Peter Zinkin: Temporary accommodation costs are out of control
This affects the entire country.
Cllr Peter Zinkin is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Barnet Council.
In outer London boroughs such as Barnet, the spiralling cost of temporary accommodation has become one of the most serious threats to the long-term financial viability of councils. In Barnet, the shortfall the council must finance in relation to temporary accommodation is forecast to rise to over £30m a year by 2030. Alongside adult social care, children’s services and the ever-growing interest on the debt required simply to balance annual budgets, temporary accommodation is now one of the four pressures capable of pushing councils into permanent financial instability.
For Conservative councillors seeking to protect essential services for their residents, it is a daily operational challenge. Councils are under a strict legal duty to provide housing for households assessed as homeless. Yet the financial framework underpinning that duty is fundamentally broken. Central government subsidy is capped at Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, while the actual cost of securing accommodation in London routinely exceeds those limits. The difference falls directly on local taxpayers.
Councils across England now spend billions of pounds each year on temporary accommodation. In London, where private rents have risen sharply and supply is constrained, the mismatch between the subsidy and real-world costs is particularly acute. Much of the subsidy system remains tied to rates set more than a decade ago and bears little resemblance to today’s market. In London boroughs alone, this gap runs into hundreds of millions of pounds annually, forcing councils to make painful decisions about which services can still be sustained while meeting their homelessness obligations and balancing the budget.
Behind the figures lie real human dilemmas, both for families in housing need and for the wider community. Two recent anonymised cases from Barnet illustrate these dilemmas.
The first concerns a long-established local family, with deep roots in the borough, including members with significant disabilities. Despite a clear local connection and multiple vulnerabilities, securing suitable accommodation within LHA limits proved impossible. The council is forced to either rely on costly temporary in-borough housing, absorbing a substantial ongoing financial loss, or to find accommodation in an area where housing costs more closely match the available subsidy. The unresolved policy question is where the line should be drawn between paying for the family to stay in the borough and moving them to a new area. How do we balance the rights of our residents to quality Council services against the needs of a small family unit? The ability of the family to challenge the Council decision-making in these …
This affects the entire country.
Cllr Peter Zinkin is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Barnet Council.
In outer London boroughs such as Barnet, the spiralling cost of temporary accommodation has become one of the most serious threats to the long-term financial viability of councils. In Barnet, the shortfall the council must finance in relation to temporary accommodation is forecast to rise to over £30m a year by 2030. Alongside adult social care, children’s services and the ever-growing interest on the debt required simply to balance annual budgets, temporary accommodation is now one of the four pressures capable of pushing councils into permanent financial instability.
For Conservative councillors seeking to protect essential services for their residents, it is a daily operational challenge. Councils are under a strict legal duty to provide housing for households assessed as homeless. Yet the financial framework underpinning that duty is fundamentally broken. Central government subsidy is capped at Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, while the actual cost of securing accommodation in London routinely exceeds those limits. The difference falls directly on local taxpayers.
Councils across England now spend billions of pounds each year on temporary accommodation. In London, where private rents have risen sharply and supply is constrained, the mismatch between the subsidy and real-world costs is particularly acute. Much of the subsidy system remains tied to rates set more than a decade ago and bears little resemblance to today’s market. In London boroughs alone, this gap runs into hundreds of millions of pounds annually, forcing councils to make painful decisions about which services can still be sustained while meeting their homelessness obligations and balancing the budget.
Behind the figures lie real human dilemmas, both for families in housing need and for the wider community. Two recent anonymised cases from Barnet illustrate these dilemmas.
The first concerns a long-established local family, with deep roots in the borough, including members with significant disabilities. Despite a clear local connection and multiple vulnerabilities, securing suitable accommodation within LHA limits proved impossible. The council is forced to either rely on costly temporary in-borough housing, absorbing a substantial ongoing financial loss, or to find accommodation in an area where housing costs more closely match the available subsidy. The unresolved policy question is where the line should be drawn between paying for the family to stay in the borough and moving them to a new area. How do we balance the rights of our residents to quality Council services against the needs of a small family unit? The ability of the family to challenge the Council decision-making in these …
Peter Zinkin: Temporary accommodation costs are out of control
This affects the entire country.
Cllr Peter Zinkin is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Barnet Council.
In outer London boroughs such as Barnet, the spiralling cost of temporary accommodation has become one of the most serious threats to the long-term financial viability of councils. In Barnet, the shortfall the council must finance in relation to temporary accommodation is forecast to rise to over £30m a year by 2030. Alongside adult social care, children’s services and the ever-growing interest on the debt required simply to balance annual budgets, temporary accommodation is now one of the four pressures capable of pushing councils into permanent financial instability.
For Conservative councillors seeking to protect essential services for their residents, it is a daily operational challenge. Councils are under a strict legal duty to provide housing for households assessed as homeless. Yet the financial framework underpinning that duty is fundamentally broken. Central government subsidy is capped at Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, while the actual cost of securing accommodation in London routinely exceeds those limits. The difference falls directly on local taxpayers.
Councils across England now spend billions of pounds each year on temporary accommodation. In London, where private rents have risen sharply and supply is constrained, the mismatch between the subsidy and real-world costs is particularly acute. Much of the subsidy system remains tied to rates set more than a decade ago and bears little resemblance to today’s market. In London boroughs alone, this gap runs into hundreds of millions of pounds annually, forcing councils to make painful decisions about which services can still be sustained while meeting their homelessness obligations and balancing the budget.
Behind the figures lie real human dilemmas, both for families in housing need and for the wider community. Two recent anonymised cases from Barnet illustrate these dilemmas.
The first concerns a long-established local family, with deep roots in the borough, including members with significant disabilities. Despite a clear local connection and multiple vulnerabilities, securing suitable accommodation within LHA limits proved impossible. The council is forced to either rely on costly temporary in-borough housing, absorbing a substantial ongoing financial loss, or to find accommodation in an area where housing costs more closely match the available subsidy. The unresolved policy question is where the line should be drawn between paying for the family to stay in the borough and moving them to a new area. How do we balance the rights of our residents to quality Council services against the needs of a small family unit? The ability of the family to challenge the Council decision-making in these …
0 Comments
0 Shares
53 Views
0 Reviews
