The politics, law and practice of “intentional homelessness”
1—Housing Debt
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12284875 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ian Loveland (a Queen Mary College, University of London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1993 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 113-127 |
| Publication date | 1993-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of Social Welfare Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0141-8033 • E-ISSN: 1469-9621 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09649069308413593 |
| OpenAlex | W2053945821 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 3 |
Applications to local authorities under the homelessness legislation (now Part 111 of the Housing Act 1985), have increased steadily since its introduction in 1977. While some 57,000 households were accepted as homeless in 1979, some 116,000 households were accepted as homeless in 1990 (Shelter, 1988; National Audit Office, 1990). The public housing sector has been considerably reduced since 1980 by right to buy sales and restrictions on new building; councils' stocks have declined by some 750,000 units (Loveland, 1992). Consequently many councils face growing difficulties in meeting their legal obligations to homeless persons (ADC 1987; 1988). The homelessness legislation does not create universal “rights” to council housing. The Callaghan government's severe financial difficulties made it unwilling to countenance so potentially expensive a commitment. Moreover the Act emerged from a Private Members' Bill presented by the Liberal MP Steven Ross. Although he received tacit government support, the Lib/Lab coalition's fragile Parliamentary majority compelled him to accommodate Conservative opposition to his original proposals: frequent compromises were made to ensure that the Bill would be passed. The Act made rehousing contingent upon three discretionary criteria being fulfilled: applicants must have a “priority need,” must be “homeless,” and must not have become homeless “intentionally.” Subject to limits subsequently to be identified by the courts, the three criteria seemingly permitted local authorities lawfully to regulate access to housing in accordance with their political preferences. This paper examines the most loosely defined of the Act's discretionary components—“intentional homelessness.” The issue is broached at three levels: the Parliamentary controversy arising during the Bill's passage, the courts' interpretation of Parliament's handiwork, and councils' application (or mis-application) of statute and case law. As will become apparent, it appears there is often a loose fit between policy, law, and administrative practice
Debt · Economics · Legislation · Opposition (politics · Political science · Politics · Public housing · Healthcare innovation and challenges · Homelessness and Social Issues · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Law · Public Administration · Finance
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,03 |
| Citation span | 1996 - 1996 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |