John
Doh dont give up yet. There is a bit of mileage yet I think. You said you doubted there was proof for my statement. I will attempt to explain my reasoning. To progress the debate and endeavour to add weight to my argument it would be helpful I think if you answer the very practical question I posed in my previous post. I am interested in your response. We can both surmise about the outcome of a general government policy. It could go on for days!

So to cut to the chase we can look at the specific grass roots processes that occur when a person declares themselves homeless to the council. If the council did not step in and house what would be the outcome for those who had declared themselves homeless to the council at 4pm today? Where would the following shelter tonight?

1) An 18 year old mother and her 1 year old child kicked out of his home by her now ex boyfriend
2) A 35yr old women fleeing from domestic violence
3) A 60yr old man with a mild heart condition who has been evicted through no fault of his own

Remember almost 50000 made homeless in 2011 . Only 47997 to go after these examples :-)

Jonathan,

Sorry if I missed a question.

As to the person who declares themself homeless at 4PM. They would live on the street, find a friend or something similar. They would not be able to pop around to the Council and pick up the keys to an alternative place. Or there are some shelters offered by charities.

Yes, many would be left with no good options. I am stating that part of the issue is the fact that they did not take action before the alternatives were dire.

#1 & #2 are tragic. Why should we assume the government is any more able to step in compared to friends, family, charities, etc? My concern is who pays for the bad decisions and where is the individual responsibility?

I get there could be a helping hand. A place for a week or maybe even a month. A place for years is what I do not get.

In #3, I do not understand why it is not the person's fault. Most of these situations can be blamed on someone else or some external event. That said, life is like that for the people who are not looking to the council for housing. Life does stuff all the time.

A hand up, not a hand out. A path to recovery rather than a destination.

If we want the public to pay for such things we have to accept that not all of the public sees public housing as fair. Qualify once and you have a place for life? Qualify once and you plus your children have a place for life? Qualify once and you plus your children and their children have a place? The third option is rare happened where I live (SE1).

I think we are mostly debating the length of a stay. In my mind, it is nothing more than a transition and a bit of a rapid one at that. Some will suffer more than others. That happens every day when people have to make hard decisions even if they are otherwise comfortable, well off, etc. Life being hard is not just something that happens to the 50K you are thinking about. Where we get a problem is when people feel entitled because their parent had a baby in the right location, country, etc. Given the long history of the country, how did the recent history develop such entitlements and are we really getting the right job accomplished.

(07-08-2012 01:16 PM)john_corey Wrote:  Jonathan,

Sorry if I missed a question.

As to the person who declares themself homeless at 4PM. They would live on the street, find a friend or something similar. They would not be able to pop around to the Council and pick up the keys to an alternative place. Or there are some shelters offered by charities.

Yes, many would be left with no good options. I am stating that part of the issue is the fact that they did not take action before the alternatives were dire.

#1 & #2 are tragic. Why should we assume the government is any more able to step in compared to friends, family, charities, etc? My concern is who pays for the bad decisions and where is the individual responsibility?

I get there could be a helping hand. A place for a week or maybe even a month. A place for years is what I do not get.

In #3, I do not understand why it is not the person's fault. Most of these situations can be blamed on someone else or some external event. That said, life is like that for the people who are not looking to the council for housing. Life does stuff all the time.

A hand up, not a hand out. A path to recovery rather than a destination.

If we want the public to pay for such things we have to accept that not all of the public sees public housing as fair. Qualify once and you have a place for life? Qualify once and you plus your children have a place for life? Qualify once and you plus your children and their children have a place? The third option is rare happened where I live (SE1).

I think we are mostly debating the length of a stay. In my mind, it is nothing more than a transition and a bit of a rapid one at that. Some will suffer more than others. That happens every day when people have to make hard decisions even if they are otherwise comfortable, well off, etc. Life being hard is not just something that happens to the 50K you are thinking about. Where we get a problem is when people feel entitled because their parent had a baby in the right location, country, etc. Given the long history of the country, how did the recent history develop such entitlements and are we really getting the right job accomplished.

