East Lancashire families facing fear of homelessness

5:00pm Wednesday 1st August 2012 in News

THE number of homeless people and families requiring emergency housing in Burnley and Pendle has rocketed in the past three years but fallen in Blackburn with Darwen, new figures have revealed.

Housing experts say the current economic climate has led to the increase in parts of East Lancashire while Blackburn with Darwen said its success was down to early intervention.

Local government information analysis organisation SSentif has revealed that across England the figures for vulnerable groups legally classed as in need of immediate accommodation rose by a quarter from 40,020 in 2009/10 to 50,290 in 2011/12.

Burnley saw a rise over the three years from 45 to 84, Pendle 21 to 33, Chorley 34 to 37 and five to 12 in Ribble Valley.

Hyndburn’s figure for the vulnerable groups, which include 16 and 17-years-olds, households with dependent children, pregnant women, victims of domestic and other violence or flooding or vulnerable individuals coming out of council care, stayed static at just six.

Blackburn with Darwen saw a drop from 41 to 27 while Rossendale decreased from 30 to 22.

While the figures for the most vulnerable homeless councils are legally obliged to house are the only ones local authorities are required to collect, several East Lancashire boroughs reported growing numbers of people and families asking for accommodation.

In Blackburn with Darwen the number of households presenting for accommodation because of problems with rent, tenancies or domestic issues leading to fear of becoming homeless rose from 862 in 2009/10 to 1,047 in 2011/12 when borough action prevented 526 from losing their roof over the heads.

Housing Director Sayeed Osman said: “This shows the effectiveness of our homelessness prevention strategy which focusses on taking early action to prevent the need to formally accept somebody as homeless.”

In Burnley the number of people the council registered as homeless was 244 in 2101/11 rising to 368 in 21001/12.

The borough’s executive member for housing Howard Baker said: “The predictions are that the number of homeless people is going to rise over the coming years and we have to be prepared for dealing with that increase in demand for help.”

In Pendle, where homeless enquiries rose from 103 in 2009/10 to 201 in 2011/12, Wayne Forrest, Housing Needs Manager, said: “Whilst there does not appear to be a specific reason for this rise, the prolonged economic difficulties appear to be a major contributing factor. The Council prioritises homelessness prevention work.

In Rossendale the number of people asking for council help for new homes has gone up from 86 a month in 2010/2011 to 125 a month in 2011/12.

Comments (3)

12:00am Thu 2 Aug 12

Rumpole says...

Bloody Hell!

Even the homeless are leaving Blackburn now!

and for Burnley, the shame.......
Bloody Hell! Even the homeless are leaving Blackburn now! and for Burnley, the shame....... Rumpole

7:18am Thu 2 Aug 12

woolywords says...

This situation will not improve in the future, in fact, it will only get worse. The Gov't is implementing a 10% cut in housing benefits being paid to local authorities, which means that the council has a choice. Do they make further cuts in already pared down services or pass the increase on to the person on benefit? If the latter, this mean that anyone on benefit will see a substantial rise in their cost of living, when the Gov't is intent on cutting unemployment benefit rates, at the same time. Meaning that anyone on benefits is being squeezed further as food prices continue to rise faster than the benefits paid to them.
Of course, our local MP's won't be available to comment, on how these 'backdoor' cuts are going to affect our society as a whole, with the rise in homeless people on the streets.
This situation will not improve in the future, in fact, it will only get worse. The Gov't is implementing a 10% cut in housing benefits being paid to local authorities, which means that the council has a choice. Do they make further cuts in already pared down services or pass the increase on to the person on benefit? If the latter, this mean that anyone on benefit will see a substantial rise in their cost of living, when the Gov't is intent on cutting unemployment benefit rates, at the same time. Meaning that anyone on benefits is being squeezed further as food prices continue to rise faster than the benefits paid to them. Of course, our local MP's won't be available to comment, on how these 'backdoor' cuts are going to affect our society as a whole, with the rise in homeless people on the streets. woolywords

9:39am Thu 2 Aug 12

Kevin, Colne says...

When one factors in the mounting financial strain on many of those households paying mortgages then the future looks as though it is going to be one where local councils are going to have their work cut-out.

Low interest rates are benefitting those on tracker mortgages connected to the Base Rate; forbearance by lenders and special assistance schemes from the government is helping avoid a dramatic rise in the repossession rate. Of course, such interventions mean that the residential property market continues to be grossly distorted.

I recall reading that around 36% of households in Pendle own their home outright while some 39% are owned with a mortgage. The figure of 36% is well above the national average for England, which is nice to hear. These figures, which were derived from the 2001 Census, are contained in the 2008 Burnley and Pendle SHMA so they must be treated with a degree of caution as one must wonder what the position is today after the biggest credit induced house price boom in history.

The tectonic plates are shifting. I detect three forces that to me seem rather alarming. Firstly, during the credit boom a great number of mortgages where advanced at very high-LTV and on the basis of interest only. The day will come when they either have to be re-paid or rolled-over, but either way a day of reckoning is on horizon. Secondly, there is a fundamental mismatch between the aspiration of Government for further labour force flexibility and home ownership. The term ‘flexibility’ is a euphemism for the word ‘insecurity’ – fixed term or temporary, often low-pay, few employment rights – while taking on a mortgage requires permanence of employment, upward pay progression. There is a tension here between the two that is not being acknowledged by the mainstream, let alone discussed. Thirdly, increasing numbers of older people are retiring still carrying mortgage and other debt – a situation that was unheard of a generation ago – and in time the ramifications of this could be significant.
When one factors in the mounting financial strain on many of those households paying mortgages then the future looks as though it is going to be one where local councils are going to have their work cut-out. Low interest rates are benefitting those on tracker mortgages connected to the Base Rate; forbearance by lenders and special assistance schemes from the government is helping avoid a dramatic rise in the repossession rate. Of course, such interventions mean that the residential property market continues to be grossly distorted. I recall reading that around 36% of households in Pendle own their home outright while some 39% are owned with a mortgage. The figure of 36% is well above the national average for England, which is nice to hear. These figures, which were derived from the 2001 Census, are contained in the 2008 Burnley and Pendle SHMA so they must be treated with a degree of caution as one must wonder what the position is today after the biggest credit induced house price boom in history. The tectonic plates are shifting. I detect three forces that to me seem rather alarming. Firstly, during the credit boom a great number of mortgages where advanced at very high-LTV and on the basis of interest only. The day will come when they either have to be re-paid or rolled-over, but either way a day of reckoning is on horizon. Secondly, there is a fundamental mismatch between the aspiration of Government for further labour force flexibility and home ownership. The term ‘flexibility’ is a euphemism for the word ‘insecurity’ – fixed term or temporary, often low-pay, few employment rights – while taking on a mortgage requires permanence of employment, upward pay progression. There is a tension here between the two that is not being acknowledged by the mainstream, let alone discussed. Thirdly, increasing numbers of older people are retiring still carrying mortgage and other debt – a situation that was unheard of a generation ago – and in time the ramifications of this could be significant. Kevin, Colne

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree