a Labour government. Their house building plans are a charter for the profiteers and not the homeless (see ‘Labour will not build homes for the working class’, FRFI 301). They could house people in the 33,993 empty council properties (Sky News, June 2024), seize the thousands of empty or second private homes or expand the building of social houses. Instead of housing being a commodity and private investment tool, it should be a basic human right.
Joe Smith
FIGHT RACISM! FIGHT IMPERIALISM! 303 December 2024 /January 2025
