“[We] move [a homeless family] into [temporary accommodation] and of course it is full of cold and damp, and things don’t work, and there’s rats running around…”

“….I do remember somebody who did actually have a hole in the ceiling and rain was coming through.”

“Mostly, it’s mould is the biggest problem….you get some terrible places.”

“[When placing people in other boroughs]…They [the originating council] don’t have the resources to go and look at the accommodation before they move people into it.”

This is the second article in a series I’m writing with a housing officer who has worked (and still works) in council housing offices across London and Greater London*. There’s a transcript from this interview at the end of this post.

For this article, I asked the officer whether London councils inspect accommodation before they place homeless households in it. I was especially interested in checks on temporary accommodation when London councils send homeless households to other boroughs.

I asked, because I’ve interviewed quite a few people who’ve been disgusted at the standard of the accommodation that they and their families have been placed in both in and out of borough.

Councils ALWAYS insist to these tenants that temporary accommodation in other boroughs has been and is inspected, either by council officers, or by companies which manage that accommodation.

“That’s bullshit,” the officer told me (a view that tenants usually share).

“The biggest problem with accommodation is – obviously, a lot of councils are having to get accommodation out of their borough. [It’s] not always a long way out of the borough, but maybe the next borough, or the borough after that one.

They [the originating council] don’t have the resources to go and look at the accommodation before they move people into it.

They’ll ring up and say, “well, as long as they’ve got a gas safety certificate and an electrical safety certificate…” other than that, they ask the landlord, “is the accommodation nice and clean and all that?”

They’ll [the landlord] be like, “yeah, of course it is [laughs]…[then you] move somebody in there and of course it is full of cold and damp, and things don’t work, and there’s rats running around…”

“….I do remember somebody who did actually have a hole in the ceiling and rain was coming through. That was obviously somebody who got moved straight away… but obviously, they [the council] didn’t know that when they placed that person there. The landlord didn’t mention the hole in the roof, strangely enough.”

“Mostly, it’s mould is the biggest problem. That is a problem, because it’s health. It affects some people’s health and clothes, and everything else…you get some terrible places. It doesn’t even have to be that bad. You know if there is mould there, you ain’t going to get rid of it very easily.”

As with the first article in this series, I contacted a sample of London councils for a spread of views on points raised in this interview. This time, I contacted Greenwich, Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster. Only Barnet responded. Have posted that response at the end of this article.

I also rang and emailed Slough council to ask about pressures on local services caused by London boroughs placing their homeless households in Slough. You’ll see this is raised by the officer.

Here’s the interview transcript. It’s edited in places for clarity and I’ve moved some paragraphs to same-subject areas.

“[Temporary accommodation]… generally, a lot of it is shit… but that is a generalisation.

The biggest problem with accommodation is – obviously, a lot of councils are having to get accommodation out of their borough. [It’s] not always a long way out of the borough, but maybe the next borough, or the borough after that one.

They [the originating council] don’t have the resources to go and look at the accommodation before they move people into it. They’ll ring up and say, “well, as long as they’ve got a gas safety certificate and an electrical safety certificate…” other than that, they ask the landlord, “is the accommodation nice and clean and all that?”

They’ll [the landlord] be like, “yeah, of course it is [laughs]…[then you] move somebody in there and of course it is full of cold and damp, and things don’t work, and there’s rats running around…”

Councils say to me that they do inspect places beforehand, but you’re saying…

“That’s bullshit.”

And that’s particularly out of borough – does it happen in borough?

“Well no – I mean, well, it might do… I mean, generally in borough, places will be inspected. Also, you know, it’s a distance. If you’re going to place somebody in… if you’re in an East London borough and you’re going to be placing people in Slough, you’re not going to be looking at them properties, you know what I mean…[laughs], you know, because it’s going to take a whole day to go out there and look at it, and say, “No, it’s not very nice,” and come back again…

What’s some of the worst examples [of temporary accommodation] you know of?

“….I do remember somebody who did actually have a hole in the ceiling and rain was coming through. That was obviously somebody who got moved straight away… but obviously, they [the council] didn’t know that when they placed that person there. The landlord didn’t mention the hole in the roof, strangely enough.”

“Mostly, it’s mould is the biggest problem. That is a problem, because it’s health. It affects some people’s health and clothes, and everything else…you get some terrible places. It doesn’t even have to be that bad. You know if there is mould there, you ain’t going to get rid of it very easily…

[Other problems include] things like no decoration, exposed pipes, holes in the wall… Imagine if you bought a property and you thought, “Okay. I’ll buy this property. It’s nice and cheap [but] needs decorating… The walls need reskimming. The pipework needs covering up… these are the kind of properties where they’re renting them out before any of that work’s done. You’re looking at a shell that needs a lot of work. So, you’re [the landlord] is like – “well, I could do this work and get it done, or I could just let it to the council for a few years get some money out of it, make some money and that will pay for the refurbishment in a few years’ time.”

That’s kind of what you’re looking at… things like holes in the walls where pipes used to be. Showers that don’t work.

[There are] a lot of cases where people have boilers that don’t work.

That [problems with boilers] can go on for weeks…It’s a big issue… because the landlord will come along [when there is a problem with a boiler] and get someone to do the cheapest thing they can [to fix the boiler], so it works for about two days and conks out again. They know the boiler needs replacing and they don’t want to do it. They don’t want to spend the money, the £2k, for a new boiler – so, [they say], “I’ll do it for £20, or I’ll get someone to change the elastic band in it holding it a bit together.”

It’s like all known issues. It’s sad, really. You get the whole family [living without a boiler or hot water]. Imagine being in a house, like, winter – you’ve got no boiler…

Yeah – [laughs] the property’s been seen [inspected]… [it’s been seen] by the landlord [laughs]. It hasn’t been seen by them [anyone else]… and there you are.

…You’re out in the garden – that’s another common one [problem]. I mean, maybe it’s not a big thing, except in the summer. People will say, “there’s a back garden, but I can’t use it because it’s just full of rubble. [Probably] dead bodies [says this for a joke], the last tenants, yeah…[laughs]

There’s all that stuff there. They [the tenants] will go, “why can’t we use the garden?” That’s a fair point. It’s being paid for – and that’s the thing. [There is this] idea that this flat is being provided [free of charge for tenants and so they shouldn’t complain]… These people may be paying a shortfall, or they may be working, so they may be paying, you know, £100 a week towards the rent and they can’t use the garden, because it’s full of rubble. So you know – it isn’t like, “Oh, these people should be grateful, because they’re in a property for free…” They’re actually paying for these properties – maybe not that much, but they’re paying something towards it…”

Is there any relationship between the borough you’re in and the borough you’re going to be placing people in – you can’t ring, say, Slough, and say, “can you go and have a look at this place?”

“No. One reason is probably that the other borough isn’t particularly keen that you’re sticking [homeless] people in their borough. The other thing is it’s not their responsibility. It’s not their responsibility to use their resources, obviously, to be looking at property for another borough, so no, it’s not really going to happen.

Sometimes you wonder [why a landlord wants to let a flat to a council in another area]…I’ve had that kind of thing where you wonder why a landlord in Enfield is wanting to let their property out to Tower Hamlets. Part of it may be that Tower Hamlets may be paying more money, but part of the reason may be that the place is a shithole and the other council ain’t going to have it… so they [the landlord] might be able to fob it off [to a council in another borough].”

Slough is such a, like, dumping ground… every borough I’ve worked in has dumped people in Slough and it’s like Why?… it’s this huge residential area, so there’s a lot of properties. It’s probably cheaper than London, obviously, so that’s the advantage as well, but at the end of the day Slough’s not exactly useful for the people going to [live there] …you know, who have lived in London boroughs and have been dumped in Slough. To get from Slough, if you work in London and you need to go to zone one or zone two. If you live in Slough, it’s about £90 a week…

Slough is near Windsor [I’ve never been there]… it’s a little way out. It’s like 15 miles out, or something. Near Eton, isn’t it…obviously, British Rail fares are expensive.”

Do people complain [about the temporary accommodation they’re placed in out of borough]?

“Yeah, strangely they do…”

Does the landlord still get any money [for letting out mouldy places with holes in the ceiling]

“They’ll get the money for the amount of time that the person’s been in there… but it kind of comes onto another issue…

I don’t know if you know about the Localism Act. So now, most families are being placed into private sector accommodation, so they’re [placed] in temporary accommodation and then the council finds another place in the private sector. Or the person finds a place in the private sector.

[Longer term accommodation] is obviously [better] for the council, [because] you ain’t got [people in expensive] nightly lets [temporary accommodation let on a nightly basis] any more. They [the tenants] claim housing benefit from the council wherever the property is, so the [originating council] don’t have to pay anything [if a homeless household is placed in a property in another borough]…

It’s just difficult [when things go wrong]. The [originating council] says, “oh, we’ve got a private sector let [for you] in Slough.” This is like discharging their duty. The homeless family goes there. They’ve got like a 12-month tenancy to go there. The council has probably paid the landlord a big incentive to take this person. Then, they [the tenants] go into the property and [after a while they find] it’s full of mould…People don’t know which council is responsible for this.

The council would not necessarily see a place that they placed a person in for a long time?

