Crisis response to the consultation on tackling illegal immigration in privately rented accommodation August 2013 Crisis welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. We have serious concerns with the proposals in this paper and believe they will have unintended consequences, including for homeless people. We hope that the recommendations we make will be taken on board by the government in order to avoid some of the potential adverse impacts of this policy. We welcome the intention to tackle criminal landlords who target undocumented migrants. We are concerned about landlords who take advantage of the vulnerability of some tenants and charge extortionate rents for substandard accommodation. However, unfortunately poor conditions, low standards and high rents are not restricted to undocumented migrants in the PRS and we see these problems across the market. Crisis believes that wider reform is long overdue and much needed. It is disappointing that the government is choosing not to tackle these issues more broadly and have instead decided to focus solely on migrants living in the PRS. There are widespread concerns that these plans will lead to discrimination towards people who landlords may perceive to be non-British. If landlords know that they could be liable for a fine if they let to someone who is later found to be an illegal migrant, there is a risk they will simply not let to anyone they are not immediately confident has the right to live in the country. In high demand housing markets it will be easy for landlords to choose to let only to people they perceive as safe. Even though the Equality Act should in theory offer protection against such discrimination, it will be very difficult for prospective tenants to prove that they have been discriminated against if landlords refuse to let to them. The requirement for landlords to check the immigration status of British and nonBritish citizens alike seems intended to prevent discrimination. However there will be no legal duty for landlords to make the check – instead the check will count as statutory excuse if it later turns out that someone living in the property is an illegal migrant. Landlords may therefore perceive it as easier for them to let to someone they are confident is a British citizen so that they do not have to make any checks. This again poses a risk of discrimination against people who landlords are not certain have the right to live in the country. Even if landlords do take steps to check the identity of all prospective tenants, there is a strong chance that they will be more confident in recognising UK identity documents than passports or documents from other countries. This again may lead them to be more comfortable letting to British citizens to avoid the risk of a fine. It is welcome that there will be a Home Office enquiry service available to help landlords verify documents they are not familiar with. However, we are concerned by the timescales which are proposed for responding to enquiries. Even 1-2 days, the minimum option mentioned, is a considerable amount of time for landlords who are in a position to let their property to someone else immediately. It is vital that the enquiry service is properly resourced so that there is a faster turnaround, with responses ideally being available on the same day.

1

Given our homeless client group, Crisis’ main concern is how these plans will affect homeless people’s ability to move into private rented accommodation. We fear that the proposals as they stand will make it more difficult for homeless people to access the PRS. Homeless people often will not have the specified documents and so may not easily be able to demonstrate their right to be in the UK. Trying to get new documentation can be difficult for vulnerable individuals who may not be able to easily navigate online systems. Additionally it has cost implications and obtaining the documents can take a significant amount of time – with landlords not being prepared to wait and so offering the property to someone else. In order to try and mitigate some of these problems, a wider range of documents should be acceptable evidence as proof of prospective tenants’ right to live in the country. We are also concerned that certain types of accommodation used to accommodate homeless people and prevent and relieve homelessness will fall under the remit of this policy. The consultation sets out that there will be exemptions for certain types of emergency accommodation and accommodation where tenants have already been subject to a migration check. We recommend that these should include a broader range of properties falling into these categories.

Evidence For many homeless people, particularly single homeless people, the PRS is their main housing option. In Crisis’ experience, despite significant problems with the PRS, it can provide a stable home for vulnerable people with the right support and safeguards in place. However, accessing housing in the first place can often be a challenge. Barriers include a lack of access to cash for a deposit and rent in advance and landlord preconceptions about benefit claimants and so a reluctance to let to them. These issues can prevent or delay people moving into accommodation and so prolong their homelessness. Many homeless people simply do not have documents such as a passport or birth certificate. They often get lost or stolen during periods of moving around or when sleeping rough or living in insecure accommodation. Sustain, a longitudinal study being carried out by Crisis and Shelter looking at the experiences of homeless people placed in the PRS, has found that a lack of ID is already a major barrier to accessing services and benefits.1 Other groups in housing need may also struggle to access the required identity documents. Women fleeing domestic violence for instance will often leave their home without any possessions and could struggle to retrieve them from an abusive partner. People leaving prison may also have limited documents to prove their identity. Given the strong links between stable housing and reduced reoffending it should not be made any more difficult for ex offenders to secure PRS housing. It is possible for people to replace missing documents. However, this is not always a quick or affordable process. Replacing a passport costs £72.50 and can take up to 6 weeks to process. Replacing a birth certificate is cheaper at just £9.25 but still can take several days to arrive. For people who are receiving benefits, these costs are likely to be prohibitive.

