HOUSING LAW NEWS & POLICY ISSUES

Kelly Tolhurst resigns as housing minister
On 16 January 2021 the Guardian reported that Kelly Tolhurst had resigned as the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing following the receipt of “devastating” family news. Eddie Hughes was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the MHCLG on 16 January 2021. From 14 February 2020 he had been an Assistant Government Whip. For the report, click here. For more details of Eddie Hughes and his ministerial responsibilities, click here.

Government support for rough sleepers and private renters
On 18 January 2021 the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee took evidence from former Chair of the Rough Sleeping Taskforce, Louise Casey, as part of its inquiry into the impact of Covid-19 on homelessness and the private rented sector. Kelly Tolhurst, the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing, was also due to give evidence but resigned on 16 January (see above). To view the evidence session, click here. For more details of the Committee’s inquiry, click here.

Independent Human Rights Act Review issues call for evidence
On 13 January 2021 the Independent Human Rights Act Review issued a public Call for Evidence. The Call for Evidence closes on the 3 March 2021. It comprises two themes. The first deals with the relationship between domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The second considers the impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. For details of the Review, including its membership and terms of reference, click here. For the Call for Evidence, click here.

Civil legal aid: transfer of court assessed claims to LAA
From 15 January 2021 legal aid practitioners have been able to choose to have civil claims assessed at court or by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). If the route of assessment by the LAA is chosen, then the civil finance team will assess the claim bill. By choosing to continue to send this work to the LAA it will remove the need for claims to go before the courts. The LAA says that this will lead to faster payments for work in both the long and short-term. For more details, click here.

Domestic abuse victim not supported properly when she became homeless: Ombudsman’s report
On 14 January 2021 the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman highlighted the importance of councils considering the exceptional circumstances of people fleeing domestic abuse when assessing their housing needs, following a complaint about London Borough of Wandsworth. The Ombudsman found Wandsworth council did not consider relaxing its local area connection criterion when a single mother asked for help. It was not safe for the woman to remain in another London borough where her former partner had assaulted her, causing serious injuries.

The woman's former partner had pleaded guilty to aggravated bodily harm and criminal damage and was in custody awaiting sentencing. She fled to her mother's home where she and her child shared a bedroom with her sister. Her former partner knew the address. She asked Wandsworth for help, but it said she was not homeless. The next day the woman told the council her mother wanted her to leave. The council told her about its council housing scheme, which she could apply for but not from her mother's as it was not a safe address. The council suggested she move in with her uncle for 12 months and then she would qualify for its scheme. Her uncle lived very close to her mother, and her former partner also knew his address. She moved in with her uncle and chased the council about the housing scheme for many months with several different officers.

Eventually the council gave the woman a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) which contained no future actions for the council. The council now told the woman she did not qualify for its scheme because she did not live in the borough. The council did not investigate the woman's homeless application, but instead encouraged her to withdraw it and apply for help to the council where she had suffered violence. She told Wandsworth council three times she would do this if the council put its advice in writing, but it refused.

The Ombudsman's investigation found the council should have considered the woman and her child as homeless when she first approached it. It would have then accepted it owed her a relief duty and issued her with a Personal Housing Plan (PHP), but the plan it ended up giving the woman included incorrect information, saying the council could not help her to be safer where she was, and that she could not register on its allocations scheme. The Ombudsman also found the council should have offered the woman interim accommodation. After 56 days, it should have then decided whether it owed her the main housing duty. Since the woman was homeless, eligible, in priority need and not homeless through any fault of her own, the council would have accepted it had a full duty to her.

In this case the Ombudsman recommended that the council should apologise to the woman and put her in Band A of its allocations scheme backdated to October 2018, as well as provide suitable temporary accommodation in Wandsworth. It should also pay her £500 for the delays in dealing with her applications and £150 a month for the 12 months she has stayed in relatives' homes since her ex-partner left prison, because the council now says neither place was safe for her. The Ombudsman recommended that the council should provide information to housing officers about its duties towards people fleeing domestic violence and tell officers the allocations local connection criteria do not apply. It should also arrange training for its housing options and homelessness officers in dealing with people who have suffered domestic abuse and review its allocations policy.

