Consequential changes to the homelessness legislation: government response to consultation
Updated 17 May 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/technical-consultation-on-consequential-changes-to-the-homelessness-legislation/outcome/consequential-changes-to-the-homelessness-legislation-government-response-to-consultation
Introduction
Background
The government published the ‘Fairer Private Rented Sector’ white paper in June 2022, re-affirming the commitment to legislate to put an end to so called ‘no-fault’ evictions by repealing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, and to move away from assured shorthold and fixed term tenancies to assured tenancies.
Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 sets out local authorities’ (LAs) statutory duties in relation to homelessness. In a number of places, the homelessness legislation refers to section 21 notices, assured shorthold tenancies and fixed-term tenancies. As a result of the reforms being brought forward by the Renters (Reform) Bill, there will be consequential impacts to the homelessness legislation. We plan to make the relevant changes to the legislation through the Bill.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) consulted on amending parts of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 to align with the new tenancy system being brought forward by the Renters (Reform) Bill. In considering the amendments we sought to uphold the principles of the ‘Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper’ to give renters greater security, while making sure landlords can regain possession of their property when needed. We also need to continue to consider carefully the impact these changes will have to the tenant experience as well as local practice and resourcing within LAs.
The majority of changes we consulted on were minor amendments to the wording to remove reference to ‘section 21 notices’ and replace the references to ‘assured shorthold tenancies’ and ‘fixed-term tenancies’ with ‘assured tenancies’, since these phrases are no longer relevant in these parts of the legislation.
There are 2 parts of the legislation where the removal of section 21 notices will have a more substantial impact on how the policy operates. These are the ‘threatened with homelessness definition’ in Part 7, section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 and ‘the ending the prevention duty’ in Part 7, section 195(6) of the Housing Act 1996. We proposed 3 options for how to change these parts of the legislation. We also proposed to remove ‘the reapplication duty’ from the legislation, as we move to a new tenancy framework.
The consultation launched on 7 December 2022 and was open for 7 weeks. Responses could be made via an online survey through Citizen Space and written responses could be sent via email. The consultation closed on 25 January 2023 and 105 responses were received in total – we are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond.
This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received; it does not attempt to discuss every point made. The document also details the government’s response and next steps in our approach to amending the homelessness legislation.
Methodology
In summer 2022, we met with local authorities, the Local Government Association and homelessness charities to gather initial feedback on the impacts of the consequential amendments to the homelessness legislation. This helped form the 3 options proposed in the consultation for amending the threatened with homelessness definition and how to end the prevention duty.
Details of how to respond to the consultation were published on the GOV.UK website, the Local Government Bulletin, and an email was sent to local authority housing leads and other interested stakeholders to make them aware of the consultation. This consultation was open to everyone, but of particular interest to LAs and any organisations with an interest in homelessness.
The online consultation consisted of the proposed options to amend the homelessness legislation. The survey comprised 19 questions. All questions asked for a standardised response with a free text option in which respondents could provide reasons and context for their answers.
All written responses were analysed to identify common themes and coded. We gave online and written responses equal weight when responding to this consultation.
Overview of consultation responses
We received 105 online and written responses on proposed amendments to the homelessness legislation. The majority of these responses were from local authorities, with some responses received from charities, legal bodies, letting agents and representative bodies. The exact number of responses varies per question, as many respondents answered some questions, but not others.
This response covers all of the consultation questions categorised into 2 sections. The first section covers the more substantial policy choices, with 3 options for amendments to the threatened with homelessness definition and how to end the prevention duty, as well as the proposed removal of the reapplication duty. The second section sets out the responses to the proposed minor technical amendments.
Consultation responses in relation to the options to amend the threatened with homelessness definition and how LAs can end the prevention duty were mixed overall, with differing views and impacts identified on each question. Some responses presented potential positive and negative impacts of options without indicating whether it would have an overall more positive or negative impact; we have classified these responses as ‘mixed’. Many responses referred to wider contextual pressure not necessarily linked to any single proposed option, including cost of living, housing supply and reduced housing options.
Responses to the proposed removal of the reapplication duty and minor technical amendments were largely in agreement with the justification for change and the proposed approach.
