Established 2005 Registered Charity No. 1110656
Scottish Charity Register No. SC043760
DONATE
Please help us to help more homeless people by setting up a monthly direct debit.
the Pavement relies on donations and volunteering from individuals and companies...
MORE ON DONATING
RECENT TWEETS
Local authorities are encouraging the practice, a leaked document reveals
Local authorities are encouraging hostels to dissuade applications and not to document rejections for temporary housing in a practise known within the industry as ‘gatekeeping’, a leaked document sent to this magazine has revealed.
The report claims gatekeeping not only "prevents people from exercising their legal rights and denies them the opportunity to resolve their homelessness"but also distorts official statistics. "If no application is taken, then there is no record of the household having approached the local authority,"the report said. The law states that local authorities have an obligation to take a homeless application from anyone they believe may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, and that they are under a duty to accommodate while they make inquiries. It also says a formal written decision, which carries with it a right of review, must be written.
However, the report, which originated from Shelter, highlights a number of cases where local authorities had prevented or actively discouraged people from applying as homeless. One way of discouraging applications was to insist on excessive amounts of documentation before providing assistance. The report cites research which found in 2005 that "initial filtering procedures"were deterring young people from making a complete application or giving full information. People had complained of waiting for up to a day to receive an interview, or simply being given information leaflets rather than speaking to someone. They were also asked to produce difficult to obtain written information, such letters from were they had been staying previously to prove they could no longer live there.
Shelter's report highlighted 50 cases from across the country. Requests were even made of those who had suffered domestic violence or relationship breakdown, with one woman fleeing violence being told she was intentionally homeless because she had not reported the violence to the police. Refusing applications on the basis of a lack of "local connection"was another practise found, despite the local authorities having a legal obligation to assist before any referral can be made to another area; other vulnerable would-be applicants were found to have been placed on a general housing waiting list.
Many applicants were given on-the-spot verbal decisions that they did not qualify, making challenging the decision harder. This is not the first time gatekeeping has come to public attention. In 2005, a survey for Shelter's national magazine Roof found that 63 per cent of council staff, out of 60 local authorities contacted, felt pressured to bend the rules to reduce the numbers of people they accepted as homeless. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was at the time reported as responding: "Suggestions that this is about avoiding helping people are completely wrong...We have not seen any substantial evidence that this is happening and reject findings of this survey." However, in 2006, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, Yvette Cooper, wrote an open letter to local authorities advising against the practise, saying that: "I do want to see continued reductions in homelessness numbers, but that must be achieved through more effective help, not as a result of a ‘gatekeeping’ approach...It is critical that vulnerable households should not be denied the assistance they need."
Despite having been written in September 2005, the Shelter report remains unpublished over two years later. A spokesperson for the charity told The Pavement: "The document... was intended for internal use rather than publication. We have various reports, which are more of a collation of information passed to us in the communications, policy and campaigns department from people in our services reporting trends or problems so we can decide on the best way to try and solve them." However, in a letter accompanying the report sent to The Pavement, an anonymous employee suggested Shelter's response has been purposely "low profile." The covering letter also added: "These practices, as the report evidences, are not isolated but endemic and nothing less than an abuse of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society... This is the territory where Shelter should be taking central and local government head on."
Shelter's chief executive Adam Sampson said: "Where it is apparent that gatekeeping is taking place, Shelter is working with the government and with local authorities both publicly and behind the scenes to tackle the problem and ensure homeless people have access to the help they need. "Shelter's policy and campaigning work is not influenced or compromised by government contracts."
The report claims gatekeeping not only "prevents people from exercising their legal rights and denies them the opportunity to resolve their homelessness"but also distorts official statistics. "If no application is taken, then there is no record of the household having approached the local authority,"the report said. The law states that local authorities have an obligation to take a homeless application from anyone they believe may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, and that they are under a duty to accommodate while they make inquiries. It also says a formal written decision, which carries with it a right of review, must be written.
However, the report, which originated from Shelter, highlights a number of cases where local authorities had prevented or actively discouraged people from applying as homeless. One way of discouraging applications was to insist on excessive amounts of documentation before providing assistance. The report cites research which found in 2005 that "initial filtering procedures"were deterring young people from making a complete application or giving full information. People had complained of waiting for up to a day to receive an interview, or simply being given information leaflets rather than speaking to someone. They were also asked to produce difficult to obtain written information, such letters from were they had been staying previously to prove they could no longer live there.
