People in temporary housing look likely to be offered private rented housing as part of a drive to tackle housing waiting lists.
But former Green councillor David Gibson said that the policy would be a step backwards, adding: “Surely it is better that private rented is a choice rather than a compulsion.
“Having previously opposed forcing homeless people into insecure private rented housing against their will, please can the new administration explain what has changed their view and why this new approach is preferable now?”
He was speaking at a meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Housing and New Homes Committee at Hove Town Hall on Wednesday (15 November).
Labour councillor Andrei Czolak, the deputy chair of the committee, said that the use of private rented housing was a suitable way to try to tackle homelessness
Councillor Czolak said: “Instead of facing many years in temporary accommodation – which could be insecure, unsettled and more expensive – the private sector does provide suitable accommodation to numerous people and is frequently the best option for those who are very unlikely to be allocated council properties.
“Almost a third of people in the city live in such homes.”
Mr Gibson raised concerns about people being housed outside Brighton and Hove but Councillor Czolak said that if, for example, children were at local schools, this would be a last resort.
Any offer of housing outside Brighton and Hove would be made only when people were already living outside the area or could not stay in the city because, say, they were fleeing domestic violence or abuse.
Housing campaigner Daniel Harris said that thousands of private homes in Brighton and Hove were empty and that the council should be tougher with those landlords.
He said: “You’ve got entire homes being turned over to Airbnbs. Why is the administration not getting tough on those landlords?
“What we’re seeing here is a potential purge of working-class people being housed outside the area in places where they’re not going to be getting support.”
Mr Harris reminded the committee that East Sussex County Council had threatened to take Brighton and Hove City Council to court over the housing of vulnerable people at Kendal Court, in Newhaven.
The council’s executive director for housing, neighbourhoods and communities Rachel Sharpe said: “The driver for this is we need to reduce the number of people we have in temporary accommodation for their sake and for the council’s sake.
“It’s not right that we have so many households and families in temporary accommodation and we need to find a way to move those people and settle them in accommodation as quickly as we can.”
Green councillor Ellen McLeay said that the private rental sector contributed to homelessness. She said that 58 per cent of households experienced homelessness at the end of a tenancy.
Councillor McLeay said: “Private renting is much less secure (and) is invariably more expensive, leaving low-income households with less.”
Labour councillor Amanda Grimshaw asked about flexibility for people housed outside Brighton and Hove for less than two years in private rented housing.
Councillor Grimshaw, a domestic abuse survivor, said: “I was in temporary (housing) for many, many years, assuming I had gone through all this trauma, hoping eventually I would get permanent housing.
“If I then found out that I wasn’t going to get that and I was going to be placed in the private rented sector, I would have been devastated.”
The council’s assistant director for housing needs and supply Paul Cooper said that the policy would be implemented only when housing in Brighton and Hove was not appropriate.
He said that there was a two-year limit to the council’s duty to rehouse people if it had housed them outside Brighton and Hove but this could be looked at as part of the wider housing policy review next year.
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows asked about people in private housing having carers, saying that the service was confined to those within the boundary of a local authority.
Mr Cooper said that consideration would be given to people with caring responsibilities and needs and that a home further away might not be suitable.
The number of homeless households approaching the council for help had risen 20 per cent in the past year, up from 2,316 in 2022-23.
This year a forecast suggested that 2,764 households were likely to ask for help with housing.
A third of the 4,665 people on the housing register were homeless, with the majority in temporary housing, the meeting was told.
Each household in temporary housing would cost the council about £9,200, taking the overall bill to almost £16 million last year.
The council currently allocates about 600 properties a year, with the average waiting time for a one-bedroom property at just over two years.
People were waiting four and a half years for a two-bedroom home and more than eight years for a three-bedroom property.
Four-bedroom homes were so rare that none had been let in the past three years.
So the council, who clearly hold private landlords in contempt, are now seeking their help? Well, good luck with that. I suspect the only landlords who would be interested in such a scheme will be large landlords who couldn’t care less about the standard of their properties or the naive. There’s huge demand from regular tenants so why on earth would a landlord with a decent property take the risk?
The only way we will ever get out of this housing crisis is to build more homes. That’s not going to happen in the short or medium term, and with Brighton’s geographical limitations it’s hard to see it happening at all.
We could also think about the distribution of homes. We have more bedrooms per person than at most points in history, the problem is people owning more than their share and the unbalanced national economy which crowds everyone in the south east. As you say, in practice building our way out the crisis isn’t as simple as it sounds.
Remove The Right To Buy, so more homes stay in the public sector.
That would be following in the footsteps of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, certainly.
What a gross comment. Suggesting working families aren’t “suitable tennants” what a weird thing to say. The way things are going for tenants you won’t have any as they’ll all be homeless with the joke of the rent you landlords are charging. Pure greed at the expense of others.
Time to drop the ‘City of Sanctuary’ nonsense, particularly when there is NO sanctuary and we cannot even house our own with a connection to this city.
A case for Trading Standards that our council advertises that which does not exist and cannot be delivered…?
I mean, I can think of four organisations off the top of my head Barry. Might want to check your assertions before wildly coming up with a dangerously incorrect statement. People might actually believe you on faith.
