Well I thought I'd mention gatekeeping as I noted that Mr Flack had mentioned it in a comment on this blog today. For those of you who are unclear what I we mean when we say "gatekeeping", I quote from the Shelter website who sum it up in a nutshell, "Gatekeeping is the name generally given where a council refuses to accept a homelessness application and/or provide interim accommodation where they have a duty to do so."Whilst every council I know will deny that they gatekeep, in my experience all councils gatekeep to keep their homelessness applications down. This gatekeeping approach has always existed to a certain extent since I have worked in homelessness, but has now grown to be the norm in all cases rather than the odd case. The law is being broken on a daily basis across the country and unless you are an applicant who is aware of what the legislation says or have sought independent advice you will be a victim of this!
I was going to give examples of where I have personal knowledge of this, but whilst drafting this post I came across a number of articles online from the past few years and somehow think that you, dear reader, will be able to look through them and decide if a blind eye is being turned to this issue by government rather than having me tell you my view of it. I've placed the links below in a roughly chronological order:
13th June 2005
12th April 2006
31st August 2008 Article in the
22th March 2009 Inside Housing reports on the fall on on homelessness applications
So who thinks that Gatekeeping is going on?
7 comments:
Had a beauty last week from a certain Royal Borough of London.
The client homeless and in temporary accommodation, was not homeless because housing options had identified that she would be suitable for an offer of supported accommodation at some unidentified point in the future (actually two months later). I checked the allocation policy, and being homeless and owed the full duty was a necessary qualification for my client to be offered supported accommodation. Ooops.
Plus the client - who is now in deeply unsuitable supported accommodation on licence actually is highly capable of managing her own tenancy and does not need support. What a waste - simply in order to avoid a housing duty, a valuable supported place is thrust on my client who neither needs nor wants it.
Sadly, this is an 18 month old decision and she didn't seek advice at the time, but this is the strangest definition of not homeless I have come across - you are homeless, but you won't be at some point in the future because you are going to be offered a licence for accommodation that we can only offer to people to whom we owe the full housing duty. That is why we don't owe you the full housing duty, because you are not homeless.
I'm looking at any option I can come up with to challenge this one...
I am sorry NL, I just can't see the logic behind that decision.....
I'm hoping that you might be interested in a campaign being run by us, the London Coalition Against Poverty.
The campaign planned is a Gatekeeping Roadshow which will visit Housing Offices in Inner London and possibly beyond. At each visit we want to provide leaflets on legal rights to housing, gather and compile information on experiences of gatekeeping and publicise the practice of gatekeeping in the local press.
You can get more information on us and the campaign by emailing us at gatekeepingroadshow@gmail.com
Elts, It looks like variant on the theme of you are not homeless because we've arranged accommodation for you (usually private sector) dodge, but you may be missing the logic because there isn't any. There cannot be a finding of not homeless because at some unspecified date in the future, the client may be offered accommodation. But that is what they did.
Councils are clearly under a lot of pressure to have figures that show they have 'prevented' homelessness. It leads to some odd events.
This is not a gatekeeping incident - but it shows the complete lack of logic.
I was once shadowing a homelessness assessment officer in a northern authority.
Applicants showed up saying they 'wanted to make a homeless application'
Officer asked why ...
They were in Private sector accom and wanted council accommodation.
(ok)
Officer was then VERY thorough and did actually check whether there were any possession procedures, any rent arrears, any disrepair, ANYTHING that rendered the property unreasonable to occupy.
There was nothing wrong with it.
So he told them they weren't homeless and registered them on the waiting list.
I couldn't fault it at all.
Then I saw him tick 'prevented homelessness' on his outcomes records.
Puzzled, I asked him why ...
He said 'well when they came in they thought they were homeless, and now that I've advised them they know they're *not* homeless'
CW
Hi,
I'm currently writing an article about local council's and their practice of 'gatekeeping'.
Could you drop me an email on charlie.mole@cantab.net - I would very much like to talk.
Best wishes,
Charlie Mole
Hi,
I'm a journalist and am looking at gate-keeping as part of a major project on homelessness. I'm very keen to speak to you (and any other homelessness or housing officers who can shed light on this). Is there a way I can contact you? You can reach me at the following email address: importancehigh11@yahoo.co.uk Total discretion assured. Thank you
Post a Comment