John
There will be a proportion of people I agree who will not make the effort to sort themselves out but the people who turn up at the council do so largely as a place of last resort. They have exhausted all other avenues like friends and family. Some i know sofa surf for a few weeks until their hosts patience and generosity wears thin and they part company. Many just simply do not have the ability to problem solve their own lives like maybe you or i would if faced with a similar situation .They often make poor decisions in life but often not because they are lazy or bad but simply because do not possess the skills or ability to make better choices

I got the impression you would not offer housing full stop but I`m glad to see you feel that we should have at least perhaps a transitional period where the government steps in. The council does this routinely now by offering emergency B&B for a 6 week period. But where do they go after that. Where do they go at 4pm on the 42nd day? The problem is still there unfortunately . It doesnt go away. They then provide more suitable accommodation according to that persons need. If they didnt the streets would be fill up and the prisons and hospitals would be forced to pick up the slack

The person at No 3 could have been evicted simply because the owner wants to move back himself or wants to sell the property. Not his fault at all. He is now in just the same predicament as the first two.

I agree the system needs a readjustment. A council house is not necessary for life if it is say a 4 bed originally destined for a family of 5 but the children have now grown and flown the nest to make their own way in life. The remaining 2 parents should expect to be downsized. But the buck by necessity will always stop with the taxpayer. I have yet to see a credible alternative suggestion put forward. And if I did fall from grace one day I would be eternally thankful for our current ( albeit imperfect ) system

citizensadvice Wrote:Dear Mr Hosker,

Many thanks for your email.

We believe that the information you refer to is included in our fact sheet on 'Rent arrears'. This extract refers to the common law remedy of distress for rent.

Our understanding is that a private landlord must obtain leave of a county court to use distress against a protected or statutory tenant (s147 Rent Act 1977) or an assured and assured shorthold tenant (s19 Housing Act 1988). However, leave is not required for secure tenancies or tenants with a restricted contract. So, some landlords, for example, local authority landlords, would not require leave of the court.

You may be aware that some time ago Part 3 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 introduced a new statutory procedure, ‘Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery’, to replace the current remedy of distress for rent. However, as far as I am aware Part 3 has yet to be brought into force.

In light of your feedback, we can however review our fact sheet as it may be helpful to be clearer on which landlords do and don't need a court order.

Kind regards
Adviceguide team

So it seems local authority landlords can, take possessions without a court order.

Jonathan,

I have chopped up your response so I can reply to the specifics. One point I have taken out of order as I think it deserves to be at the top rather than the bottom of my reply.

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  But the buck by necessity will always stop with the taxpayer. I have yet to see a credible alternative suggestion put forward.

This is the core of our disagreement.

I do not believe the state has any such responsibility. While there is a role to play, the way you state the role is just way to broad for me.

I would say the responsibility lies with the individual. If they want someone else to be responsible for them they they need to accept what someone else feels like doing. A handout comes with strings. A hand up comes with responsibility. If they want their human rights to be respected, they need to personally be respectful and take on the responsibilities of the community. Failure to do so will result in a restriction in their rights or their options.

Back to the specific points...

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  There will be a proportion of people I agree who will not make the effort to sort themselves out but the people who turn up at the council do so largely as a place of last resort.

1. If they will not sort it why should anyone else do it for them?
2. Why should it be the state rather than a charity or some other group that wants to volunteer to do so?

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  They often make poor decisions in life but often not because they are lazy or bad but simply because do not possess the skills or ability to make better choices

Own goal? They they should lose out on the benefits that come with being on the team.

When there is no cost to their own behavior, what is the point of their continued existence? If they are not contributing in some way, why should someone else have to contribute extra to make up the difference.

Think about PT. There are people such as yourself who give freely of your advice and you help where you can. No one is forcing you. Some will ask for help and you quickly step up. How would it feel if there was a tax on you being a landlord where you must give time to those who are too lazy to help themself?

I do not accept that people who are not lazy are incapable of getting past their lack of skills. They can learn to make better choices and decisions by actually trying and learning from the results.

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  The problem is still there unfortunately . It doesnt go away.

True.