Barry is spot on and his assertions are reflective of the lives truth many of us experience. I appreciate you may work for the council or generally believe it easy to escape homelessness but it is not. The entire housing market in B&H is tailored to those from elsewhere in the country. The city is desperately dependent on education tourism and those from here are mainly seen as a bollard that needs dissembling to make room for more students. My apologies if I sound bitter but your attitude is wildly offensive to those in my situation, must of us receive ZERO help, despite being employed, educated, articulate and pushing the matter with the council (And yes, CICs! Shockingly). It’s okay though, they are building 2000 ‘homes’ next to Hove Station, sure they will be mostly affordable and rent controlled 😂😂 Bye
Benjamin is insensitively oblivious to the widespread offence he routinely causes. He appears to be a Labour-leaning Council insider with little to no awareness of the harsh realities of life for many of us who endure so much waste, nonsense and ridiculousness from this Council.
Our street had a neglected empty property. When I reported it, if turned out to be a Council house. And don’t start me on the potholes. I’ve stopped cycling until it’s safer. The cratered roads are more dangerous than pretty much anyone behind the wheel right now. Sorry, rant over. It’s just that Benjamin’s pretentious, patronising and condescending waffle really does rile me.
I’m struggling to understand the logic here. The council operates Direct Lets, who will negotiate with private landlords to lower rents for people they’re working with. However, at the same time, the council has a portfolio of local, residential properties that they don’t use for social housing but instead, rent them out as short-term holiday lets or long-term private rental at market rate. So, ask private landlords to accept less money while the council itself won’t for their private rentals?
I like the Greens statement about forcing homeless people into home’s against their will.
Look at cities in America with mass homelessness and the local government’s there don’t want to help them so are convinced that the homeless have chosen to live that way.
The temporary accommodation is generally run by an individual or company, (a landlord) for profit so I don’t understand the statement about shouldn’t turn to private landlords to resolve the situation?
However, there are also a number of charity CICs that run accommodations for the homeless in Brighton on a not-for-profit basis. The argument there would then be to ensure that responsible landlords are used, and stipulate that within the contacts to have a legally enforceable element to prevent bad actors. To me, that sounds like the challenge is to create a comprehensive contract.
I’m afraid I know of landlords that have hundreds of property that will go nowhere near council recommended tenants. They have been told they are ok. and then found out there were serious ASB issues with these people. Private landlords have plenty of choice and why would they rent to these people rather than working people that come to them via the normal advertised channels. Instead of trying to house everyone that wants to in Brighton they should do what people who are privately renting or buying look to do and move people further away from the City. I’m amazed that there is only a two year wait for a two bed flat as most private renters have to wait much longer than this to be able to save a deposit to be able to afford their own home.
Good idea, if you are homeless, for whatever reason, you should have to move away from your home and the entire life you have known so other, better people from everywhere else in the country can be warmly welcomed in front of you. However, this is the current status quo but still a well fashioned idea.
Interesting quote in the article: “Housing campaigner Daniel Harris said that thousands of private homes in Brighton and Hove were empty and that the council should be tougher with those landlords.”
If the properties are empty then the people owning them are not landlords as they are not renting them! I don’t understand why people would have empty properties for any length of time. They are expensive (council tax and utilities still paid and an insurance risk).
So if Daniel, or others, can identify these properties then why not approach the owner? Offer to buy them and let them out as council properties? The council can and has done this before.
I’m not sure that there are many, I question the thousands. Possibly dozens in probate. But can’t see hundreds even. But any is a step forward. So why not just take action? Approach the owners and buy them….
The owners often have reasons for them being empty. They are working abroad, have moved in with a partner but want a back up plan. There is some legal issues where they are stuck in probate. Are waiting for planning permission which can take six months.
It was 10k the number of empty homes as announced widely in local press. About 4000 entire home air bnb rentals now
And rising and 5k living in social housing under occupying the homes. My concern is the already lack of access for homes which are suitable and growing demand.
At the action on homes conference last year Chris Bailey from Action on Empty Homes made a valuable contribution about Buy to Leave and AirBnb and is worth a read (click my name for link)
My latest scrapes show 3509 full home properties out of 4572 listings in the last 30 days, with an occupancy rate of 59%. That equates to 43,000 days of empty homes purely from AirBnB and like properties.
Very much agree with the regulation of AirBnB for a variety of reasons, and classifying properties is a very good step in identifying where they are easily and ensuring they are kept to standard, and making sure they are balanced against residential, commercial and industrial zoning city planning.
It is very clear that Labour hate landlords, so why would any landlord fall over themselves to help this council.
To be fair council officers have always been pro PRS, administrations not so much, this is a bold and brassy move tbh, watching with interest how this plays out. With the amendment its satisfied me.
The theory is now private landlord licensing is happening and them going after so called rogue slum landlords, that some will come back. The interesting thing about this policy change is they Will now need more private rentals here in the city as there was an amendment, to guarantee a placement in the city, if there are valid reasons.
It does open up for more private out of area, crawley, worthing, lewes, newhaven, Eastbourne etc also, so many landlords in those areas and of course reconnecting those with no real local connection those wanted to commit crime and / or exploit locals, these chancers need to be placed in private sector where there local connection is as their councils keep sending them back on travel warrants, exploiting some of the good policies sadly. As a result of to many in temporary accommodation now too many locals from the city are being socially cleansed.
This needs to be put right and the amendment does just that.
In terms of the wider issues toward access and affordability, this is why the council will in addition need to continue building more council homes, and nationally government should give more local powers to say pause the right to buy, we have some unique local issues and need those homes to maintain equality and our community cultures.
Tax the profiteers