1

Crisis and Shelter (2012) Sustain: a longitudinal study of housing wellbeing in the private sector (interim findings)

2

The impact assessment notes that the landlords having to check prospective tenants’ documents could take a long time to carry out, noting that ‘If this process delays lettings, then voids may be lengthier and the landlord’s revenues reduced.’ However, we are concerned that for homeless people, who are less likely to have the necessary documents this will be particularly problematic as rather than risk a void, landlords are likely to choose to let to someone who can readily produce the evidence required. This is even more likely in markets where there is a high demand for PRS accommodation. This could result in homeless people missing out on PRS accommodation, so prolonging their homelessness and preventing them from moving on into stable housing. The specified documents go beyond what is required to access other services, such as benefits. When assessing a claim for JSA, for example, JCP workers have some discretion and flexibility over the ID they will accept. There is a recognition that some people will struggle to produce identity documents such as passports and birth certificates. As a result, they will consider a wider range of forms of ID including bank cards or any kind of photo ID card. They can also make enquiries with HMRC if the claimant is struggling to produce documents. We strongly recommend therefore that the burden of proof required by landlords is reduced to a level that homeless people and others without the specified documents are more likely to be able to meet. Crisis also urges the government to include evidence of benefits receipt in the list of acceptable forms of ID. In order to be in receipt of benefits, claimants must have the right to live in the UK. This will have already been verified by JCP or DWP. As prospective tenants who are in receipt of benefits have already been subject to a migration check, we believe it is unnecessary for landlords to check again. It is very common for the Home Office to hold the passports or other identity documents of migrants for up to several months. This occurs even in cases where the person’s right to live in the country has been long established. It is welcome that the Home Office is considering how they can verify a prospective tenant’s immigration status in these circumstances, and we look forward to seeing further information.

Exemptions At a time of rising homelessness, we are deeply concerned that accommodation used to house homeless households may be caught under the remit of these proposals. The government has already agreed to exempt certain types of accommodation, either because another agency has verified the identity of the tenants (as is the case with social housing where the local authority has nominated the tenant) or because the accommodation is intended to house homeless people in an emergency (such as hostels). We believe these exemptions should be extended to other types of accommodation which are used to prevent homelessness or where checks on someone’s immigration status have already been made. Accommodation secured by PRS access schemes Crisis is funded by the DCLG to support PRS access schemes working with single homeless people across the country. Access schemes support vulnerable tenants to find PRS accommodation and to live independently, offering pre-tenancy training and ongoing help. They build relationships with landlords and offer a liaison service should problems arise. Some guarantee rent deposits, removing the need for a large cash deposit whilst still assuring the landlord that their property will be maintained and looked after.

3

It is already challenging to find properties and willing landlords to house people who have been homeless. Many landlords are reluctant to let to people on benefits or are prevented from doing so by their mortgage conditions. Low LHA rates mean that there is often very little accommodation that is affordable to benefit recipients. These proposals risk making the job of access schemes harder still and will place new barriers in the way of people breaking out of homelessness. All of the schemes we fund and the vast majority of others can only work with people who have recourse to public funds so have already verified that their clients have the right to live in the country. Taking a referral from a PRS access scheme, either council or charitably run, should count as a check having been made by the landlord. Freeing landlords from having to make immigration checks in these circumstances could also help incentivise them to work with PRS access schemes and provide much needed housing for people who have been homeless. Accommodation used to prevent or relieve homelessness and Temporary Accommodation It is welcome that PRS accommodation used by local authorities to discharge their statutory homelessness duty will be exempt. However, there proposals could still put barriers in the way of local authorities fulfilling other duties to people who are or may be homeless. Local authorities often use private rented accommodation to house people temporarily. They have a duty to do this whilst they make enquiries as to whether they are owed the main homelessness duty as outlined in the Homelessness Code of Guidance 2. If the household in question has nowhere else to go, this accommodation needs to be secured immediately. We would be very concerned if this was not possible due to delays caused by the landlord having to make immigration checks. This accommodation should therefore be exempt from the proposals so that councils can meet their statutory obligations. The PRS is frequently used as Temporary Accommodation for households who have been accepted as being owed the main homelessness duty before settled accommodation becomes available. Temporary Accommodation should be exempt from these requirements as it will otherwise put barriers in the way of councils fulfilling their statutory duties and because councils will already have made enquiries into someone’s immigration status and hence eligibility for assistance. Councils also make use of the PRS in homelessness prevention work. Consideration must be give as to how to exempt accommodation used for this purpose in order to avoid more people becoming or staying homeless and requiring more substantial, costly help. Hostels Whilst hostels themselves will be exempt from these proposals, people leaving hostels are not. This could put barriers in the way of people moving on from hostels as residents who do not have the required documents will find it more difficult to access PRS accommodation. This is likely to lead to blockages in the system, people being stuck in costly hostels longer than is necessary, and a shortage of hostel places for those who need them. This would also exacerbate the 10% reduction in hostel bed spaces we have seen over the last 3 years.