Shelter's report highlighted 50 cases from across the country. Requests were even made of those who had suffered domestic violence or relationship breakdown, with one woman fleeing violence being told she was intentionally homeless because she had not reported the violence to the police. Refusing applications on the basis of a lack of "local connection"was another practise found, despite the local authorities having a legal obligation to assist before any referral can be made to another area; other vulnerable would-be applicants were found to have been placed on a general housing waiting list.
Many applicants were given on-the-spot verbal decisions that they did not qualify, making challenging the decision harder. This is not the first time gatekeeping has come to public attention. In 2005, a survey for Shelter's national magazine Roof found that 63 per cent of council staff, out of 60 local authorities contacted, felt pressured to bend the rules to reduce the numbers of people they accepted as homeless. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was at the time reported as responding: "Suggestions that this is about avoiding helping people are completely wrong...We have not seen any substantial evidence that this is happening and reject findings of this survey." However, in 2006, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, Yvette Cooper, wrote an open letter to local authorities advising against the practise, saying that: "I do want to see continued reductions in homelessness numbers, but that must be achieved through more effective help, not as a result of a ‘gatekeeping’ approach...It is critical that vulnerable households should not be denied the assistance they need."
Despite having been written in September 2005, the Shelter report remains unpublished over two years later. A spokesperson for the charity told The Pavement: "The document... was intended for internal use rather than publication. We have various reports, which are more of a collation of information passed to us in the communications, policy and campaigns department from people in our services reporting trends or problems so we can decide on the best way to try and solve them." However, in a letter accompanying the report sent to The Pavement, an anonymous employee suggested Shelter's response has been purposely "low profile." The covering letter also added: "These practices, as the report evidences, are not isolated but endemic and nothing less than an abuse of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society... This is the territory where Shelter should be taking central and local government head on."
Shelter's chief executive Adam Sampson said: "Where it is apparent that gatekeeping is taking place, Shelter is working with the government and with local authorities both publicly and behind the scenes to tackle the problem and ensure homeless people have access to the help they need. "Shelter's policy and campaigning work is not influenced or compromised by government contracts."
October – November 2024 : Change
CONTENTS
BACK ISSUES
- Issue 152 : October – November 2024 : Change
- Issue 151 : August – September 2024 : Being Heard
- Issue 150 : June – July 2024 : Reflections
- Issue 149 : April – May 2024 : Compassion
- Issue 148 : February – March 2024 : The little things
- Issue 147 : December 2023 – January 2024 : Next steps
- Issue 146 : October 2023 – November 2023 : Kind acts
- Issue 145 : August 2023 – September 2023 : Mental health
- Issue 144 : June 2023 – July 2023 : Community