For the full report, click here and then click on the link under ‘Downloads’ at the top right corner of the page opened.

Council left homeless family for too long in B&B: Ombudsman’s report
On 14 January 2021 the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reported an investigation in which it found that two London schoolchildren were left in bed and breakfast accommodation for too long by Redbridge council. The investigation also found the living conditions the children were subject to in the bed and breakfast accommodation have had a significant impact on the family. The two children’s schooling was affected: they had to share a bed and suffered disrupted sleep because of the night-time noise, and there was no room for them to do their schoolwork.

The family was placed in bed and breakfast accommodation in the Redbridge area by another London borough. The other borough decided the family was intentionally homeless because the mother had refused a damp and mouldy flat, which would have exacerbated both her and her children’s respiratory conditions. Instead of making its own decision on whether the family was intentionally homeless, Redbridge accepted the other borough’s decision, and decided it did not have a duty to house the family under the Housing Act. The council then placed the family in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than a year under the Children Act. However, the Ombudsman’s investigation found the council could not show it assessed the harm caused to the family by staying in the bed and breakfast accommodation for such a long period, or that it made regular reviews of their situation.

During this time, the council offered the family options including a studio flat – where the three would have had to sleep, eat and do homework in the same room – or accommodation away from the borough in the north or Midlands. The woman rejected the first because it would be too small, and the second because her older child was due to take GCSE exams in a local school, and she had no network of support outside the capital. The council decided it then no longer had any duties to the family as the mother had rejected these options.

Because the family’s living conditions were so poor, the woman suffered increased anxiety, stress and panic attacks. The ombudsman also found the council did not make allowances for her poor mental health when it dealt with her, and instead misinterpreted her behaviour as ‘being difficult’ and blamed her situation on her lack of co-operation.

The council has agreed to apologise to the woman and pay her £3,900. This is made up of £250 a month for leaving her family in unsuitable accommodation for 14 months, £250 for the distress caused by the council failing to consider the effect her anxiety and depression had on her actions or the difficulties she had communicating because of her dyslexia, and a further £150 for her time and trouble caused by the council’s delays dealing with her complaint. The council has also agreed to remind staff that people living in difficult circumstances may have consequent mental health difficulties that cause them distress and impair their ability to adhere to social norms. In such circumstances, the council should consider its duties under the Equality Act and officers may need to adjust their expectations. The council has further agreed to remind social workers of the need to regularly review bed and breakfast placements involving families. It will produce a joint working protocol for housing and children’s services to ensure there is access to a range of housing options, so it can arrange accommodation for families where bed and breakfast is not appropriate.

For the full report, click here and then click on the link at the top right corner of the page opened.

Housing of rough sleepers during the Covid-19 pandemic: National Audit Office report
On 14 January 2021 the National Audit Office (NAO) reported that through its ‘Everyone In’ campaign, the MHCLG swiftly provided emergency housing for rough sleepers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the response raised issues that need to be addressed if Government is to achieve its goal of ending rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said:

“For the first time, the scale of the rough sleeping population in England has been made clear, and it far exceeds the Government’s previous estimates. Understanding the size of this population, and who needs specialist support, is essential to achieve its ambition to end rough sleeping.”

For the report, click here. For a press release in respect of the report, click here. For the response of the Local Government Association to the report, click here.

Coronavirus: Support for rough sleepers – England
On 14 January the House of Commons Library published a briefing paper outlining the measures taken in England to support rough sleepers, and those at risk of rough sleeping, during the Covid-19 outbreak. It discusses the impact of these measures and stakeholder comment. For the paper, click here.

'Right to Regenerate'
On 16 January 2021 the MHCLG announced proposals that would make it easier to challenge councils and other public organisations to release land for redevelopment and so help communities make better use of public land and “give a new lease of life to unloved buildings” as new homes or community spaces. Underused public land could be sold to individuals or communities by default, unless there is a compelling reason the owner should hold onto it. A consultation on the proposals will close on 13 March 2021. For the announcement, click here. For details of the consultation, see Housing Law Consultations (below).