2

DCLG (2006) Homelessness Code of Guidance

4

The vast majority of hostels which meet the legal definition3 can only accommodate people who have recourse to public funds as a result of having the right to live in the country. Most people living in hostels are in receipt of housing benefit, which they can only claim after having demonstrated their right to live in the UK. Crisis believes therefore that people leaving hostels should be exempt from having to demonstrate their immigration status as the hostel will have already carried out this check. There is already a legal precedent for this, with people who have been in hostels exempt from the extension of the Shared Accommodation Rate. The Shared Accommodation Rate is the lowest rate of LHA, intended for single claimants to pay for a room in a shared house. In 2011 the government extended the age limit for it from 25 to 35. After campaigning by Crisis and others, Government committed to exempting 25-34 year olds who have previously lived in a hostel for at least 3 months. This was in part a recognition that this would otherwise make it more difficult for people to move on from hostels into PRS accommodation. Given that the government already recognises the importance of hostel move on and not blocking much needed hostel space, we strongly believe a similar exemption should be put in place for this policy. Emergency accommodation We would be extremely concerned if emergency accommodation offered by councils under the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) were to be included in these proposals. SWEP provision is vital to get people off the streets in very cold weather. Sleeping rough, particularly in the winter, is extremely dangerous for individuals and often leads to a range of serious health conditions and in the worst instances, fatalities. We recommend that SWEP provision is explicitly included in the exemption for ‘crisis accommodation for homeless and other vulnerable people’. Likewise the accommodation used by No Second Night Out, which can include hotel or B+B type accommodation which is paid for, should be exempt to avoid the risk of undermining the government’s flagship programme for tackling rough sleeping. Lodgings We do not believe that this policy should cover people who take in lodgers. Renting a room in your main home to a lodger is a fundamentally different relationship from a landlord renting out a property that they do not live in. Requiring householders to check the immigration status of prospective lodgers could lead to a culture of distrust and may discourage people from taking lodgers at all. Letting out a spare room to a lodger is a key way the government has suggested people could avoid losing income through the social housing under occupancy measures or “bedroom tax”. Including lodgings in these proposals will risk undermining this intention by making it more difficult for social housing tenants to take in a lodger. More households could be left struggling to make up the reduction in their housing benefit and potentially facing homelessness as a result. We are also concerned that, if lodgings are to be included, supported lodgings schemes could be adversely affected. Supported lodgings schemes place young homeless people with a host family who are willing to provide some support and a stable environment. Most young people who are placed in a supported lodging are in receipt of LHA so have already demonstrated their right to live in the country. The supporting organisation will have verified this. We would be concerned therefore if the host family were expected to make additional checks as this extra burden and 3

DWP (201) Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit circular A12/2011

5

risk may deter them from taking part. We believe therefore that supported lodgings schemes should be explicitly exempt from the legislation. Conclusion Overall, Crisis remains opposed to the proposals in this consultation. We feel that, given the widespread problems in the PRS, this is the wrong area for the government to focus on regulating. The proposals are likely to disadvantage homeless people who cannot easily produce the necessary documentation to demonstrate their right to live in the country and will impede work carried out by PRS access schemes, charities and local authorities to prevent and resolve homelessness. Our main recommendations are: •

The evidence required for prospective tenants to prove their migration status should be reduced to a level which is more manageable for homeless people. In particular, evidence of a UK benefits claim should be added to the list of acceptable forms of ID as this will be easier to produce for many homeless people.

•

Widening the exemptions to include other forms of accommodation where the prospective tenant has already been subject to an immigration check.

•

Ensuring all temporary and emergency accommodation used to house homeless people is exempt.

•

Excluding other forms of accommodation used to prevent and resolve homelessness including that secured directly by councils, by PRS access schemes and as supported lodgings.

6

About Crisis Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We are dedicated to ending homelessness by delivering life-changing services and campaigning for change. Our innovative education, employment, housing and well-being services address individual needs and help people to transform their lives. As well as delivering services, we are determined campaigners, working to prevent people from becoming homeless and advocating solutions informed by research and our direct experience. Crisis has ambitious plans for the future and we are committed to help more people in more places across the UK. We know we won’t end homelessness overnight or on our own but we take a lead, collaborate with others and, together, make change happen.

Company Number: 4024938 | Charity Numbers: England and Wales 1082947, Scotland SC040094 For further information, please contact: Sarah MacFadyen Policy and Parliamentary Officer Crisis 66 Commercial Street London E1 6LT Tel: 020 7426 5678 [email protected]

7