- Issue 143 : April 2023 - May 2023 : Hope springs
- Issue 142 : February 2023 - March 2023 : New Beginnings
- Issue 141 : December 2022 - January 2023 : Winter Homeless
- Issue 140 : October - November 2022 : Resolve
- Issue 139 : August - September 2022 : Creativity
- Issue 138 : June - July 2022 : Practical advice
- Issue 137 : April - May 2022 : Connection
- Issue 136 : February - March 2022 : RESPECT
- Issue 135 : Dec 2021 - Jan 2022 : OPPORTUNITY
- Issue 134 : September-October 2021 : Losses and gains
- Issue 133 : July-August 2021 : Know Your Rights
- Issue 132 : May-June 2021 : Access to Healthcare
- Issue 131 : Mar-Apr 2021 : SOLUTIONS
- Issue 130 : Jan-Feb 2021 : CHANGE
- Issue 129 : Nov-Dec 2020 : UNBELIEVABLE
- Issue 128 : Sep-Oct 2020 : COPING
- Issue 127 : Jul-Aug 2020 : HOPE
- Issue 126 : Health & Wellbeing in a Crisis
- Issue 125 : Mar-Apr 2020 : MOVING ON
- Issue 124 : Jan-Feb 2020 : STREET FOOD
- Issue 123 : Nov-Dec 2019 : HOSTELS
- Issue 122 : Sep 2019 : DEATH ON THE STREETS
- Issue 121 : July-Aug 2019 : INVISIBLE YOUTH
- Issue 120 : May-June 2019 : RECOVERY
- Issue 119 : Mar-Apr 2019 : WELLBEING
- Issue 118 : Jan-Feb 2019 : WORKING HOMELESS
- Issue 117 : Nov-Dec 2018 : HER STORY
- Issue 116 : Sept-Oct 2018 : TOILET TALK
- Issue 115 : July-Aug 2018 : HIDDEN HOMELESS
- Issue 114 : May-Jun 2018 : REBUILD YOUR LIFE
- Issue 113 : Mar–Apr 2018 : REMEMBRANCE
- Issue 112 : Jan-Feb 2018
- Issue 111 : Nov-Dec 2017
- Issue 110 : Sept-Oct 2017
- Issue 109 : July-Aug 2017
- Issue 108 : Apr-May 2017
- Issue 107 : Feb-Mar 2017
- Issue 106 : Dec 2016 - Jan 2017
- Issue 105 : Oct-Nov 2016
- Issue 104 : Aug-Sept 2016
- Issue 103 : May-June 2016
- Issue 102 : Mar-Apr 2016
- Issue 101 : Jan-Feb 2016
- Issue 100 : Nov-Dec 2015
- Issue 99 : Sept-Oct 2015
- Issue 98 : July-Aug 2015
- Issue 97 : May-Jun 2015
- Issue 96 : April 2015 [Mini Issue]
- Issue 95 : March 2015
- Issue 94 : February 2015
- Issue 93 : December 2014
- Issue 92 : November 2014
- Issue 91 : October 2014
- Issue 90 : September 2014
- Issue 89 : July 2014
- Issue 88 : June 2014
- Issue 87 : May 2014
- Issue 86 : April 2014
- Issue 85 : March 2014
- Issue 84 : February 2014
- Issue 83 : December 2013
- Issue 82 : November 2013
- Issue 81 : October 2013
- Issue 80 : September 2013
- Issue 79 : June 2013
- Issue 78 : 78
- Issue 77 : 77
- Issue 76 : 76
- Issue 75 : 75
- Issue 74 : 74
- Issue 73 : 73
- Issue 72 : 72
- Issue 71 : 71
- Issue 70 : 70
- Issue 69 : 69
- Issue 68 : 68
- Issue 67 : 67
- Issue 66 : 66
- Issue 65 : 65
- Issue 64 : 64
- Issue 63 : 63
- Issue 62 : 62
- Issue 61 : 61
- Issue 60 : 60
- Issue 59 : 59
- Issue 58 : 58
- Issue 57 : 57
- Issue 56 : 56
- Issue 56 : 56
- Issue 55 : 55
- Issue 54 : 54
- Issue 53 : 53
- Issue 52 : 52
- Issue 51 : 51
- Issue 50 : 50
- Issue 49 : 49
- Issue 48 : 48
- Issue 47 : 47
- Issue 46 : 46
- Issue 45 : 45
- Issue 44 : 44
- Issue 43 : 43
- Issue 42 : 42
- Issue 5 : 05
- Issue 4 : 04
- Issue 2 : 02
- Issue 1 : 01
- Issue 41 : 41
- Issue 40 : 40
- Issue 39 : 39
- Issue 38 : 38
- Issue 37 : 37
- Issue 36 : 36
- Issue 35 : 35
- Issue 34 : 34
- Issue 33 : 33
- Issue 10 : 10
- Issue 9 : 09
- Issue 6 : 06
- Issue 3 : 03
- Issue 32 : 32
- Issue 31 : 31
- Issue 30 : 30
- Issue 29 : 29
- Issue 11 : 11
- Issue 12 : 12
- Issue 13 : 13
- Issue 14 : 14
- Issue 15 : 15
- Issue 16 : 16
- Issue 17 : 17
- Issue 18 : 18
- Issue 19 : 19
- Issue 20 : 20
- Issue 21 : 21
- Issue 22 : 22
- Issue 23 : 23
- Issue 24 : 24
- Issue 25 : 25
- Issue 8 : 08
- Issue 7 : 07
- Issue 26 : 26
- Issue 27 : 27
- Issue 28 : 28
- Issue 1 : 01