A review of homelessness and rough sleeping in New Forest
2025
Tim Gray and Neil Morland
New Forest District Council
New Forest District Council is a district local authority which was created on 1st April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, located in the County of Hampshire.
The council is based in Lyndhurst and the district also includes the towns of Totton, Fordingbridge, Lymington, New Milton and Ringwood. The district is named after and covers most of the New Forest National Park, which occupies much of the central part of the district. The main urban areas are around the periphery of the forest. The district has a coastline onto the Solent to the south and Southampton Water to the east.
The council is responsible for administering a range of local government functions, including landlord and communitywide housing services.
Neil Morland & Co
Neil Morland & Co are housing consultants, working throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Formed in 2011, we provide advice and assistance to national and local government, housing associations, voluntary organisations and others. We believe there should be adequate housing for everyone. We carry out research and create policies that improve the quality and potential of housing services and strategies.
Disclaimer: All views and any errors contained in this Homelessness Review are the responsibility of the authors. The views expressed should not be assumed to be those of New Forest District Council or any of the persons who contributed to this Homelessness Review. The information contained in this Homelessness Review is accurate at the date of publication. The information in this Homelessness Review should not be considered financial or legal advice. Neither New Forest District Council nor Neil Morland & Co are authorised to provide financial or legal advice. No responsibility can be taken by the commissioners or the authors of this Homelessness Review for any loss or damage incurred, by any persons or organisation acting or refraining from action as result of any statement in this Homelessness Review.
Contents
Definitions of homelessness and rough sleeping
Homelessness Policy and Funding
Current levels of homelessness
Characteristics of those owed a homelessness duty
3. Preventing and Relieving Homelessness
Support needs of those owed a homelessness duty
Voluntary sector collaboration
7. Resources for Tackling Homelessness
Current levels of homelessness
Resources to tackle homelessness
Executive Summary
Context
This homelessness and rough sleeping review is
being carried out to support the development of New Forest’s
forthcoming new 5 year homelessness and rough sleeping
strategy.
As required by law, the review considers current and future levels
of homelessness, activities to prevent homelessness and secure
accommodation, need for and provision of support, and the resources
available.
The review has been carried out using a mixture of statistical
analysis, interviews with representatives for New Forest District
Council, external organisations and New Forest tenants, and a
survey of current and former users of the council’s
homelessness services.
The review takes place at a time when homelessness and rough
sleeping have been increasing nationally. Both the use of temporary
accommodation and local authority expenditure on homelessness are
at record levels. The government is expected to produce its own
national homelessness strategy later in 2025. It has already made a
commitment to increase regulation of the private rented sector, and
to encourage more new housing development including social rented
accommodation. Local authorities are also to be required to produce
supported housing strategies following to passage of the Supported
Housing Act 2023.
Since the previous New Forest homelessness strategy, the landscape
of local authority homelessness work has been profoundly influenced
by the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and
the impact of the Covid 19 epidemic.
This review also takes place in the context of expected local
authority reform, which may mean a merger of two tier local
authorities to create new unitary authorities within the lifetime
of the next homelessness and rough sleeping strategy.
Homelessness pressures in New Forest, as
measured by the number of households owed a homelessness prevention
or relief duty, have been broadly steady over recent years.
Compared to the other Hampshire district authorities, statutory
homelessness pressures are about 8% higher than average. However,
homelessness in New Forest is significantly below the regional
average for both the South East and South West of England.
New Forest faces a number of challenges compared to other areas,
including high house prices, relatively little social housing, low
levels of supported housing provision and areas of
deprivation.
The geography of New Forest, with large areas of the district
designated as a national park, restricts opportunities for new
development.
Nevertheless, the Council has been successful in reducing its use
of temporary accommodation against a rising national trend, and has
been particularly successful in reducing rough sleeping to almost
zero as street homelessness across the country has been increasing.
The reduction in rough sleeping has been achieved through effective
outreach work, employment of a specialist mental health officer and
a specialist ex- offenders’ officer in the homelessness team.
The New Forest homelessness service is widely respected by its
partner agencies in all areas.
Compared to most other areas, more people approach New Forest for
help when they are at risk of homelessness than when they are
already homeless. This is positive, as it provides greater
opportunities to prevent homelessness before it occurs.
However, we found shortcomings in New Forest’s offer of
housing advice to those not yet at imminent risk of homelessness,
both online and in person. This is despite positive relationships
and good co-operation with Citizens Advice and other voluntary
sector groups active in the district.
Although homelessness due to the loss of a private sector tenancy
is a significant cause of homelessness in New Forest, this is less
so than for many other councils. The most significant cause of
homelessness in New Forest is eviction by friends and family.
The Duty to Refer process in New Forest appears to be working well
compared to other areas.
A high proportion of those owed a homelessness prevention or relief
duty by New Forest come from areas outside New Forest compared to
other local authorities.
New Forest District Council has been extremely successful over the
last few years in reducing rough sleeping to a minimum, against
both the national and regional trend.
The council is slightly below average in its success in preventing
homelessness. Nearly all prevention success involves a move to a
private sector tenancy, with comparatively very few successful
preventions where the applicant is enabled to remain in their
current accommodation.
However, the council is investing in additional homelessness
prevention staff, which may improve performance in this area.
New Forest is significantly below average in relieving homelessness
with only 23% of relief duties ending by successfully securing
accommodation for 6 months or more.
Partly as a result of this, New Forest accepts more homelessness
main duties compared to other areas than prevention and relief
duties compared to other areas, accepting about 40% more main
duties per thousand households than the Hampshire district
average.
The allocations policy offers appropriate
priority to those requiring accommodation due to homelessness and
appears to be successful in delivering social housing lettings to
people with a homelessness band reason, in accordance with the
intentions of the policy.
The number of households in temporary accommodation has been
falling gradually in New Forest over recent years, against a rising
trend both nationally and regionally.