Housing supply: indicators of new supply: July to September 2020 – England
On 14 January 2021 the MHCLG published an indication of the levels of and trends in new housing supply in England. Building control figures for July to September 2020 indicate that:

• The number of dwellings started on site was 35,710. This is a 111 per cent increase when compared to last quarter. This sharp increase reflects the relaxation of the national restrictions that were imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. This is the first quarterly increase since the same quarter in 2018.
• The number of dwellings completed on site was 45,000. This is a 185 per cent increase when compared to last quarter and, following the national restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, this represents the first quarter increase since the same quarter in 2019.

For the full statistics, click here. For a press release concerning the statistics, click here.

Housing supply in England: Commons Library briefing
On 14 January 2021 the House of Commons Library published a research briefing considering key trends in supply in the UK and focusing on some of the key barriers and potential solutions to increasing supply in England. The briefing refers to proposals contained in the Housing White Paper (February 2017) and in Planning for the Future (August 2020) and has been updated to take account of subsequent developments. Historical supply statistics for the UK are provided. For the briefing, click here.

Housing Ombudsman: temporary phone line hours and post arrangements
On 15 January 2021 the Housing Ombudsman announced that due to the impact of current lockdown restrictions and staff resourcing issues, the Ombudsman’s office is temporarily reducing the operating times of its phone service. Consequently, it may take longer than usual for calls to returned or emails responded to. For details, click here.

Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme
On 15 January 2021 the Guardian reported that ministers were facing “calls to extend the deadline for purchasing a house in England using the help-to-buy loan scheme, as buyers face losing thousands of pounds because of Covid-related delays in construction”. Those delays will mean that many developers will be unable to complete homes by the deadline at the end of March 2021, so that prospective buyers will not qualify to take advantage of the loan scheme. For the report, click here.

HOUSING LAWS IN THE PIPELINE

Fire Safety Bill
This Government bill would make provision about the application of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises; and would confer power to amend that order in future for the purposes of changing the premises to which it applies. The bill completed its final stages in the House of Commons on 7 September 2020. It received its first reading in the House of Lords on 8 September 2020 and its second reading on 1 October 2020. The committee stage was completed on 29 October 2020. The report stage took place on 17 November 2020. The third reading took place on 24 November 2020. The House of Lords have returned the Bill to the House of Commons with amendments. The amendments will be considered on the floor of the House on a date to be announced. For the bill, as amended on report, click here. To read debates on all stages of the bill, click here. For a briefing note prepared by the Local Government Association on second reading in the House of Lords, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Supported Accommodation Bill
This private member’s bill, sponsored by Steve McCabe, would require developers to disclose for planning purposes an intention to use a building for supported housing or other accommodation that is specified for the purposes of Universal Credit and Housing Benefit; establish a suitability test for accommodation proposed for such use; and make provision about the fitness of persons to be landlords or managers of supported or other specified accommodation. The bill had its first reading on 18 November 2020 and is due to have its second reading on a date to be announced. The bill is being prepared for publication. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Supported Housing (Regulation) Bill
This private member's bill, sponsored by Kerry McCarthy, would regulate supported housing; make provision about local authority oversight and the enforcement of standards of accommodation and support in supported housing; and prohibit the placing of children in care in unregulated accommodation. It received its first reading on 11 November 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. The bill is being prepared for publication. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Domestic Properties (Minimum Energy Performance) Bill
This private member’s bill, sponsored by Sir David Amess, would require the Secretary of State to ensure that domestic properties have a minimum energy performance rating of C on an Energy Performance Certificate; to give the Secretary of State powers to require persons to take action in pursuance of that duty. The first reading was on 14 July 2020 and the second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. The bill is being prepared for publication. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Sublet Property (Offences) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Sir Christopher Chope, would make the breach of certain rules relating to sub-letting rented accommodation a criminal offence and would make provision for criminal sanctions in respect of unauthorised sub-letting. The bill is being prepared for publication. It received its first reading on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been yet further postponed to a date to be announced. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Mobile Homes and Park Homes Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Sir Christopher Chope, would require the use of published criteria to determine whether mobile homes and park homes are liable for council tax or non-domestic rates; make provision in relation to the residential status of such homes; and amend the Mobile Home Acts. The bill is being prepared for publication. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been yet further postponed to a date to be announced. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Sir Christopher Chope, seeks to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been yet further postponed to a date to be announced. For the bill as introduced, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill
This private member’s bill, sponsored by Ian Levy, would amend the law relating to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and increase penalties for the contravention of such licences. The bill received its first reading on 9 September 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. The bill is being prepared for publication. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Homeless People (Current Accounts) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Peter Bone, would require banks to provide current accounts for homeless people seeking work. The bill is being prepared for publication. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Caravan Sites Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Sir Christopher Chope, would amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to remove planning permission requirements for caravan site licence applicants. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. For the bill as introduced, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Chris Stephens, would make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal and would establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities. The first reading was on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been postponed to a date to be announced. The bill is being prepared for publication. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Vagrancy (Repeal) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Layla Moran, would repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 18 March 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. For the bill as introduced, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill
This Welsh Government bill seeks to amend the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 to provide greater security for people who rent their homes in Wales. This will particularly affect those who live in the private rented sector and occupy their homes under a ‘standard occupation contract’, the equivalent to the current assured shorthold tenancy, after the 2016 Act comes into force. This additional security will primarily be achieved by extending the minimum notice period for issuing a section 173 notice under the 2016 Act (the equivalent of the current section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988) from two months to six months. Landlords will also be prevented from issuing such a notice until at least six months from the date of occupancy. Further provisions will also ensure that landlords are unable to issue rolling ‘speculative’ notices on a ‘just in case’ basis. The bill was introduced in the Senedd on 10 February 2020. The Stage 1 motion to agree the general principles of the Bill was agreed in Plenary on 13 October 2020. Stage 2 began on 14 October 2020. Stage 2 consideration took place in Committee on 27 November 2020. Stage 3 commenced on 30 November 2020 but Stage 3 consideration has been postponed. Amendments may now be tabled to the Bill (as amended at Stage 2). For the bill as amended at Stage 2, all other documents relating to it, and to follow progress on the  bill, click here.

Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill
This private member’s bill, sponsored by Lord Foster of Bath, would require the Secretary of State to ensure that domestic properties have a minimum energy performance rating of C on an Energy Performance Certificate; to make provision regarding performance and insulation of new heating systems in existing properties. The first reading was on 8 January 2020 and the second reading on 7 February 2020. The committee stage will commence on a date to be appointed. For the bill, as introduced, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Rented Homes Bill
This private member’s bill, sponsored by Baroness Grender, would amend the Housing Act 1988 to abolish assured shorthold tenancies; and to extend the grounds upon which landlords of residential housing may recover possession. First reading took place on 22 January 2020. The second reading will be on a date to be announced. For the bill, as introduced, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill
This Government bill would amend the electronic communications code set out in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003; by doing so, it would address one stated policy barrier: making it easier for telecoms companies to access multi-dwelling buildings (such as blocks of flats) where a tenant has requested a new connection, but the landlord has not responded to requests for access rights. The bill received its first reading in the House of Commons on 8 January 2020 and its second reading on 22 January 2020. For the second reading debate, click here. The committee stage was completed on 11 February 2020. For the committee debate, click here. The third reading in the House of Commons was on 10 March 2020; for the debate, click here. First reading in the House of Lords was on 11 March 2020. The second reading was on 22 April 2020. The committee stage was completed on 2 June 2020 and the report stage on 29 June 2020. The third reading will be on a date to be announced. For the bill, as amended on report, click here. To follow progress of the bill, click here. For a briefing, prepared by the House of Commons Library after second reading in the House of Commons, click here.

Evictions (Universal Credit Claimants) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Chris Stephens, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the evictions of Universal Credit claimants in rent arrears. The bill is being prepared for publication. It received its first reading in the House of Commons on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

Housing Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill
This private members’ bill, sponsored by Sir Christopher Chope, seeks to amend Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 to provide that any selective licensing scheme for residential accommodation extends to social housing. The bill is being prepared for publication. It received its first reading on 10 February 2020. The second reading has been further postponed to a date to be announced. To follow progress of the bill, click here.

NEW HOUSING CASES

Sutton v Norwich City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 20 (13 January 2021)
This case concerned an appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal in relation to penalties imposed under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) for breaches of the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007 ("the 2007 Regulations") and non-compliance with improvement notices issued pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of the 2004 Act.

The facts
The penalties imposed by the Upper Tribunal related to Max House; originally built as office premises, in 2015 work commenced to convert it into apartments subsequently occupied by tenants. FLAL was the freehold owner of Max House and Mr Sutton was the sole director of FLAL and a majority shareholder.

In February 2018, Norwich City Council (“the Council”) issued eight improvement notices under section 12 of the 2004 Act requiring remedial action to be taken within an approximate five-month period. By September 2018, the Council had concluded that offences had been committed under section 30 of the 2004 Act in relation to five of the improvement notices and issued notices of intent pursuant to schedule 13A to the 2004 Act to impose financial penalties on both FLAL and Mr Sutton (as FLAL’s director). No representations were received from either Mr Sutton or FLAL in response to the notices of intent and in October 2018, final notices were served imposing penalties of £140,000 on Mr Sutton and on FLAL.

The Council also considered that breaches of the 2007 Regulations merited the imposition of separate financial penalties and in June 2018, notices of intent to impose such penalties were served on both FLAL and Mr Sutton. Mr Sutton argued against the Council’s proposals in written representations on behalf of himself and FLAL. Nevertheless, in September 2018 the Council served final notices imposing financial penalties totalling £96,600 on each of them.

Subsequently, the Council served a prohibition order in respect of Max House barring its use as residential accommodation with effect from November 2018. The building was subsequently emptied of its residents and as a result in August 2019 FLAL went into administration.

The Upper Tribunal hearing
The appeals made by Mr Sutton and FLAL to the FTT against the Council’s penalties were heard in January 2021; FLAL, by then being in administration, was not represented in the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal concluded that: Max House was a section 257 HMO, FLAL was the person managing the premises within the meaning of section 263(3) of the 2004 Act and the 2007 Regulations, and the Council had proved each of the breaches of the 2007 Regulations and failures to comply with the improvement notices for which FLAL had no reasonable excuse for its failures and the offences were all committed with the consent or connivance of Mr Sutton.
The Upper Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on FLAL to £75,000 and those imposed on Mr Sutton to £99,000. The Upper Tribunal had considered as a relevant aggravating factor in imposing a higher penalty on Mr Sutton his former dealings with another property in the locality.

The appeal
The Upper Tribunal granted Mr Sutton permission to appeal on the issues relating primarily to the penalties which the Tribunal had imposed. The two principal grounds of appeal were presented as “Penalties inconsistently applied” and “Penalties not applied in accordance with case law”. The former contended that the penalties imposed by the Upper Tribunal far exceeded any previous Tribunal decisions and the latter proceeded on general principles relating to penalties as between companies and their directors. The first ground was unsuccessful as Mr Sutton failed to develop the point in his submissions or to provide any material which could support it.

On the second ground, Mr Sutton cited R v Rollco Screw and Rivet Co Ltd [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 436 ("Rollco") in support of the proposition that in circumstances where a company and a director have both committed an offence, the correct approach was to ask (i) what financial penalty the offence merited and (ii) what financial penalty the company and personal defendants could reasonably be expected to meet.

Lord Justice Newey reviewed subsequent authorities in which Rollco had been cited, but overall did not consider that when deciding what civil penalties to impose on a company and one or more of its directors under section 249A of the 2004 Act, there was any rule obliging a Court or Tribunal to ask itself the questions outlined in Rollco. Equally, there is no rule as to how the penalty imposed on a company should relate to the penalties imposed on directors.

On the other hand, Newey LJ did consider that it was incumbent on a Court or Tribunal to be alive to the risk of ‘double punishment’ when deciding what, if any, fine to impose on the individual personally. Double punishment in this sense means the possibility that an individual with an interest in a company may be worse off as a result of a fine imposed on the company.

Newey LJ gave the example of a solvent one-man company where the risk of double punishment will be more pertinent. In such a case, the penalty on the owner-director should not be determined without regard to the penalty imposed on the company and appropriate adjustments should be made when using a "Financial Penalty Policy" such as used by the Council. In such a situation, the Court could find it helpful to ask itself first what penalty the offence merits overall and then how that penalty should be apportioned. Equally, a Court or Tribunal might also want to ensure that the penalty on the owner-director made directors personally responsible and did not simply “shuffle off their responsibilities”.

