There’s enough homelessness legislation, its proper accountability we need – by Mark Brennan

For years, we have been told that rising homelessness is the inevitable by-product of no-fault evictions, welfare reform or a shortage of housing.

But there is a harder truth that too many in the sector are reluctant to say aloud: gatekeeping by Local Authorities.

By gatekeeping, I mean the practice where council housing departments discourage, deflect or delay people’s homelessness applications. Its the quiet turning away of people who are legally entitled to help. It has become so normalised that it is almost taboo to name it. Yet its consequences are devastating.

Enough legislation

We do not lack legislation. In fact, we have seen an increasing appetite for passing new laws – each more complex and onerous than the last.

But piling on new duties achieves little if the existing ones are routinely ignored.

The real issue is accountability.

Local authorities know that if they breach their statutory duties, the worst likely outcome is a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Even when fault is found, compensation payments are often cheaper than the cost of having complied with the law in the first place.

And councils know something else: only a small minority of people who are unlawfully turned away will ever navigate the long, exhausting road to the Ombudsman.

So the arithmetic becomes brutal. Break the law quietly. Settle the occasional complaint. Carry on. Meanwhile, the human cost grows.

Failure to apply law

This year, much hope rests on Awaab’s Law — designed to ensure social landlords act swiftly on damp and mould. It is right that the death of Awaab Ishak led to reform.

But we should ask an uncomfortable question: was new legislation truly necessary?

In the early 1990s, in the case R v Medina ex p Dee, the courts set a precedent that where someone’s health is affected by severe damp and mould, they are legally homeless. On that basis, one strongly suspects that existing law should already have resulted in Awaab’s family being rehoused when his father approached the council the year before his son’s death. Especially that, according to the coroner’s investigation, his father had made a housing application the year before Awaab died.

If that is right, then the problem was not a lack of law. It was a failure to apply it.

Binding obligations

And now we hear talk of a new Duty to Collaborate, building on the eight-year-old Duty to Refer introduced by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.

Yet the Duty to Refer is so often ignored that one wonders what is to be gained by layering further obligations on top.

Take one example: a hospital discharge in Taunton last year where a highly vulnerable woman was sent to the streets. A Freedom of Information request later revealed that, out of more than 200 patients identified as homeless during the relevant period, only three referrals were made under the Duty to Refer. Three.

If existing statutory duties are seen as inconvenient paperwork rather than binding obligations, then adding more duties simply multiplies the gap between promise and reality.

A growth industry

This is not an easy thing to write. Many dedicated professionals work tirelessly in this field. We have built and continue to develop an increasingly complex homelessness sector that has developed remarkable innovations — Housing First, trauma-informed care, rapid rehousing pathways. The thinking is often excellent, the intentions generally good.

But have we now inadvertently created a sector that has become a growth industry with vested interests? Has complexity created a system that is financially unsustainable and too difficult for beneficiaries to navigate?

When temporary accommodation costs exceed £2.5 billion annually, when councils spend nearly half their tax revenue on emergency placements, when families remain in “temporary” housing for years, we have to admit something is broken.

And gatekeeping makes it worse.

Pushing people into crisis

It pushes people further into crisis before they are “eligible enough” to be helped. It increases rough sleeping. It entrenches distrust. It forces voluntary organisations to pick up the pieces while statutory services quietly retreat behind procedure.

Perhaps most corrosive of all is the silence.

There is an almost complete lack of honesty about these systemic failures. In private conversations, professionals lament the dysfunction. In public, many remain quiet. Careers, funding streams, and reputations are at stake. The result is a culture where everyone knows the problem, but few will name it.

Societal failure

Yet homelessness is not a technical glitch to be fixed by another statutory instrument. It is a societal failure.

It has become blatantly apparent that government alone cannot resolve this — nor should we expect them to. Homelessness ends in communities. It is shaped by the strength of local relationships, the willingness of neighbours to act, the courage of professionals to speak truth, and the insistence of citizens that public bodies obey the law.

So, what needs to happen?

First, we need transparency. Councils should publish data on homelessness approaches, acceptances, prevention outcomes and complaints — in plain language, accessible to the public.

Second, professionals must rediscover their moral courage. Whistleblowing should not be career suicide. Regulators and funders should protect — and reward — those who raise systemic concerns.

Third, communities must engage. Churches, mosques, sports clubs, residents’ associations, schools and local businesses can all play a role: offering space, mentoring, employment pathways, social connection. The governments recent launch of the £37m Ending Homelessness in Communities Fund as part of their A National Plan to End Homelessness presents a unique opportunity for local communities tosupport local people experiencing homelessness alongside the existing statutory services.

Fourthly, we must remember the law already provides significant protection for people facing homelessness. The real scandal is not legislative inadequacy but non-compliance.

Multiplying injustice

Improving legislation without enforcing it only multiplies injustice. Gatekeeping thrives in silence. It shrinks when exposed.

If we want to resolve our homelessness crisis, we must move beyond polite conversation.

We need to start demanding accountability – not out of hostility, but out of solidarity with those who are too exhausted, too frightened or too marginalised to fight for their own rights.

Homelessness is not inevitable. But ending it will require more than new laws. It will require all of us.

Mark Brennan works for Housing Justice. He wishes to acknowledge the expert contribution to this article by Mike Hyden at Homelessness Best Practice CIC Training and Consultancy