However, the council still has higher TA numbers and a higher
number of families in B&B than any of the other Hampshire
districts. Whilst the total use of B&B has been falling
the number of families in B&B has been more difficult to
reduce. There is still a small number of families in B&B for
more than 6 weeks.
The quality of all types of TA used by New Forest is reportedly
high. It is notable that the council has invested in provision of
purpose built or converted TA which it owns and plans to continue
to do so. This includes bespoke provision of accommodation for
people with experience of rough sleeping, supported by MHCLG and
Homes England funding.
It is also notable the New Forest continues to operate a
substantial private sector leasing scheme, which it manages and
helps to maintain, in contrast to most other councils which make
more use of nightly paid accommodation, which may be of a lower
standard.
Discussions with TA providers suggest that New Forest works harder
than some other local authorities to ensure that placements are
appropriate and in responding to management or other issues
when they occur.
New Forest is more scrupulous than most other local authorities in
assessing and recording the support needs of those who are homeless
or at risk of homelessness.
Both Hampshire adult services and children’s services
reported that New Forest works very well with them to support
people with experience of homelessness who have social care needs,
and maintains a high level of constructive engagement compared to
some other district authorities.
However, there were some reports that not everyone engaging with the service gets the support they need, and it is clear from the statistics that very few homelessness duties in New Forest are ended with a placement in supported housing compared to other local authorities. This reflects the fact that supported housing in New Forest is limited compared to other areas.
Despite increased grant funding from MHCLG,
net expenditure on homelessness by New Forest Council has increased
significantly over recent years, although it is budgeted to fall
somewhat in 2025/26.
The greatest opportunity for savings would be the reduction in use
of Bed & Breakfast or other emergency accommodation.
This might be achieved through more effective prevention and relief
of homelessness, a reduction in homelessness demand from households
outside New Forest, or an increased supply of settled accommodation
or alternative forms of TA.
The survey of current and former users of the homelessness and
housing advice service is not conclusive, due to the limited number
of respondents. However, indications are of a mixed picture. Some
people reported receiving an excellent, person-centred service.
However, others felt they were not listened to or understood and in
some cases were treated insensitively.
All the external agencies or organisations spoken to as part of the
review were unanimous about the professionalism, engagement and
willingness to help of the New Forest homelessness service staff
both at a senior and more operational level.
1. The
council should strengthen its offer of housing advice including the
provision of tailored advice to the specific groups included in the
legislation. This should include clear advice on the
council’s website explaining what to do in the case of
different types of homelessness risk. There should also be an
option to speak to a person to get housing advice, whether within
the council or at another agency without having to complete the
online portal application.
2. The
council should continue its excellent work on rough sleeping,
including its work with offenders and its work in mental
health.
3. The
council should develop its homelessness prevention offer,
specifically to include more effective work to help keep people in
their existing home.
4. The
council should consider developing an early intervention model to
prevent homelessness, particularly to address the main cause of
homelessness in New Forest, which is evictions by family and
friends.
5. The
council should further develop partnership working with
women’s refuges and domestic abuse agencies to examine
whether more can be done to prevent homelessness as a result of
domestic abuse.
6. The
council should continue to develop its collaborative work with
voluntary and community sector groups supporting people in housing
need, with a view to achieving joint working across a wider
geographical area.
7. The
council should conduct an audit into the high number of prevention
and relief duties accepted for people coming to New Forest from
other areas and explore what it can do within the law to
reduce this.
8. As part of
the forthcoming review of the housing allocations policy, the
council should consider whether it should make changes to support
greater use of social housing for homelessness prevention and
relief.
9. The
council should consider the opportunity of establishing a 10 year +
leasing scheme to take advantage of the favourable housing benefit
subsidy position for this type of leasing and reduce its reliance
on emergency accommodation.
10. The council should
continue its programme to develop, acquire and convert
accommodation for use as high quality TA.
11. The council should
review, as part of, or in advance of developing a supported housing
strategy under the terms of the Supported Housing Act 2023 review,
whether the need for supported housing and floating support amongst
people who have experienced homelessness in New Forest is being
met. The support housing strategy should include meeting this
need.
12. The council should
consider expanding its work with Hampshire children’s
services to develop training flats for care leavers and other
vulnerable young people who would otherwise have to go into
mainstream TA.
13. The council should
work with Hampshire adult services to develop a stronger service
offer to social housing tenants suffering
self-neglect.
14. The council should
consider investing further in training for customer facing staff in
the light of the mixed results from the online survey on the
quality of service users’ experience.
The
Homelessness Act 2002 places a duty on local housing authorities in
England, to formulate a homelessness strategy at least every five
years. A review of homelessness in a local housing authority area
must take place prior to a homelessness strategy being formulated
and published. The legislation requires local housing authorities
to take strategic responsibility for tackling and preventing
homelessness in their local authority area. This duty complements
other duties local housing authorities have to advise and assist
persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
The law requires that a homelessness review concentrates on:
· current and future likely levels of homelessness,
· activities to prevent homelessness,
· activities to secure accommodation for people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness,
· activities to provide support for people who are homeless, threatened with homelessness, or have previously experienced homelessness, and
· the resources available to deliver the above activities.
This Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review considers all of the activities being carried out to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in the local authority area of New Forest. This encompasses the public law homelessness functions that New Forest District Council (the council) is responsible for, plus those also provided by various public authorities, housing associations, voluntary organisations, community groups and others.
The decision by the council to appoint Neil Morland & Co to complete this Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review, ensured impartiality and transparency in the findings.
The aim of this Homelessness and Rough
Sleeping Review was to assess if the activities for tackling
homelessness in the New Forest local authority area, are reflective
of good practice, delivering good outcomes for people experiencing
homelessness, and are of value for money to the public purse.
Since the last New Forest Homelessness Review, two significant
events have taken place. The first of these is the commencement of
important new homelessness legislation from April 2018. The
enactment of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, (HRA17), brought
about the most significant change to homelessness law in the past
40 years. The improved rights of people who are at risk of
homelessness are equally matched with the additional
responsibilities of local housing authorities. The period since the
last review also saw the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic during
2020. This had a significant impact, nationally and locally, on the
funding and services being delivered to households at risk of
homelessness and rough sleeping, some of which have
continued.
The ambition for this Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review is to
identify key objectives and actions that should be pursued to
tackle homelessness in the New Forest local authority area, which
can be carried forward to form a new local Homelessness
Strategy.
The structure of this Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review is as follows:
· Section two reviews the current and future likely levels of homelessness.
· Section three reviews the activities for preventing and relieving homelessness.
· Section four reviews the application of main homelessness duties
· Section five reviews the activities for securing accommodation for people who are homeless.
· Section six reviews the activities for supporting people who have previously been, are presently, or might be in the future, homeless.
· Section seven reviews the resources available to carry out the aforementioned activities.
· Section eight sets out findings from consultation with service users and stakeholders
·
Section nine sets out the conclusions and recommendations from the
review.
Definitions of homelessness and
rough sleeping
The law[1] defines a person as being homeless or threatened with homelessness if they:
· Are likely to be homeless within 56 days
· Have no accommodation available in the UK or abroad
· Have no legal right to occupy the accommodation
· Have a split household and accommodation is not available for the whole household
· It is unreasonable to continue to occupy their accommodation
· Are at risk of violence from any person
· Are unable to secure entry to their accommodation
· Live in a moveable structure but have no place to put it
Any normal household members of a person whose circumstances match the above legal definition is also homeless or threatened with homelessness.
There are considered to be four forms of homelessness[2]. A person might experience only one of these forms, but could encounter some, or all of them:
· Statutory homelessness – persons owed the main duty of assistance by a local housing authority
· Single homelessness – persons living in supported housing (including hostels, refuges, and supported lodgings), usually commissioned by a local authority
· Street homelessness – persons sleeping rough in places not designed for habitation
· Hidden homelessness – persons accommodated in insecure arrangements, often with relatives or friends, but just as often with people not previously known to them
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the UK Government department responsible for homelessness policies and programmes, has defined street homelessness, as ‘people sleeping, or bedded down, in the open air (such as on the streets, or in doorways, parks or bus shelters); people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation (such as barns, sheds, car parks, cars, derelict boats, stations, or ‘bashes’)’[3].
This review has been carried out in accordance with the law[4], statutory guidance[5], national guidelines[6] and national good practice[7].
This review provides an accurate portrayal of homelessness in the New Forest area at the time of it being completed.
This Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Review includes findings about:
· What is working well to tackle homelessness
· What could be done better to tackle homelessness, and
· Future priorities for tackling homelessness
The following parties contributed to the review through interviews and provision of data and other information:
· The council’s housing services covering homelessness, rough sleeping, allocations and lettings, housing strategy, housing management, private sector housing, housing finance
· Hampshire County Council adult social care services
· Hampshire County Council children’s services
· Sovereign Network Group (SNG)
· Citizens Advice New Forest
· The Crossings – Help against homelessness, Waterside
· Youth and Family Matters – Totton
· Prison and Probation Services
· Vie Space (accommodation provider)
· TSLG Ltd (accommodation provider)
· New Forest Tenant Involvement Group
An online survey was used to consult with
current and former services users of the council’s housing
services, which received 45 responses from people who had used the
service.
Published statistical evidence and data provided by the council was
used to help assess levels of homelessness, the effectiveness of
activities to prevent and tackle homelessness, and to establish
contextual factors such as the availability of different types of
housing.
Where relevant and feasible, comparisons of statistical evidence
were made with the other district authorities in Hampshire,
namely:
· Basingstoke and Deane
· East Hampshire
· Eastleigh
· Fareham
· Harts
· Havant
· Rushmoor
· Test Valley
· Winchester
Additionally, comparisons were made with a group of statistical nearest neighbour authorities across England. The basis for selecting nearest neighbours is inevitably imperfect. In this case the method we used was based on ONS data, clustering local authorities according to their statistical similarities[8]. The ONS data separates local authorities into groups or clusters according to ‘global’ model averages, ‘economic’ model averages, and ‘demographic’ model averages. To select a comparison group, we chose only the local authorities in England in the same cluster as New Forest in all three areas i.e. the same global cluster, economic cluster and demographic cluster. These local authorities are:
· Castle Point
· Cheltenham
· Fareham
· Mole Valley
· North Hertfordshire
· Rochford
· Tunbridge Wells
· York
We also compared New Forest statistically with
the South East region, the South West region, and England as a
whole.
National homelessness
context
The UK Government is responsible for making
decisions about homelessness law and strategy for England. The
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC)
(prior to September 2021 known as the Ministry for Housing,
Communities & Local Government – DLUHC, the primary term
used throughout this report) is charged with leading on policy
formulation and programme delivery.
The Homelessness Act 2002 places a duty on local authorities to formulate a homelessness strategy at least every five years. A review of homelessness in a local housing authority area must take place prior to a homelessness strategy being formulated and published. The legislation requires local authorities to take strategic responsibility for tackling and preventing homelessness in their area.
The current legal framework setting out the rights of people who are experiencing homelessness, and the duties local authorities must administer, has been in force since 1977[9], with significant amendments being made to it 1985[10], 1996[11], and 2017[12]. The most recent adjustments have substantially increased the assistance local authorities must provide to people who are homeless and threatened with homelessness.
The legal definition of homelessness is set out in section 1.2 above and is summarised again below.
· Homeless within 56 days
· Have no accommodation available in the UK or abroad
· Have no legal right to occupy the accommodation
· Have a split household and accommodation is not available for the whole household
· It is unreasonable to continue to occupy their accommodation
· Are at risk of violence from any person
· Are unable to secure entry to their accommodation
· Live in a moveable structure but have no place to put it
All local authorities have a duty to ensure advice and information is available, free of charge to any household, about preventing homelessness, finding a home, rights when homeless, and help available locally.
Any adult, or child aged 16 to 17, who believes they are homeless or threatened with homelessness, is entitled to make an application for assistance to any local authority.
A household who usually lives in the UK and has a right to enter and remain in the country without any restrictions, is normally eligible for assistance.
Local authority duties
When a household is eligible for assistance, local authorities must:
· Carry out an assessment of their housing and support needs and formulate a personal plan to meet these needs
· Arrange temporary accommodation when a local authority believes they may be homelessness and have a priority need for accommodation due to having a specified vulnerability
· Attempt to prevent homelessness if they are likely to become homeless within 56 days of making their application for assistance
· Attempt to relieve homeless for up to 56 days when they are already homeless, when making an application for assistance
· Arrange short-term accommodation when they are intentionally homeless and have a priority need
· Obtain permanent accommodation when they are unintentionally homeless and have a priority need
A person can have
a priority need for accommodation due to:
· Being pregnant
· Having dependent children residing with them
· Being vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or mental handicap or physical disability, or other special reasons
· Being homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as a flood, fire, or other disaster
· Being a child aged 16 or 17
· Being a young person under 21 who has been looked after, accommodated, or fostered
· Being a person over 21 who is vulnerable as a result of having been looked after, accommodated, or fostered
· Being a person who is vulnerable as a result of having served in the armed forces
· Being a person who is vulnerable as a result of having been imprisoned
· Being a person who is a victim of domestic abuse
Local authorities have discretion to consider whether the household has a local connection with the local authority to which they have made an application for assistance.
A household has a right to request a review of certain decisions made about their application.
When administering their public law homelessness duties, local authority housing services must co-operate with each other and can expect co-operation from housing associations and child social care services. Specified public authorities have a duty to refer a household who is at risk of homelessness to a local authority.
Housing
Advice
Under the section 179 of the
Housing Act 1996[13] local
authorities must provide information and advice on:
· preventing homelessness;
· securing accommodation when homeless;
· the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and the duties of the authority;
· any help that is available from the authority or anyone else for people in the authority’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and,
· how to access that help.
This advice should be available to any person
who needs it and is not limited to those who are homeless or at
risk of homelessness within 56 days.
Specifically, the 1996 Act states that housing authorities must
design advice and information services to meet the needs of people
within their district including, in particular, the needs of the
following groups:
a) people released from prison or youth detention accommodation
b) care leavers
c) former members of the regular armed forces
d) victims of domestic abuse
e) people leaving hospital
f) people suffering from a mental illness or impairment
g) any other group that the authority identify as being at particular risk of homelessness in their district.
The Act does not stipulate how exactly this
advice needs to be provided, but it can be through a mixture of
online, in person, telephone advice etc.
Homelessness statistics
The latest annual homelessness statistics[14] published by the UK Government at the time of writing are for the year April 2023 to March 2024. The latest quarterly statistics are for the period October 2024 to December 2024. These show that nationally for England:
· 146,430 households were owed a prevention duty in 2023/24, up 3.1% from 2022/23 but down 1.9% from 2019/20, the last year before COVID.
· Of these 57,340 were due to the end of an assured shorthold tenancy (AST), notice, up 4.6% from 2022/23 and up 32.1% from 2019/20.
· 178,560 households were owed a relief duty in 2023/24, up 12.3% from 2022/23 and up 27.01% from 2019/20.
· In December 2024, 127,890 households were accommodated in temporary accommodation (TA), the highest ever figure, up by 13.6% since December 2023 and 44.8% since December 2019. The December 2024 figure includes 165,510 children in TA.
· In December 2024, 4,330 families with children were accommodated in Bed & Breakfast hotels (B&B) down 5.0% on December 2023, but up 123.6% since December 2019.
· In December 2024, 41,070 households were in TA in another local authority district to where a homelessness duty had been accepted, 32.1% of all TA placements, and up 23.3% on December 2023 and 68.1% on December 2019.
Figure 1 shows the change in the total number of households in TA and the number of households with children between 2010 and December 2024.
Figure 1
The latest rough sleeping snapshot statistics show that in Autumn 2024 there were 4,667 individuals recorded as sleeping rough on a single night in England, up 19.7% from 2023 and up 91% since 2021. The 2024 figure equates to an estimated 8.1 people sleeping rough on a single night in England per 100,000 population. The number of people sleeping over the course of a month is estimated by local authorities to be roughly twice the single night figure[15].
The number of people recorded as sleeping rough on a single night between Autumn 2010 and Autumn 2024 is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
27% of the 261,075 new social lettings in 2023/24[16] were to statutorily homeless households, up from 23% in 2022/23. Households living in temporary accommodation immediately prior to their new letting comprised 14% of new lets, compared to 15% in 2022/23.
The latest data available[17] confirms that in 2023/24, £3.1 billion was spent by local authorities in England homelessness, with a net cost (excluding grants) to local authorities of £1.7 billion. Of the £3.1 billion gross expenditure, £522m was spent on homelessness prevention, relief, administration and support, with a £2.54 billion spent on TA.
Analysis by the Centre for Homelessness Impact in Figure 3 shows the increase in both gross and net costs of TA between 2018/19 and 2023/24, with the increase in costs between 2022/23 and 2023/24 being particularly rapid.
Figure 3[18]
Homelessness Policy and Funding
The core homelessness grant to local authorities is the Homelessness Prevention Grant (HPG). This has been increasing for a number for years and rose significantly from £440m in 2024/25 to £633m in 2025/26, including a significant uplift in funding for New Forest.
The UK government prior to the 2024 election prioritised street homelessness and had an ambition of ending street homelessness by 2024.
