Two changes in particular are starting to have a real effect. The first is the private rented sector offer. A homelessness application is no longer a gateway to council housing and a secure tenancy for life. Local housing authorities are now discharging their statutory homelessness duties using the private sector. Applicants are increasingly ending up with assured shorthold tenancies from private landlords, which is what they would have been granted anyway, assuming that they could afford the deposit, or were able to use the authority’s rent deposit scheme.

The other change is that authorities are increasingly making offers of accommodation outside their area, both in respect of temporary accommodation pending decision and to discharge duty. It is too early to say how hard it will be for applicants to challenge such offers. The effect, however, should not be underestimated. Families are routinely being moved out of city centres, and out of expensive cities such as London entirely. They are being relocated from the South of England to the North, and having to set up new lives there. If this process continues, it will be evidenced by a demographic shift of persons dependent upon social housing from the prosperous, and therefore expensive, areas of the country, to areas where much cheaper housing is available. This will mark a move away from social integration to creating pockets of current and former homeless applicants in various parts of the country. This can be seen on the continent where cities such as Paris and Rome have vast areas of social housing in areas far from the city centre.

Another factor driving the relocation is the imposition of the bedroom tax and the slow but seemingly inevitable introduction of universal credit. Local housing authorities are unwilling to grant tenancies to those who cannot afford to pay the rent. Benefit-dependent homeless applicants are simply going to be unable to afford to remain in expensive areas. Applicants who are evicted because they cannot afford the rent because of the benefit cap would not seem susceptible to a finding of intentionality, for want of moving to cheaper accommodation, but must expect to find themselves on the same one-way train ride out of the central areas where work is most likely to be available, entrenching poverty and institutionalising these ghettos.

As any reader of this publication will know, the area is becoming increasingly complicated, with a growing number of cases dealing with the various issues that arise, particularly from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court is deeply involved too: see Sharif v Camden LBC [2013] UKSC 10, 20 February 2013; [2013] HLR 16, Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] UKSC 3, 26 January 2011; [2011] HLR 16, Tomlinson and others v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8, 17 February 2010; [2010] HLR 22 and Birmingham City Council v Ali and others; Moran v Manchester City Council [2009] UKHL 36, 1 July 2009; [2009] HLR 41. In the autumn, it will rule on whether court orders are required to evict homeless applicants from temporary accommodation: see R (CN) v Lewisham LBC; R (ZH) v Newham LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 804, 11 July 2013; [2013] HLR 46.

Against this background, it is therefore bitterly disappointing that the government has decided to reduce drastically the hourly rates for publicly funded work. Professional plumbers and other tradespeople can earn more per hour than a housing barrister. The published rates, and limited uplifts, do not sufficiently reflect the years of academic and professional qualifications of practitioners in this field, and the specialist nature of the work. Barristers of 20 years’ call are unlikely to be paid much more than those who are newly qualified.

Homelessness appeals are on a point of law only, and therefore entirely unsuited to litigants in person. Homeless applicants are also some of the most vulnerable people in society. Yet barristers are already refusing to take on homelessness appeals because of the rates, which will inevitably lead to a rise in homeless applicants conducting their own Housing Act 1996 s204 appeals.

These issues, and others, will be the subject of the first LAG/Arden Chambers ‘Homelessness Conference’ in April, which will cover the localism changes, homelessness, intentionality, priority need, discharge, eligibility and much more. It will also provide a very useful opportunity to gather together like-minded professionals in this area. We very much look forward to seeing you there.