You said there are 50K people. Assume the number is somehow accurate. It is a tiny number? Why are they so expensive to deal with (LHA benefits and other costs)?

How about we make them all work doing things like public service? If they do not like it they can opt out and that is the end of their benefits for a few years. Put up or shut up?

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  They then provide more suitable accommodation according to that persons need.

Needs? Too many people think they need stuff when history has shone us how the needs are closer to wants.

The only place this gets really muddled is with children. The children get swept up in the bad decisions of some. Is there a need to be a mother or father or is that a want?

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  If they didnt the streets would be fill up and the prisons and hospitals would be forced to pick up the slack

I do not agree.

First, the numbers are not that big based on your estimate. Maybe your estimate is low so hard to say if we should focus on that.

Second, the implication is they would be in transition. If they move along as you suggest, they could all be houses in much less space that we seem to think we need now.

Not a great solution. I just do not think the argument is helped by saying they will resort to crime and then prison. If all we need to do is stack them high and wide, how many beds would we need in prisons? Note it is you how think that is the fixed path people would take if they are not given what they 'need'.

You seem to be telling me that my only choice is to pay to house people who lack the ability to take care of themselves because they are not smart enough to make the right choices in their life. Otherwise I will need to lock them up. I know you did not mean this as a bluff. That said, it feels like a bluff that I get to challenge or call.

Society works best when people agree to pay by common rules. When people realize that can force others to do what they want just by not playing by the rules, we start to have a problem. LHA and similar is very expensive. A hand up makes sense to me. A permanent bribe so someone can continue to live their life in an unproductive ways sounds like a losers position.

The following is a bit of a tangent so maybe not something you want to follow up on. With the free flow of capital and the way business can shift countries through the Internet, countries that over paper those who do not contribute will lose out. The money will leave and the folks who can not afford to shift will be the ones left paying for those who refuse to pull their own weight.

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  The person at No 3 could have been evicted simply because the owner wants to move back himself or wants to sell the property. Not his fault at all. He is now in just the same predicament as the first two.

That is the deal they accept when they rent. Renting is choosing a more flexible housing arrangement than committing to holding down a job and paying off a loan over 25 years. The uncertainty cuts both ways. A tenant can move for any number of reasons and most everyone one of the reasons is a good one when viewed form the tenant's POV. The landlord might not like the idea that they have received notice that the tenant is moving on. That is just part of the agreement.

(08-08-2012 02:55 PM)john_corey Wrote:  Jonathan,

I have chopped up your response so I can reply to the specifics. One point I have taken out of order as I think it deserves to be at the top rather than the bottom of my reply.

(07-08-2012 06:46 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  But the buck by necessity will always stop with the taxpayer. I have yet to see a credible alternative suggestion put forward.

This is the core of our disagreement.

I do not believe the state has any such responsibility. While there is a role to play, the way you state the role is just way to broad for me.

I would say the responsibility lies with the individual.

Thank you John for your comprehensive reply. I will tackle the primary point first. Yes we are seemingly poles apart on the role of the state and its responsibilities so you are right to highlight this first as our different viewpoints stem from our respective positions on this point.

There are swathes of people in my view who are unable and unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. You are a very capable, intelligent, well educated and financially solvent individual ( An assumption I have gleaned from your posts to date) In a simplistic straw poll survey which offered a % figure aligned to those attributes I would be surprised if you were not in the top 5% of the general population.

My day to day working life for 30 years brought me face to face with the top 5% on several occasions and several held your viewpoint. I also came face to face on many many more occasions with the bottom 5% so I feel well placed to evidence their mindset when society rejects them or they reject society. Those that were cast aside rightly or wrongly often acted like a cornered cat. They struck out in their anger / pain / frustration. Sometimes in desperation sometimes deliberately. A rejected human lashes out and will smash a window to a shop to try to get food and cares not whether they are arrested as at least they get a bed for a night and a warm meal. Or they may up the intake of drink or drugs or self harm and end up in the warm of a hospital bed. The taxpayer picks up the tab. If the housing policy excluded all in the manner you suggest the numbers of homeless would escalate. I hestitate to say it but a complete break down in civil society may result if the policy was sustained. The army would be out on the streets and order may be returned but we would rapidly move from a democratic policing by consent model to in effect a police state with curfews and checkpoints and all the rest of it.

We are talking about housing policy and social policy. If we extended your views beyond housing do your views stretch I wonder to include say other state provided services like refuse collection, road maintenance librarys schools hospitals doctors the olympics etc. Why should the state provide anything at all. Shouldnt all this be down to the individual to sort out I hear you say. Why should the state remove the rubbish from my back garden. I am perfectly capable of putting in my car and taking it to a private company that deals with it but then why should i pay for that. I could just take it to a bit of common land and dump it. It is about collective responsibility. The state provides services for all manner of mine and yours needs and the taxpayers pay for the state to do that in a responsible manner. If the council did not provide housing there would be a break down in law and order within weeks. Shelter food warmth and water are the basics. If these are taken away or not provided lawlessness quickly takes over.

In the tankers drivers strike quite a few years back the country was almost brought to its needs as the food chain was disrupted and the knock on affect would be rioting and breaking into shops to gain food. Special Branch officers were brought in to break the strike and put in the cabs of drivers increasing pressure on them to get their lorries rolling under the threat of arrest if they did not.

I have been involved in the very periphery of emergency planning and the scenarios when role played out are frightening. We live by and large in a well ordered way but the reliance on systems (paticulary now with technology) is massive. Everything is so closely integrated and interlinked that any weak point when exposed has the ability to bring others crashing down with it.

If me and you were dumped on a desert island together and I had a packet of fish and chips with me, on day 1 i would share them with you perhaps 50/50 if you said you were hungry If we both hadnt eaten for 2 days though I would be more reluctant to share them with you but probably offer you some maybe 70/30 in my favour . 5 days down the line though I probably would hide them from you and eat them all myself. 7 days down the line with no further food in sight I would probably instinctively fight you to the death for them if you tried to take them off me. Nothing personal but we are animals. Survival of the fittest and all that.

For those reasons I firmly believe that if you take away the need for the state to house a homeless person then in a relatively short period society would turn in on itself.

(08-08-2012 08:19 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  If the housing policy excluded all in the manner you suggest the numbers of homeless would escalate.

Agreed. If one more person is homeless then there was an increase.

We might disagree just how many would opt to be homeless vs deal with it some other way.

(08-08-2012 08:19 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  I hestitate to say it but a complete break down in civil society may result if the policy was sustained. The army would be out on the streets and order may be returned but we would rapidly move from a democratic policing by consent model to in effect a police state with curfews and checkpoints and all the rest of it.

You are explaining how a bully controls a group. Fear and terror.

The perceived threat causes people to back down rather than confront the issue more directly.

A tiny minority should not be able to take from the state under the threat of violence. The correct response is not to pacify the bully with what ever they want.

A society that lives in fear of the minority would not be called a civil society.

How long has the state been providing a commitment to house all who feel they need housing? I suspect we are talking about a modern history decision rather than something that goes back all that far.

Did we have riots in the streets on a regular basis before that point in time? I am sure there were riots as we had one last year even with free housing. The presence of a riot is not proof that the solution is for the state to be the backstop for housing.


On your other points about 'core' services, the example shows how there is a connection between what people pay to the council and what they get back. In many councils, the council is only collecting the payments as they have hired an outside firm to deliver the service. I am not sure the services are all that helpful to the debate. How they are organized does not seem to help your position or mine.

(09-08-2012 08:07 AM)john_corey Wrote:  

(08-08-2012 08:19 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  If the housing policy excluded all in the manner you suggest the numbers of homeless would escalate.

Agreed. If one more person is homeless then there was an increase.

We might disagree just how many would opt to be homeless vs deal with it some other way.

(08-08-2012 08:19 PM)Jonathan Clarke Wrote:  I hestitate to say it but a complete break down in civil society may result if the policy was sustained. The army would be out on the streets and order may be returned but we would rapidly move from a democratic policing by consent model to in effect a police state with curfews and checkpoints and all the rest of it.

You are explaining how a bully controls a group. Fear and terror.