1) Substantial changes
A) Threatened with homelessness and ending the prevention duty
The current legislation defines someone as threatened with homelessness if they are likely to be homeless within 56 days; they are also threatened with homelessness if they have been served with a valid section 21 notice, regardless of whether it will lead to homelessness within 56 days. Local authorities are unable to end the prevention duty if a valid section 21 notice has been served.
We consulted on changes to the threatened with homelessness definition and how the prevention duty is ended. We requested feedback on the impacts on LA resourcing, caseloads, workforce, prevention activity and successful outcomes of 3 options:
Option 1: The reference to section 21 notices will be removed from both parts of the legislation and keep the legislation otherwise unchanged. Someone is threatened with homelessness if they are at risk of becoming homeless within 56 days, the prevention duty could be ended when any of the circumstances for ending the duty apply.
Option 2: The reference to section 21 notices will be removed from both parts of the legislation and replaced with the reference to section 8 notices. Someone is threatened with homelessness if a valid section 8 notice has been served, the prevention duty cannot be ended if a valid section 8 notice has been served,
Option 3: The reference to section 21 notices will be removed from both parts of the legislation and replaced with the reference to section 8 notice under the mandatory landlord circumstance grounds. Someone is threatened with homelessness if a valid section 8 notice has been served which relies on one or more of the mandatory landlord circumstance grounds, the prevention duty cannot be ended if a valid section 8 notice which relies on one or more of the mandatory landlord circumstance grounds has been served.
Questions A-C for each option will be considered together as they relate to the impacts on LA resourcing and the responses given for each answer interlink.
Question 1a: What will be the impact of option 1 on local authority resourcing? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in LA resourcing requirement | 21 | 20% |
| Decrease in LA resourcing requirement | 9 | 9% |
| No/limited impact on LA resourcing requirement | 53 | 50% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 5 | 5% |
| No comment/ other | 17 | 16% |
Q1b: What will be the impact of option 1 on local authority caseloads? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in LA caseloads | 21 | 20% |
| Decrease in LA caseloads | 15 | 14% |
| No/limited impact on LA caseloads | 44 | 42% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 11 | 10% |
| No comment/ other | 14 | 13% |
Q1c: What will be the impact of option 1 on the demand on time for local authority staff? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in demand on LA staff time | 60 | 57% |
| Decrease in demand on LA staff time | 11 | 10% |
| No/limited impact in demand on LA staff time | 17 | 16% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 8 | 8% |
| No comment/ other | 9 | 9% |
The majority of responses thought option 1 would have no/limited impact on local authorities resourcing (50%) and would either have no/limited impact on (42%) or decrease (14%) caseloads. One of the main reasons provided was that this option is in line with most LA current practices and procedures, and they are already applying the legislation in this way by accepting a homelessness duty at the earliest point of intervention where someone is at risk of homelessness, not just those served with a section 21 notice. Respondents felt option 1 gave LAs the most flexibility to manage their own caseloads and resourcing, make their own assessments and identify when someone is at risk of homelessness. Respondents also felt providing LAs with this flexibility would allow them to prioritise households who are at immediate risk of homelessness, rather than accepting a high number of duties where there is no immediate risk which results in reduced capacity for staff to undertake prevention work.
Over half of the responses (57%) reported that option 1 would increase the demand on local authority staff time. This option gives LAs discretion to judge whether someone is threatened with homelessness within 56 days before accepting the prevention duty and some respondents felt housing officers would require training and more time to triage applications, as further investigations would be needed before accepting a homelessness duty. Some thought it would leave ambiguity in the legislation which could create uncertainty at the assessment stage causing inconsistent and incorrect assessments which could lead to an increase in review requests and legal cases also putting strains on resourcing.
Some LA responses acknowledged the trade-off between an increase in the demand on time and being able to prioritise applicants who are threatened with imminent homelessness. Some argued this was the most effective way to manage LA resourcing and increase prevention activity.