“Nah. You’ve got to look at it… the council is giving them the tenancy – they’re not really placing them as such…Obviously, the person isn’t really having a choice about where they’re going. [They’re told] “this is an offer. You’ve got to take it.” …

Obviously, you can still have 21 days to ask for a review of the suitability of [the accommodation you’ve been offered in another borough] so you can still put in for a review about it and say, “No, this place is shit. I don’t want to be here.”

After that time, [problems with standards] kind of comes down to wherever you are. Somewhere like Slough, for instance. If you’re in Slough, their [Slough council’s] environmental services will be the ones picking it up [problems with mould and environmental standards in a flat].

So – [say] I’ve got this tenancy and it’s crap. There are times [when] you may move into a property and you think, “okay. It looks okay [to start with], because it’s been painted, or wallpapered, or whatever, but a month or so later, all the mould starts coming through again.

What are you going to do? You have to go to your local council and say, “this place has got mould,” or whatever and …they may do [something]… they have no obligation to with resources and stuff. Somewhere like Slough, where they’ve got… different councils sticking their homeless people in there – they’re going to be spread a bit thin, you know.

Croydon is another dumping ground. It’s not so bad [to get to] from Lewisham, but other boroughs dumping people in Croydon… it’s hard to get to… Depends whereabouts in Croydon it is as well.

I think some councils are trying to look at building hostels, or buying hostels to put people in. Some boroughs have… Newham had the Brimstone House [the Focus E15 hostel], didn’t they and all that…to be used as temporary accommodation. Redbridge built a big hostel as well and other boroughs have got hostels. It’s kind of a thing there… because obviously, you can get around B&B rules and all that. You can keep people in hostels as long as you want.

Redbridge had a hostel in Canterbury [didn’t it]?

Yeah, that was barracks, I think. That was like proper accommodation – load of accommodation units. Of course Canterbury weren’t very happy. They wanted it… they could put all their homeless people in these barracks and they would be happy, yeah.

That’s what I mean, you know. Boroughs do sort of – really, they would rather have accommodation locally if they can. They’re not going to say, “well – we’re not going to want this all these barracks out of this borough, because we want them [homeless people] in Walsall,” or something like that. They were pissed off, because they were outbid by Redbridge and they lost out on it all.”

———————————————————————————————————-

Council responses

I picked four London councils to ask for a general range of council views on points raised above: Greenwich, Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster. I asked:

1) If the council always carried out quality checks on temporary accommodation before placing homeless households in that accommodation in or outside of borough

2) If the council carried out checks itself, or engaged external providers to provide that service

3) How often inspections were carried out on temporary accommodation

4) If the council paid landlord incentives to accept homeless households

I asked councils to respond by the end of Tuesday. Only Barnet has responded.

Barnet insisted that checks were always done and to a standard (a response that will surely interest ex-Sweets Way tenants who were very upset by the temporary accommodation they were shown after their eviction from Barnet’s Sweets Way estate).

Barnet responses:
1) Quality checks are carried out regularly irrespective of the location of the property. Wherever possible, the quality checks are conducted before the client moves in. If this is not possible, as some accommodation is procured on the same day that a client presents as homeless, the checks are carried out as soon as possible after the tenancy starts.

2) A qualified Barnet Homes surveyor carries out the quality checks for the council.

3) A rolling annual compliance programme for the temporary accommodation stock (in and out of the borough) is in place. The initial inspection is carried out before or shortly after the client moves in. If a client raises any concerns about the condition of the property a Barnet Homes’ surveyor schedules a joint inspection with the accommodation provider and ensures that any maintenance required is addressed.

—

I asked Slough council for comment on the “dumping” of homeless families in Slough – if London boroughs told Slough council when they placed homeless households in Slough and if those extra households put pressure on Slough services.

Slough did not respond. I took these notes from Slough’s housing strategy):

1.21…Over the last 3 years Slough has been notified of some 450 placements into the borough by 28 different authorities. These include all the other Berkshire authorities, South Bucks and 11 different London Boroughs. It is believed that the true level of placements is far higher than this and that in reality not all placements are notified….Our officers believe it is likely the total number of placements into Slough over this period is at least a 1,000 households or around 335 per year.

4.13… Competition from London Boroughs both makes it more difficult for Slough households to find accommodation in the market and more difficult for the council to find housing…

4.14 The movement of households from London, many of them placed by London Boroughs, has also brought particular difficulties for local health, care and education services…The fact that in many cases the council and other local agencies are not notified of the placement makes matters worse.

—————

*This officer has worked in different council housing offices as a homelessness and housing officer in London and Greater London in the last 20 years.

The officer will remain anonymous.