Following the Everyone In initiative during the Covid 19 pandemic, which temporarily provided accommodation for almost all people sleeping rough, the government allocated significant resources to local authorities towards reducing street homelessness including:
·
Revenue funding through the Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI)
programme of £203m in and £547m over 3 years from 2022
to 2025.
·
The NSAP, RSAP and SHAP capital funding programmes targeted at
providing accommodation for people with experience of sleeping
rough
·
Housing First Pilot funding to Manchester, Liverpool and the West
Midlands 2019 to 2025
·
The Accommodation for Ex-Offenders (AFEO) programme 2021 to 2025 to
support prison leavers into private rented accommodation.
The government also introduced the Ending Rough Sleeping Data Framework[19] from December 2023 which is designed to move beyond the single‑night snapshot by tracking whether rough sleeping is:
- Prevented
- Rare
- Brief
- Non‑recurring
Local authorities report quarterly on five key indicators showing progress in each of these areas.
Another significant intervention from the last government was the Local Authority Housing Fund (LAHF). This has provide capital grant funding to support local authorities in acquiring temporary accommodation and accommodation for Afghan and Ukrainian refugee resettlement. Round 1 in December 2022 provided £500m, followed by £250m in Round 2 in March 2023, £450m in Round 3 in November 2023 topped up to £500m in February 2025.
The Labour government since 2024 has continued
to prioritise rough sleeping but has also pledged a cross
governmental homelessness strategy putting forward a more holistic,
cross-departmental approach. This is expected to be launched in
Autumn or Winter 2025 and to include an emphasis on areas such as
homelessness prevention, temporary accommodation as well as on
rough sleeping.
The government has already increased and consolidated core
homelessness funding through HPG and the new Rough Sleeping
Prevention and Recovery Grant (RSPARG) which amounts to
£185.6m in 2025/26 and replaces RSI, winter pressures,
Housing First and AFEO funding into a single grant.
The government announced in the June 2025 spending review that there will be an additional £39 bn for affordable homes in the next decade as well as £100m over the next three years for early intervention schemes to prevent homelessness.
In addition, the Renters’ Rights Bill
currently going through parliament and expected to be enacted in
2025 provides greater protection for tenants in the private rented
sector by abolishing S21 ‘no fault’ evictions,
increasing notice periods, limiting rent increases, and banning
discrimination against benefit claimants seeking to rent
properties. The bill also intends to apply the Decent Homes
Standard to private rented accommodation, although the timetable
for this to be rolled out is not yet confirmed.
It is possible that TA may also be required to meet the Decent
Homes standard in future. This should be clarified when the
government homelessness strategy is published later in 2025.
The government has also pledged to repeal the Vagrancy Act,
decriminalising rough sleeping.
One area which is not clear is whether the government will seek to
bring housing benefit subsidy for leased and nightly paid temporary
accommodation, which is currently set at 90% of 2011 Local Housing
Allowance (LHA) rates, into line with the current LHA rates which
apply in private rented accommodation. This has been a request from
local authorities for several years.
Future policy on LHA rates more widely is also unknown. These are
currently frozen at 30th percentile rents for private
rented accommodation as assessed by the Valuation Office
Agency[20]
in Autumn 2023 and put in place from April 2024.
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight)
Act 2023 lays the ground for enabling local authority led licensing
of supported housing schemes in England, including non-commissioned
supported housing. It also proposes national supported housing
minimum standards and introduces a duty for local authorities to
produce strategic supported housing plans.
Following consultation which ended in May 2025, the government is
expected to produce draft regulations in late 2025. Local authority
licensing and strategy duties will then come into force, probably
in 2026.
2.
Levels of
Homelessness
This
section considers the current and future likely levels of
homelessness in the New Forest local authority area, comparing
these to countywide regional and national trends.
The council collects statistics on statutory homelessness and rough sleeping and reports this to the government. This is then published for all local authorities in England allowing us to compare the council’s levels of homelessness with Hampshire local housing authorities, South East England, South West England, ONS statistical near neighbours as set out above, and all of England.
Nationally, there is no coordinated collection of statistics on hidden homelessness from either public authorities or voluntary organisations.
However, around 20% of adults in the UK say they’ve sofa-surfed in their lifetime, with 7% doing so recently, according to Big Issue research from November 2024[21]. Recent research by Citizens Advice and University of Plymouth[22] estimates hidden homelessness growing amongst thousands of people in Plymouth, South Hams in Devon, and in Cornwall.
Criminal justice agencies monitor the number of offenders who leave prison with no fixed abode. While this data is submitted to national government, local authorities do not benefit from having this intelligence shared with them.
Current levels of homelessness
To assess recent levels of statutory homelessness we have combined the latest annual statistics produced by government for 2023/24 with the quarterly statistics for April to June 2024 and July to September 2024 to give an 18 month picture from April 2023/24 which is as up to date as possible. This is because just using one or even two quarter’s figures could misrepresent the true picture due to seasonal variations and reporting spikes e.g. if some councils carry over data for one quarter to another. On the other hand, the latest annual statistics for 2023/24 are now quite distant.
We report the actual totals for homelessness in New Forest in the text of the report. However, for comparison purposes with other councils and regions, we compare either percentage figures e.g. the percentage of those at risk of homelessness due to loss of private rented accommodation, or figures per thousand households living in the area e.g. the number of households in TA per thousand households.
In the period April 2023 to September 2024 1,380 households in New Forest were assessed to establish if they were homeless or at risk of homelessness, with 1,135 households (82%) assessed as being owed a homelessness prevention duty due to risk of homelessness within 56 days or a relief duty due to homelessness at the time when they approached the council.
Altogether, of those who were assessed, 56% were owed a prevention duty, 27% were owed a relief duty, 9% withdrew their application before assessment, 7% were assessed as being neither homeless, nor at risk of homelessness, and 2% were assessed as not eligible for assistance.