Q1d: What will be the impact of option 1 on homelessness prevention activity and success rates within local authorities? Please provide comments for your answer
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No comment overall | 8 | 8% |
| Prevention activity | ||
| Increase in prevention activity | 47 | 45% |
| Decrease in prevention activity | 29 | 28% |
| No/limited impact on prevention activity | 9 | 9% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 10 | 10% |
| No comment/ other on prevention activity | 2 | 2% |
| Success rates | ||
| Increase in success rates | 7 | 7% |
| Decrease in success rates | 28 | 27% |
| No/limited impact on success rates | 43 | 41% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 6 | 6% |
| No comment/ other on success rates | 13 | 12% |
Nearly half (45%) of the responses felt that option 1 would result in an increase in prevention activity. This was mainly attributed to the fact that under this option local authorities would be responsible for identifying applicants at risk of homelessness within the next 56 days, which respondents said would allow them to prioritise those likely to be homeless in the next 2 months, with no requirement to accept a prevention duty for applicants where there was no prospect of them becoming homelessness within the foreseeable future. Respondents who made this point explained this prioritisation would allow LAs to focus on those applicants who are at more imminent risk and give LAs time to conduct prevention work to avoid them reaching crisis point and being pushed into the relief stage. Nearly one third of responses, however, thought this option would decrease prevention activity mainly because increased discretion could lead to gatekeeping (i.e seeking to avoid accepting a homelessness duty) and inconsistent practice, resulting in households reapproaching when they are in crisis.
Most of the responses thought there would be no/limited impact (41%) or a decrease in successful outcomes (27%) of homelessness applications. The main reason given for this, as with options 2 and 3, was wider pressures out of scope of this consultation, such as limited housing options, lack of supply to move people on and cost of living pressures. Most third sector organisations and some LAs were concerned this option could result in late intervention or gatekeeping which will reduce successful outcomes due to there being less time to prevent homelessness, therefore applications are more likely to be pushed into the relief stage where wider pressures limit housing options.
Q1e: Do you have any additional comments on the impacts of option 1 which have not been covered in your response to Q1a-d? Yes/No. If yes, please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No comments | 35 | 33% |
| Comments provided | 70 | 67% |
Most responses didn’t raise anything new in this question and provided further detail to their responses to the previous questions. Some responses raised questions or comments about the wider reforms in the Renters (Reform) Bill and wider pressures on local authorities such as housing supply and cost of living.
Question 2a: What will be the impact of option 2 on local authority resourcing? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in LA resourcing requirement | 63 | 60% |
| Decrease in LA resourcing requirement | 4 | 4% |
| No/limited impact on LA resourcing requirement | 17 | 16% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 4 | 4% |
| No comment/ other | 17 | 16% |
Q2b: What will be the impact of option 2 on local authority caseloads? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in LA caseloads | 69 | 66% |
| Decrease in LA caseloads | 2 | 2% |
| No/limited impact on LA caseloads | 17 | 16% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 5 | 5% |
| No comment/ other | 12 | 11% |
Q2c: What will be the impact of option 2 on the demand on time for local authority staff? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in demand on LA staff time | 40 | 38% |
| Decrease in demand on LA staff time | 6 | 6% |
| No/limited impact in demand on LA staff time | 10 | 10% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 35 | 33% |
| No comment/ other | 14 | 13% |
The majority of responses (60%) felt that option 2 would increase resource requirements in local authorities, mainly due to the increase in caseloads (66%). Many responses said amending the definition in this way broadens the scope of people who will be defined as threatened with homelessness to anyone served with an eviction notice, meaning the number of accepted homelessness duties will increase. Furthermore, if a section 8 notice has been served and a household is waiting for the outcome of court proceedings LAs are unable to end the prevention duty after 56 days have passed, meaning cases will remain open for longer. This would increase the administrative burden on LAs as they are required to continue to monitor and update open cases.
The responses were mixed around the impact option 2 would have on the demand on LA staff time. Some responses outlined concerns that the increase in caseloads and administrative burdens will increase demand. Others felt this option streamlined the homelessness assessment process, as LAs will have to accept the prevention duty when a section 8 notice is served, making the assessment process more consistent which could reduce resource requirements and the risk of potential review requests or legal cases.
