Local Councils Breaking The Law

[Hymie]

This is a perennial story covered by Private Eye, with the only difference year on year being the increasing numbers of families placed in B&B for longer than 6 weeks.

Apparently the law states that councils should not place families in B&Bs unless there is no alternative, and only then for a maximum of six weeks.

Private Eye (issue 1460) reports that 1,100 families with children are in B&Bs beyond this limit (eight times more than in 2010).

It appears to me that one of the many reasons for this is that there is no penalty placed on local councils for failing to comply with the law – which makes the law pretty pointless IMHO.

[bednobs]

ps see here - it's not illegal if there is nothing else available
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3326/pdfs/uksi_20033326_en.pdf

[Hymie]

Bednobs – within your posted link, under exceptions 4 (1) (a), ends with the word ‘and’ – which makes the exception conditional on meeting the criteria in both (a) and (b); not just (a).

[Old_Geezer]

Blimey. Getting mixed up with Dougie now !

[youngmafbog]

Well we all know what the elephant in the room is that is the underlying cause of much of this.

[Old_Geezer]

Exceptions
"4.—(1) Article 3 does not apply—
(a) where no accommodation other than B&B accommodation is available for occupation by
an applicant with family commitments; and
(b) the applicant occupies B&B accommodation for a period, or a total of periods, which
does not exceed 6 weeks."

Ah, I see the problem now. The council is legally obliged to force them back on the streets, homeless, after 4 weeks, because B&B is no longer suitable.
Shurely shome mishtake.

[Old_Geezer]

Overpopulation, YMB.

[Hymie]

Interestingly the posted statute contains no penalty for failure to comply with the statute.

[Old_Geezer]

... after 6 weeks, ...
as ":;;"': typed !!!!!!!

[Hymie]

To my original post, many have pointed out that it is too expensive for councils to do otherwise – than leave families in B&B accommodation for extended periods.

I wonder what New Judge would make of my defence that it is too expensive for me to insure my car – and therefore only reasonable that I drive with no insurance.

[Old_Geezer]

I trust he'd point out that the two scenarios have insufficient in common to be compared.

[Hymie]

No they don’t; they are both against the law.

[youngmafbog]

Of course it is overpopulation, but what is the cause of said population?

[New Judge]

“Margaret Thatcher is to blame for much of the problem.”

How surprising.

Mrs Thatcher sought to remove the burden placed on the taxpayer of providing “affordable” (i.e. cheap) housing for hundreds of thousands of people. There would have been very little point selling a council property (and hence removing it from the obligation that councils had to provide it at well below the market rate) only to build another property which was subject to the same obligation.

The provision of “affordable” or “social” housing is one of the great scandals of our time. It costs the country an absolute fortune and there is no justification for it whatsoever. People who fund their own housing (either renting privately or buying) not only pay the market rate but they also,through their taxes, subsidise “social” housing. Fair? I think not.

[New Judge]

"I wonder what New Judge would make of my defence that it is too expensive for me to insure my car – and therefore only reasonable that I drive with no insurance."

New Judge would say "Tough. You can't drive a car".

Unfortunately councils cannot say "Tough. We have no money so we're not providing accommodation for you."

[Hymie]

New Judge would say "Tough. You can't drive a car".

Unfortunately councils cannot say "Tough. We have no money so we're not providing accommodation for you."

But councils do say ‘Tough, we have no money so you’re going to have to put up with a B&B longer than we are legally allowed.’

So I see no difference between this and me saying ‘I have no money, so I’m also going to have to break the law and drive without insurance.’

Why should councils be able to use the lack of money as an excuse to break the law – when I cannot?

[ummmm]

Jeez...you're being a bit hard of thinking. Councils can't magic houses that aren't there. Being in a B&B is better than being on the streets.

[Hymie]

ummmm – I would be willing to bet that within the locality of councils breaking the law (housing families in B&Bs for longer than 6 weeks), that there are none where there are no properties for rent (or for that matter, none for sale - for councils to buy to meet their legal obligations).

[New Judge]

"Why should councils be able to use the lack of money as an excuse to break the law – when I cannot?"

I think it's quite simple. As has been said, as clever and competent as some councillors believe they and their organisations to be, they cannot simply produce accommodation for the homeless when none is available. Prosecuting them for such a transgression would serve no purpose. Individuals cannot be held responsible for the failings of the body corporate and fining the council would be utterly ridiculous. Council taxpayers would foot the bill and there would be even less cash available to provide things like er...homes for homeless people.

In short this particular law is completely pointless because (a) no individual can be held culpable and (b) no effective sanction against Local Authorities exists. In fact any such laws aimed at compelling Local Authorities to do or not do certain things are similarly pointless. Local Authorities exist to provide services (under devolved powers from central government) for local people. The only effective sanction to address their shortcomings is to bar individuals from holding office and bring control of the services back to central government.

By contrast your driving without insurance - whether due to lack of funds or anything else - is entirely your responsibility. You do not have to drive a car but if you do you have to have insurance cover. So any transgression is only attributable to you. Effective penalties exist in the form of fines, penalty points or disqualification which will hit you alone.

[New Judge]

"ummmm – I would be willing to bet that within the locality of councils breaking the law (housing families in B&Bs for longer than 6 weeks), that there are none where there are no properties for rent (or for that matter, none for sale - for councils to buy to meet their legal obligations)."

So when they have no funds you'd suggest they break another law controlling the behaviour of Local Authorities by spending over their budget? Hopefully you can see the futility of framing laws that compel LAs to do things that they simply cannot do.

[Hymie]

Which brings us back to the last sentence within my original post:-

It appears to me that one of the many reasons for this is that there is no penalty placed on local councils for failing to comply with the law – which makes the law pretty pointless IMHO.