Figure 4 compares the number of households owed a prevention or relief duty per thousand households with the other Hampshire districts, Figure 5 makes the same comparison with ONS near neighbours, and Figure 6 compares New Forest with the South East, South West and England.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Broadly, this data shows that total homelessness demand
as measured by the number of new prevention or relief duties in New
Forest was 8% higher than average levels compared with other
Hampshire districts and also slightly higher than for ONS near
neighbours, but was significantly lower than the average figures
per thousand households for the South East, South West and England
as a whole.
The New Forest figure of 13.9 duties per thousand households being
18% lower than the South East average, 19% lower than the South
West average, and 35% lower than the England figure.
It must of course be borne in mind that the England figure includes
London and other major urban conurbations where homelessness tends
to be more frequent.
The percentage of those assessed who are found to be owed a duty is
lower in New Forest than in the South West, Hampshire districts,
ONS neighbours or England, but around the same as the South East as
a whole, as shown in Figure 7
Figure 7
Figure 8 compares homelessness assessment
outcomes in more detail.
Figure 8
This shows that the percentage of assessments
resulting in a prevention duty at 56%, is about the average for the
Hampshire districts and ONS near neighbours, but significantly
higher than the South East (42%), South West (41%) or England
(41%).
In contrast the percentage of assessments
resulting in a relief duty in New Forest (27%) is very low compared
to all the other areas considered.
Whilst it is difficult to be certain of the specific reasons for
this, it is generally considered a good thing to have more
prevention duties than relief duties, because this indicates people
are approaching the council at an earlier stage, offering greater
opportunities to prevent homelessness before it occurs rather than
the affected households having to experience the trauma of actually
becoming homeless before they can be assisted.
The ratio of prevention duties to relief duties has been consistently high compared to the South East, South West and England over the period since Covid 19, as shown by the quarterly data in Figure 9 between Q4 2020/21 and Q2 2024/25. This can be regarded as positive, for the reasons set out in the previous paragraph.
Figure 9 
As shown in Figure 10, the quarterly number of new homelessness
prevention duties and relief duties in New Forest has, with some
fluctuations (possibly due to administrative and reporting issues
rather than sudden changes in demand), been relatively steady since
at least January 2021. There does not appear to have been a marked
rise or fall in homelessness demand and the ratio of prevention
duties to relief duties has remained fairly constant over the
period.
Figure 10
Contrary to popular belief, the number of prevention and relief duties accepted across the country also remained relatively steady during this period, despite large rises in TA and rough sleeping, although the England relief duty figure did rise somewhat from 1.61 relief duties per thousand households in Q4 2020/21 to 1.86 in Q2 2024/25.
Reasons for homelessness
The reasons for risk of
homelessness for those owed a homelessness prevention duty between
April 2023 and September 2024 in the New Forest are shown in Figure
11.
Figure 11
|
New Forest reasons for risk of homelessness for those owed a prevention duty, April 2023 to September 2024 |
Total |
% |
|
Family or friends no longer willing or able to accommodate |
254 |
33% |
|
End of private rented tenancy - assured shorthold |
257 |
34% |
|
Domestic abuse |
48 |
6% |
|
Non-violent relationship breakdown with partner |
38 |
5% |
|
End of social rented tenancy |
12 |
2% |
|
Eviction from supported housing |
9 |
1% |
|
End of private rented tenancy - not assured shorthold |
30 |
4% |
|
Other violence or harassment |
3 |
0% |
|
Left institution with no accommodation available |
32 |
4% |
|
Required to leave accommodation provided by Home Office as asylum support |
1 |
0% |
|
Home no longer suitable - disability / ill health |
11 |
1% |
|
Other reasons / not known |
67 |
9% |
The reason for risk of homelessness for those owed a prevention duty are compared with other areas in Figure 12.
Figure 12
In the New Forest the biggest reason for risk of homelessness was loss of an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) in the private rented sector (34%), closely followed by friends and family no longer being willing to accommodate (33%), with the next highest reasons for a prevention duty being domestic abuse (6%) and non- violent relationship breakdown (5%).
Compared to other areas, the biggest
difference is that New Forest had proportionally lower
homelessnes risk from end of an AST and higher risk from friends
and family evictions.
Among the less common causes of homelessness risk it is also
notable that New Forest had a lower proportion of prevention duties
due to loss of social housing than other areas, with 3% of
prevention duties as a result of end of a social rented tenancy or
eviction from social housing compared with 7 to 9% in the
comparator areas.
On the other hand, the percentage of prevention duties as a result of leaving an institution was higher (4%) in New Forest than other areas.
The reasons for actual
homelessness for those owed a homelessness relief duty between
April 2023 and September 2024 in the New Forest are shown in Figure
13.
Figure 13
|
New Forest reasons for homelessness for those owed a relief duty April 2023 to September 2024 |
Total |
% |
|
Family or friends no longer willing or able to accommodate |
137 |
37% |
|
End of private rented tenancy - assured shorthold |
30 |
8% |
|
Domestic abuse |
72 |
20% |
|
Non-violent relationship breakdown with partner |
29 |
8% |
|
End of social rented tenancy |
7 |
2% |
|
Eviction from supported housing |
7 |
2% |
|
End of private rented tenancy - not assured shorthold |
18 |
5% |
|
Other violence or harassment |
6 |
2% |
|
Left institution with no accommodation available |
36 |
10% |
|
Required to leave accommodation provided by Home Office as asylum support |
0 |
0% |
|
Home no longer suitable - disability / ill health |
1 |
0% |
|
Other reasons / not known |
26 |
7% |
|
Other reasons / not known |
67 |
9% |
The reason for homelessness for those owed a relief duty are compared with other areas in Figure 14.