Q2d: What will be the impact of option 2 on homelessness prevention activity and success rates within local authorities? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No comment overall | 13 | 12% |
| Prevention activity | ||
| Increase in prevention activity | 27 | 26% |
| Decrease in prevention activity | 10 | 10% |
| No/limited impact on prevention activity | 46 | 44% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 8 | 8% |
| No comment/ other on prevention activity | 1 | 1% |
| Success rates | ||
| Increase in success rates | 20 | 19% |
| Decrease in success rates | 14 | 13% |
| No/limited impact on success rates | 45 | 43% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 4 | 4% |
| No comment/ other on success rates | 9 | 9% |
Nearly half (44%) of the responses reported option 2 would have no/limited impact on prevention activity, which they mainly attributed to being similar to how they currently operate in accepting a homelessness duty at the earliest point of risk of eviction. Others set out concerns that this option encompasses many people who are not at risk of homelessness in the foreseeable future, for example, because they can challenge the eviction through the courts. Therefore, high caseloads mean LAs have reduced capacity to do effective prevention work, making it difficult to prioritise applicants at risk of homelessness within 56 days. Most third sector organisations and some LAs felt option 2 would increase prevention activity as it requires LAs to intervene at the earliest point someone is at risk of homelessness and avoids gatekeeping which reduces reapproaches at the point of crisis.
Most of the responses thought there would be no/limited impact (43%) on successful outcomes of homelessness applications. The main reason given, as with options 1 and 3, was wider pressures out of scope of this consultation, such as limited housing options, lack of supply to move people on and cost of living pressures.
Q2e: Do you have any additional comments on the impacts of option 2 which have not been covered in your response to Q2a-d? Yes/No. If yes, please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No comments | 68 | 65% |
| Comments provided | 37 | 35% |
Most responses didn’t raise anything new in this question and provided further detail to their responses to the previous questions. Other responses raised questions or comments about the wider reforms in the Renters (Reform) Bill and wider pressures on local authorities such as housing supply and cost of living.
Question 3a: What will be the impact of option 3 on local authority resourcing? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in LA resourcing requirement | 56 | 53% |
| Decrease in LA resourcing requirement | 5 | 5% |
| No/limited impact on LA resourcing requirement | 15 | 14% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 3 | 3% |
| No comment/ other | 26 | 25% |
Q3b: What will be the impact of option 3 on local authority caseloads? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in LA caseloads | 55 | 52% |
| Decrease in LA caseloads | 9 | 9% |
| No/limited impact on LA caseloads | 12 | 11% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 10 | 10% |
| No comment/ other | 19 | 18% |
Q3c: What will be the impact of option 3 on the demand on time for local authority staff? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increase in demand on LA staff time | 26 | 25% |
| Decrease in demand on LA staff time | 7 | 7% |
| No/limited impact in demand on LA staff time | 12 | 11% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 38 | 36% |
| No comment/ other | 22 | 21% |
Over half of the responses raised concerns that option 3 would increase local authorities resource requirements (53%) and caseloads (52%) in LAs. Many respondents thought this option would increase workload when checking the validity of a homelessness application if a homelessness duty is accepted only if a valid section 8 notice is served under the mandatory landlord circumstance grounds. This would require more training for staff to distinguish between the type of section 8 notices served and they would need to provide more advice to applicants around the differentiation between section 8 notices. This justification was also given in some of the mixed responses when providing feedback on the demand on LA staff time.
Some respondents felt that option 3 streamlines the assessment process so would require less detailed investigations before accepting a homelessness duty than option 1. When comparing to option 2, some respondents felt this option reduces the scope of those defined as threatened with homelessness so LAs can prioritise their time and focus on those at more imminent risk of homelessness.