Newey LJ noted that different consideration would arise if a director held only a proportion of the company’s shares or the company was insolvent. The extent to which a director-shareholder stands to be affected by a penalty imposed on the company depends on the size of his shareholding. Where the company is already insolvent it was noted there may be no risk of double punishment as any shares would be worthless. The more difficult case would be where a company was of doubtful solvency or where penalties were also being imposed on other directors, who might themselves own shares. Newey LJ also observed that section 249(A) of the 2004 Act provides for no bar on the aggregate of penalties imposed on two or more persons exceeding £30,000 and therefore, in principle, £30,000 penalties could be imposed on both a company and one or more of its directors.

Applied to the instant case, Newey LJ held that the Upper Tribunal was well aware of the scope for double punishment and had given adequate reasons for the approach it adopted. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal was unanimous that the penalties which the Tribunal imposed could not be impugned and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary by Henry Percy-Raine, barrister, Trinity Chambers. For the judgment, click here.

HOUSING LAW CONSULTATIONS

Right to Regenerate: reform of the Right to Contest
This consultation is to help to shape a reform of the Right to Contest, in order to encourage the right to be utilised more effectively and more widely to stimulate regeneration and the more productive use of land. Strand 2 of the Community Right to Contest allows members of the public to request that the government directs the disposal of unused or underused land, including vacant homes and garages, owned by public bodies. This right is little-known and little-used, with only one direction to dispose issued since 2014.

The aim of this consultation, which will close on 13 March 2021, is to strengthen the right and make it simpler to use as the new ‘Right to Regenerate’. This will provide a quicker and easier route for individuals, businesses and organisations to identify, purchase and redevelop underused or empty land in their area. In turn, the strengthened right will support greater regeneration of brownfield land, boost housing supply and empower people to turn blights and empty spaces in their areas into more beautiful developments. For the consultation document, click here.

Safer buildings in Wales
The Welsh Government is consulting on proposals for comprehensive reform of legislation that contributes to building safety in Wales. It focuses on legislative change across the lifecycle of buildings as well as setting out aspirations for culture change in the way buildings are designed, constructed and managed. The consultation ends on 12 April 2021. For the consultation documents, click here.

HOUSING LAW ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS

Vaccinating frontline workers and clients Sue Christoforou Homeless Link 12 January 2021 – to read the article, click here

After a decade of deprivation, we need policies that prioritise recovery for families in poverty Harriet Anderson Joseph Rowntree Foundation 13 January 2021 – to read the article, click here

The halt on evictions (again) Amy Kelly Local Government Lawyer 14 January 2021 – to read the article, click here

Lost on (civil) penalties: Sutton v Norwich in the Court of Appeal SW Nearly Legal 14 January 2021 – to read the article, click here

Curing a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in possession proceedings Christian Grierson and Simon Kiel Local Government Lawyer 15 January 2021 – to read the article, click here

The temporary benefit uplift: extension, permanence, or a one-off bonus? Carl Emmerson, Robert Joyce and Tom Waters Institute of Fiscal Studies 18 January 2021 – to read the article, click here

Gypsy and Traveller: Update (December 20) Tessa Buchanan, Chris Johnson, Dr Angus Murdoch and Marc Willers QC Legal Action December 2020 / January 2021– to read the article (subscription required), click here

Housing: recent developments Sam Madge-Wyld and Jan Luba QC Legal Action December 2020 / January 2021 ‒ to read the article (subscription required), click here

HOUSING LAW DIARY

28 January 2020                                   
Changes to civil legal aid eligibility come into effect

Advertise your vacancy to Housing Law Week Readers

Send details of the vacancy and a link to the vacancy on your website to info@limelegal.co.uk

RECRUITMENT

Hightown Housing association
Click here for details

Optivo
Click here for details

Milton Keynes Council
Click here and scroll for details

Swindon Borough Council
Click here for details

Tonbridge & Malling District Council
Click here for details

London Borough of Brent
Click here for details

Brighton and Hove City Council
Click here for details

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Click here for details

Milton Keynes Council
Click here and scroll for details

Community Advice & Support Team Leader (Housing Solutions)

Rugby Borough Council
Click here for details