The perceived threat causes people to back down rather than confront the issue more directly.

A tiny minority should not be able to take from the state under the threat of violence. The correct response is not to pacify the bully with what ever they want.

A society that lives in fear of the minority would not be called a civil society.

How long has the state been providing a commitment to house all who feel they need housing? I suspect we are talking about a modern history decision rather than something that goes back all that far.

Did we have riots in the streets on a regular basis before that point in time? I am sure there were riots as we had one last year even with free housing. The presence of a riot is not proof that the solution is for the state to be the backstop for housing.


On your other points about 'core' services, the example shows how there is a connection between what people pay to the council and what they get back. In many councils, the council is only collecting the payments as they have hired an outside firm to deliver the service. I am not sure the services are all that helpful to the debate. How they are organized does not seem to help your position or mine.

John
The system is not perfect by any means. I cannot in practical terms though provide proof or evidence on the scale you would need to satisfy a change of your viewpoint and nor can you for me . Therefore my view is we have to break it down to the practicalities of our differences and tease out the issues of the real life situations on an individual basis to make some headway. Readers can relate to specifics.

Somewhere in the country today a homeless person will present themselves at 4 pm to the council. If we agree we offer that person ( as i believe we have done so now) temporary respite care in the form of a B&B for 6 weeks then our views become again at odds with each other at 4pm on the 42nd day. We are simply delaying the inevitable. I would say the state still has a duty to provide. You would say the state does not. They become homeless under your rules. What do they do when they are hungry thirsty and cold? How will the next 24 / 48/ 72 hours pan out for them. This is reality.

Both you and I can debate that in real time and with real live solutions. However looking at the history of housing and poverty and social deprivation over the past 50 years whilst interesting is very very complex and I`m sure will leave us exhausted and I fear very little further forward with this limited medium we have at our disposal

The council tax pays for a variety of core services and the housing costs are a significant part of that budget. I think the other core services are very relevant. The pot of money has to be divided up and the housing portion can not simply be brush stroked out. All services vie for attention. If you feel there is a viable practical credible alternative to the current housing policy I feel the onus is on you to explain that policy in at least a modicum of detail and deal with the 101 objections I and many others may have about its implementation. Its not as if these issues haven`t occupied the decision makers mind in any case for decades. The system has evolved over time to what it is today. Its not perfect but its the best we have at this moment in our history. The reason i suggest they do not and have not followed your path to date is partially for the very reasons i have put forward. It would be chaotic.

Apart from the moral arguments the financial ones are compelling. Our homeless friend with no other recourse to shelter who is on his 42nd day at the B&B should now be housed in a home by a society if that society wants to enjoy the description of being called a civil society. And in addition as a bonus - if that policy costs me as a taxpayer less cash than to house them in a prison or hospital then everyone wins.

Jonathan,

1. You do not know that your solution costs less. You think that chaos is the automatic after day 42 and that the chaos will produce more people in hospital and prison. As if there is a direct connection and people will not seek alternatives.

2. Why have 6 weeks of B&B if everyone who hits day 42 will be homeless? I suspect the reason we have 6 weeks as it creates a buffer so alternatives can be found. If all that happens if they move to council housing, what is the point of a B&B other than the council needs a way to buffer their work?

3. British society was known to be civil long before the councils became the housing provider of last resort. Civil is not determined by how many free homes are handed out.

I think you believe people are entitled to housing and the state has to deliver the entitlement. I do not. This makes it hard to reach a conclusion. I agree with you when you say the level of detail needed to have a complete discussion would also be difficult in a public forum.

You are solving a problem I do not recognize as a problem. Yes, individuals do have issues with housing. As a population of 80 million, focusing too much on individuals who are making bad decisions (your phrase more or less), is not a good way forward.

You are suggesting that fear of civil unrest should motivate me to agree with your solution. I look at the past plus outside the UK and see civil society can exist even when the state does not automatically provide housing.

(09-08-2012 10:12 AM)john_corey Wrote:  Jonathan,


You are solving a problem I do not recognize as a problem.

So where does this guy go on the 42nd day ? Is that not a problem?