Q3d: What will be the impact of option 3 on homelessness prevention activity and success rates within local authorities? Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No comment overall | 22 | 21% |
| Prevention activity | ||
| Increase in prevention activity | 12 | 11% |
| Decrease in prevention activity | 22 | 21% |
| No/limited impact on prevention activity | 44 | 42% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 5 | 5% |
| No comment/ other on prevention activity | 0 | 0% |
| Success rates | ||
| Increase in success rates | 7 | 7% |
| Decrease in success rates | 18 | 17% |
| No/limited impact on success rates | 43 | 41% |
| Mixed (increase/ decrease/ no or limited impact) | 4 | 4% |
| No comment/ other on success rates | 11 | 10% |
Nearly half (42%) of the responses reported option 3 would have no/ limited impact on prevention activity. Many local authorities reported in practice they would not differentiate between section 8 notices to determine whether to accept an application and would deal with all evictions due to section 8 notices in the same way, continuing to accept a homelessness duty at the earliest point of intervention. Some responses set out that option 3 reduces the scope of those threatened with homelessness more than option 2, meaning fewer applicants are guaranteed to be owed a homelessness prevention duty. Some respondents felt option 3 would create a two-tiered approach since it excludes certain grounds for eviction where tenants have most barriers to finding alternative accommodation, such as rent arrears.
In line with the previous 2 options, most of the responses thought there would be no/limited impact (41%) or a decrease (17%) in successful outcomes of homelessness applications. Again, this was attributed to wider housing and structural pressures out of scope of this consultation.
Q3e: Do you have any additional comments on the impacts of option 3 which have not been covered in your response to Q3a-d? Yes/No. If yes, please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| No comments | 78 | 74% |
| Comments provided | 22 | 26% |
Most responses did not raise anything new in this question and provided further detail to their responses to the previous questions. Other responses raised questions or comments about the wider reforms in the Renters (Reform) Bill and wider pressures on LAs such as housing supply and cost of living.
B) The reapplication duty
The reapplication duty was introduced alongside the introduction of Private Rented Sector Offers (PRSOs) as a means to end the main homelessness duty, in response to concern that due to the short-term nature of assured shorthold tenancies, applicants who accepted a PRSO may become homeless again within a two-year period and, on application for assistance, would be found to no longer have priority need.
The Renters (Reform) Bill removes fixed terms in the PRS. In future, all tenancies will be assured and offer greater security of tenure. This increased security of tenure and removal of section 21 evictions means the reapplication duty will no longer be relevant, therefore we proposed to remove this from the legislation.
Q4: Do you have any comments on the proposed option to remove the reapplication duty from the homelessness legislation? Yes/No/Don’t Know. Please provide comments for your answer.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Positive response | 61 | 58% |
| Negative response | 18 | 17% |
| No comment | 26 | 25% |
| Don’t know/Other | 1 | 1% |
Over half of the responses (58%) agreed with the proposal to remove the reapplication duty from the homelessness legislation. Some local authorities reported they receive very few or no applications under this duty and this change would streamline the management of re-approaches. Respondents in favour also welcomed that this change would mean there is no differential treatment between those who have had their homelessness duty discharged through accommodation in either the private rented or social housing sector. All applicants would be treated according to their current circumstances at the point of approaching homelessness services.
Of the 17% that had a negative response to the removal of the reapplication duty, the majority were third sector organisations. Their concern was largely that the new tenancy system - although increasing security of tenure in the private rented sector - still carries a risk of eviction. A small number of LAs raised concerns that this change could increase out of area placements because they thought it would mean the receiving LA would no longer be able to make a local connection referral back to the original placing LA, should the household become homeless again within 5 years. This is a misunderstanding, the provision referred to is contained in section 198(4) of the Housing Act 1996 and is separate from the reapplication duty.
2) Minor technical changes
Q5a: Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to minor technical changes? Yes/No/Don’t know. Please give your comments.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Positive response | 46 | 44% |
| Negative response | 1 | 1% |
| No comment | 53 | 50% |
| Don’t know/Other | 5 | 5% |
Q5b: Do you have any comments on the proposed minor technical changes in Annex A? Yes/No/Don’t know. Please give your comments.
| Answers | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Positive response | 40 | 38% |
| Negative response | 2 | 2% |
| No comment | 59 | 56% |
| Don’t know/Other | 4 | 4% |
The majority of responses provided a positive response or no comments to these 2 questions covering the proposed approach to minor technical amendments.
Conclusion and next steps
We set out to amend the homelessness legislation in line with the changes being made to the tenancy regime through the Renters (Reform) Bill. Our aim was to manage the impact on the tenant experience as well as on local practice and resourcing. To meet these objectives, we consulted on changes to the threatened with homelessness definition and subsequently how local authorities can end the prevention duty, the removal of the reapplication duty and several minor technical amendments. Having carefully reflected on responses received during the consultation, we have made the following decisions:
We are proceeding with option 1 for the threatened with homelessness definition and how local authorities can end the prevention duty.
