The NHF also opposes the proposals, but decided not to join the other organisations – which include homelessness charities Shelter and Crisis, the Local Government Association, the Law Society, the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group and the Tenant Participation Advisory Service – in order to "emphasise the alternatives to the proposals".
"We felt we would get our point across by focusing on the issue from a slightly different point of view," said NHF policy officer Fola Ogunjobi. He added that the NHF felt the sanctions "would have unintended consequences" and that antisocial behaviour could be better dealt with by existing tools such as antisocial behaviour orders.
A source close to the coalition said the NHF's position was not materially different from the group's stance. He said the NHF did not join because it did not want to seem too negative.
The NHF was one of the staunchest critics of the proposals when they were first presented in a private member's bill launched by Frank Field MP last June. It wrote a wrote a letter of opposition to Malcolm Wicks, who was then benefits minister.
We felt we would get our point across by focusing on the issue from a slightly different point of view
Fola Ogunjobi, NHF
The bill subsequently dropped from the parliamentary timetable, but the government resurrected the idea in a consultation this May.
The coalition has said that the government will have to overcome "unprecedented opposition" from the housing sector if the proposals are to become law. It urged the government to invest in schemes that address the underlying causes of antisocial behaviour and support vulnerable tenants.
Tim Winter, national organiser for the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, said: "More often than not, the applicant for benefit is not the perpetrator of nuisance emanating from the household and antisocial behaviour orders and injunctions are more effective remedies in such cases."
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet