THE tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in June has thrown a spotlight not only on health and safety standards in social housing but also on the duties owed by local authorities to those who become homeless within their area.

Kensington & Chelsea Council has pledged to permanently rehouse all 158 families made homeless by the Grenfell fire in social housing within one year. The accommodation is to be offered locally. In the meantime, offers of temporary accommodation are being made.

Under current law (there will be some changes when the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 comes into force but this is not expected until 2018), if the local authority concludes following initial inquiries that the individual is eligible for assistance (based on their immigration status), homeless and in priority need (a category that includes those with dependent children and anyone who is vulnerable, for example due to physical or mental illness) and has not made him or herself intentionally homeless (by acting in such a way as to cause their own homelessness) then the authority will owe them what is often referred to as the “full homelessness duty”.

This is a duty to ensure that temporary accommodation continues to be available until such time as a qualifying offer of more permanent accommodation is made. Once a qualifying final offer has been made the local authority’s duty will end. Following the introduction of new powers in the Localism Act 2011, local authorities can offer assured shorthold tenancies (of at least one year) in the private sector in order bring the homelessness duty to an end.

Both the temporary accommodation secured by a local authority and the accommodation offered to bring the homelessness duty to an end must be suitable. Where possible, a local authority should seek to offer accommodation within the local authority district. However, if there is no suitable accommodation available within the local authority district an out of area offer can be made.

It is the question of what constitutes “suitable” accommodation which has been thrown into the spotlight by the Grenfell tragedy. In the case of Grenfell, victims have complained that temporary accommodation offered to them has been unsuitable for a variety of reasons, including where the accommodation is in another tower block.

In areas of high housing demand such as many of the London boroughs and Oxford, it is the suitability of the location of the accommodation which is often disputed. This is because local authorities in such areas are often routinely offering homeless applicants who are not in employment one-year fixed-term private sector tenancies outside of the local authority area in order to end the homelessness duty. There are a number of factors behind this trend including rents in areas of high housing demand outstripping the local housing allowance (the rate at which housing benefit is paid), the benefit cap (which restricts the amount of income a household may have to top up their rent), fewer landlords in areas of high housing demand accepting tenants who rely on housing benefit and ongoing reductions in the social housing stock.

A homeless applicant who receives an offer of an out-of-area placement may request a review and it is worth consulting a solicitor about this but the chances of succeeding in overturning the decision are often low. Local authorities are required to take into account other factors when considering suitability such as any medical treatment received locally, any caring responsibilities and the interests of any dependent children when deciding if the location of accommodation is suitable. However, generally the lack of affordable housing in areas of high housing demand will often justify the use of an out-of-area placement unless a member of the household is in work (Oxford City Council’s policy states it will generally take into account employment where a member of the household works for 16 hours a week or more), one of the children Of the household is in an exam year or there is some other reason such as the needs of a severely disabled child.

The cost of the reliance of local authorities on out of area placements to individual homeless households is often high. People who have lived in a particular area all of their lives and have all their family and friends may be forced to uproot and move a considerable distance away. Assessing the possible cost to local communities is more difficult, and highly subjective. However, with the poor and the vulnerable increasingly being moved from wealthier local authority areas where rents are higher to poorer ones with lower rents the identity of local communities is certainly changing as a result and the burden on poorer local authorities is increasing.

Laura Coyle is a Solicitor at Oxford legal firm Turpin & Miller