We have considered the factors that will impact the change in legislation and feedback from respondents to the consultation which was mixed. By giving local authorities the tools to identify and prioritise applicants at most imminent risk of homelessness, we believe option 1 strikes the right balance between achieving successful prevention outcomes and making sure caseloads are manageable. We believe LAs have the capability to identify when someone is threatened with homelessness and LAs will continue to assess whether the applicant is threatened with homelessness (within 56 days) and, if so, accept a prevention duty. Applicants who have been served a valid notice to leave a tenancy may or may not be considered threatened with homelessness, and the LA will assess whether they are likely to be homeless within 56 days and, therefore, if a prevention duty is owed. The prevention duty can be ended when any of the circumstances for ending the duty apply. If after 56 days the applicant continues to be threatened with homelessness, the LA may continue to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness or may end the prevention duty (provided the LA has complied with the duty).
When the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was introduced, section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions were the leading cause of homelessness; to address this issue, a special case was made for section 21 notices in the legislation. The removal of section 21 evictions from the new tenancy regime has significantly reduced the likelihood of landlords being able to quickly obtain no fault evictions. Therefore, there is no need for the legislation to have a unique requirement around eviction notices. Once the reforms in the Renters (Reform) Bill are implemented, tenants will enjoy greater security of tenure and rights to challenge unfair evictions. It is therefore right that homelessness services make assessments based on the individual circumstances of each case and focus on those who are at more imminent risk of becoming homeless. Options 2 and 3 would have required LAs to accept certain or all applications where an eviction notice is served, even when there is no imminent risk of homelessness. This could result in LAs having cases open for a long time, including where tenants have a defence to possession and are waiting for court proceedings to end. Preventing LAs from ending the prevention duty would bring about significant resourcing pressures which will ultimately be to the detriment of the service users if LAs are unable to manage their increased caseloads.
We are proceeding with the removal of the reapplication duty from the homelessness legislation. As set out in the consultation, the Renters (Reform) Bill will remove fixed terms in the private rented sector and, in future, all tenancies will be assured and offer greater security of tenure. This increased security of tenure and removal of section 21 evictions means the reapplication duty will no longer be relevant. This change will streamline the management of re-approaches and make sure there is no differential treatment between those who have had their homelessness duties discharged through accommodation in either the private rented or social housing sector, all applicants will be treated according to their current circumstances at the point of approaching.
Finally, we will also proceed with the minor technical amendments as set out in the consultation.
Following the close of the consultation, further analysis of the legislation has resulted in a minor change in our approach to one of the technical amendments. This relates to section 193C, Housing Act 1996, Part VII: Notice under section 193B: consequences. This section deals with what happens when a person, who is owed either the prevention or relief duty, deliberately and unreasonably fails to cooperate with the local housing authority. Section 193C allows LAs to end the prevention or relief duty where a person has failed to cooperate. Where the applicant has priority need, the applicant is still owed a duty to be accommodated but it is a lesser one than the duty under the main housing duty i.e. an offer of a fixed term tenancy of at least 6 months, as opposed to the period of at least 12 months which is required under the main duty. Since fixed term tenancies will no longer exist, an offer under section 193C would be a duplication of an offer under section 193 (the main duty). Subsections (1) and (2) of section 193C will therefore remain as they are, and the remainder of the section will be repealed. This will repeal the offer of a lesser duty from section 193C and, in future, a notice in relation to this section will have the sole consequence of ending any prevention or relief duty owed.
The amendments to the homelessness legislation will be brought forward in the Renters (Reform) Bill. Once the Bill has made passage through parliament, and following Royal Assent and commencement of the relevant provisions, we will make the amendments to the Homelessness Code of Guidance for when the changes come into force. We have previously committed to providing at least 6 months’ notice prior of the new tenancy system taking effect. We will remain closely engaged with LAs and other interested stakeholders to help them prepare for implementation of these changes.