Figure
14
In New Forest, the biggest reason for homelessness for those owed a relief duty was friends and family no longer being willing to accommodate (37%), followed by domestic abuse (20%), The next highest reasons for a relief duty was leaving an institution (10%), loss of an AST (8%), and non- violent relationship breakdown (8%).
Mirroring the reasons for a prevention duty, compared to other areas, New Forest had a significantly higher proportion of relief duties as a result of family and friend evictions and a lower proportion of duties due to loss of an AST.
Of some potential concern is that the
proportion of relief duties due to domestic abuse was higher than
any of the comparator areas and this was also the case for the
proportion of relief duties due to leaving an institution.
On closer investigation however, 26.7% of relief duties due to
domestic abuse were from refuge placements, with 80% of those found
to be owed a relief duty due to domestic abuse having no local
connection to the New Forest district such as previously living in
the area, family connections or employment.
Similarly, NFDC officers believe that the relatively high number of
homelessness duties following discharge from an institution is due
to the Council’s proactive work and positive relationships
with the institutions leading to those who might otherwise be
homeless after leaving and potentially sleep rough being more
likely to be supported into accommodation.
Again, mirroring the prevention duty data, the proportion of relief duties due to an eviction from social housing was much lower, at 2%, than in any of the comparator areas.
Both the prevention and relief duty information show negligible homelessness as a result of being required to leave asylum seeker accommodation in New Forest, which has become a significant problem in some other parts of England.
The breakdown of household types of those owed
a prevention or relief duty is shown in Figure 15. In common with
other areas, the highest proportion of households owed a
homelessness duty in New Forest are single males without dependent
children (36%), followed by female single parents (21%) and single
females without children (18%).
New Forest appears to reflect the rest of the country in terms of
the household composition of those owed a homelessness duty,
although the 5% of cases of single adult other or gender not known,
may suggest some issues with recording by council officers.
Figure 15
Characteristics
of those owed a homelessness
duty
The ages of those owed a prevention or relief duty in New Forest
also seems broadly similar to other areas as shown in Figure 16,
with 25% of households aged 25 to 34, 24% 35 to 44, and 19% 18 to
25.
In terms of ethnicity, 1,096 (97%) of those
owed a prevention or relief duty in New Forest in the period April
2023 to September 2024 were White; with only 11 (1%)
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British; 8 (0.7%) Asian/Asian
British; 4 (0.5%) Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups; and 1.4% other
ethnic groups or not known.
This is a much higher proportion of white households than in any of
the comparator areas. Whilst in other areas, there is an
over-representation of households owed homelessness duties who have
a black ethnic origin in particular, in the New Forest the very
small number of non-white applicants makes it hard to draw any
conclusions to suggest whether this may or may not be the case.
Figure 16
Previous accommodation
Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the type of accommodation households were living in before they were owed a prevention duty and relief duty respectively.
Figure 17
Figure 18
These figures are broadly as expected from the comparison of recorded reasons for homelessness and risk of homelessness, for example showing the relatively low proportion of those owed a prevention or relief duty in the New Forest living in the private rented sector compared to other area, the high proportion of households living with family, and the high proportion of households owed a relief duty on departure from an institution.
Two figures which do look anomalous are the 11% of prevention duty cases where previous accommodation is recorded as other / not known and the very high 25% of relief duty cases where the applicant is recorded as sleeping rough. It is hard to see how the latter figure can be accurate considering the very low rough sleeping figures recorded in New Forest, which we will discuss later.
It is also interesting to note that 5% of
homelessness relief duties are recorded as being for households
living in refuges – much higher than other parts of the
country but reflective of the position in the other Hampshire
districts.
Homelessness referrals
The Homelessness Reduction Act has, since 2018, meant that certain
organisations, such as Job Centre Plus and prisons, and local
authority departments, such as adult and children’s social
services, have had a legal duty to refer clients using their
services who may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within
56 days to a local housing authority for assistance in preventing
or relieving homelessness, subject to obtaining the consent
of the service user.
New Forest is a participant in the Hampshire
Homelessness Referral Protocol[23],
which is designed to ensure consistency across Hampshire for those
making such referrals. Referrals may be made using the Hampshire
Homelessness Referral Form[24]
and submitted by email.
Figure 19 compares the percentages of those assessed on the basis
that they might be homeless or at risk of homelessness between New
Forest and comparator areas between April 2023 and September 2024
who were referred under the duty to refer and also referred by
organisations not included in the duty to refer legislation, as
well as those referred by another local authority on the basis of
local connection.
In New Forest 14% of those assessed during the period were referred to the council by another organisation, rather than approaching the council independently. This was made up of 10.1% of those assessed being referred under the duty to refer, 3/5% being referred outside the duty to refer, and 0.5% being referred by another local authority. Compared to the comparator areas, the number of duty to refer referrals to New Forest was quite high, but the number of non-duty to refer referrals was quite low.
Figure
19
Breaking this down further in Figure 20, it can be seen that the
greatest number of duty to refer referrals to New Forest were from
the National Probation Service (30% of referrals), Children’s
social services (12%), Hospitals (12%) and Job Centre Plus (8%). In
the case of all these organisations, the percentage of referrals
was the highest of any of the comparator areas. This can be seen as
positive as it shows that the duty to refer process in New Forest
is working well.
The lower number of referrals from other organisations outside Duty
to Refer shows that professionals are utilising the Duty to Refer
process effectively, but it is hard to be specific about this based
on the published data as organisations making referrals outside the
duty to refer are not identified in the published homelessness
statistics.
|
Figure 20: Percentage of homelessness referrals from different organisations April 2023 to September 2024 |
||||||
|
Referral source |
New Forest |
South East |
South West |
ENGLAND |
Hampshire |
Nearest neighbours |
|
Total households assessed as a result of a referral |
195 |
11270 |
9850 |
80610 |
1102 |
970 |
|
Households referred under the Duty to Refer |
72% |
57% |
50% |
52% |
63% |
56% |
|
Adult Secure Estate (prison) |
2% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
|
Youth Secure Estate |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
National Probation Service |
30% |
21% |
20% |
22% |
24% |
21% |
|
Community Rehabilitation Company |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
|
Hospital A&E, Urgent Treatment Centres or in-patient care |
12% |
8% |
8% |
7% |
9% |
8% |
|
Mental Health in-patient care |
3% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
4% |
4% |
|
Jobcentre Plus |
8% |
7% |
4% |
5% |
9% |
6% |
|
Adult Social Services |
4% |
6% |
6% |
6% |
4% |
4% |
|
Children's Social Services |
12% |
9% |
9% |
7% |
10% |
11% |
|
Children's Early Help Services/Children's centres |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
Nil Recourse Team |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Secretary of State for defence in relation to members of the armed forces |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Not Known |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Households referred by an agency (not subject to the Duty to Refer) |
25% |
41% |
49% |
46% |
33% |
41% |
|
Households referred by another local authority |
4% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
4% |
2% |
The employment status of those owed a prevention or relief duty between April 2023 and September 2024 is shown in Figure 21. Compared to the comparator areas, significantly fewer of those owed a homelessness duty in New Forest were registered unemployed 16% compared with 30% for the South East.
On the other hand, a high proportion (22%)
were not working due to a long-term illness or disability and
higher proportions than average were in full-time work (18%) or
part-time work (13%) with another 5% working irregular hours.
Combining these figures, over one third of those owed a
homelessness duty had at least one employed person in their
household.
This illustrates that having a job in New Forest is not necessarily
enough to guard against homelessness, and also highlights the
additional needs faced by the proportion of those experiencing
homelessness with an illness or disability.
Figure 21
|
Employment status of those owed a prevention or relief duty April 2023 to September 2024 |
||||||
|
Status |
New Forest |
South East |
South West |
ENGLAND |
Hampshire |
Nearest neighbours |
|
Registered unemployed |
16% |
30% |
28% |
35% |
22% |
24% |
|
Not working due to long-term illness / disability |
22% |
15% |
19% |
14% |
16% |
18% |
|
Full-time |
18% |
15% |
13% |
14% |
19% |
17% |
|
Part-time |
13% |
11% |
10% |
10% |
11% |
11% |
|
Not seeking work / at home |
7% |
8% |
6% |
7% |
10% |
6% |
|
Not registered unemployed but seeking work |
6% |
4% |
4% |
4% |
4% |
4% |
|
Retired |
4% |
4% |
4% |
3% |
4% |
5% |
|
Student / training |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
Registered employed off work |
3% |
3% |
4% |
3% |
4% |
4% |
|
Working irregular hours |
5% |
3% |
3% |
2% |
5% |
4% |
|
Other |
4% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
2% |
3% |
|
Not known |
1% |
3% |
4% |
4% |
2% |
3% |
Rough Sleeping
The most long-standing measure of rough sleeping levels
are the Autumn snapshot figures.
Local authorities across England take an annual Autumn snapshot of rough sleeping using either a count-based estimate of visible rough sleeping, an evidence-based estimate meeting with local partners, or an evidence-based estimate meeting including a spotlight count in specific areas.
Local authorities, together with local partners, decide which approach and date to use for their snapshot of rough sleeping. They are advised by government to use the approach that will most accurately reflect the number of people sleeping rough in their area.
The snapshot is collated
by outreach workers, local charities and community groups and is
independently verified by Homeless Link[25].
New Forest used estimated figures from 2010 to 2021 but has been
using an estimate including a spotlight count since 2022.
The single night rough sleeping figures for New Forest from 2010 to 2024 are shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22
The
published figures show impressive progress in reducing the rough
sleeping snapshot figure from a high of 22 in Autumn 2019 to just 1
in Autumn 2024.
This reduction bucks the recent national and regional trends.
Figure 23 compares the single night rough sleeping rates per
100,000 population in New Forest with comparator areas between 2017
and 2024.
Figure
23
As Figure 23 illustrates, the steadily falling rough sleeping figures in New Forest since 2021 contrast with steadily rising figures for England, the South East, South West and ONS near neighbours. Rough sleeping figures in the Hampshire districts have been falling, but not as rapidly as in New Forest.
More comprehensive
estimated information on rough sleeping is available from the MHCLG
Rough Sleeping data framework tables and dashboards. This shows
that New Forest continues to have low levels of rough sleeping
compared to national and regional averages, with 6 people estimated
to have slept rough in New Forest in March 2025, broadly in line
with consistent figures since Autumn 2023. The monthly data from
December 2022 to March 2025 is shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24 Number of people rough
sleeping in New Forest per month compared to national and regional
averages[26]
Future levels of
homelessness
There is no accepted model to predict homelessness in the UK with a strong track record of success.
However, the most rigorous approach to modelling likely levels of
future homelessness are probably those used by Heriot Watt
University to produce the Crisis Homelessness Monitor[27].
This attempts to make predictions for future ‘core
homelessness’ based on different scenarios.
Crisis model
The core homelessness concept was first introduced in research undertaken with Crisis in 2017. The components of core homelessness and their definitions as applied in this study are shown in Figure 25 below. The core homelessness concept seeks to enable a framework that goes beyond statutory homelessness statistics (which track only those who actively seek LA homelessness assistance and who are eligible for it), and counts or estimates of rough sleeping.
Figure 25. Core homelessness categories and definitions – source Crisis homelessness monitor
This means that the
relationship between prediction of core homelessness and future
statutory homelessness and rough sleeping is not straightforward.
Bearing this in mind, the 2023 England homelessness monitor working
from 2022 baseline figures, predicts that the rise in core
homelessness since 2012 will continue to 2041 as shown in Figure
26.
Figure 26. New
baseline projection of core homelessness by category, England
2012-41 (number of households) – source 2023 England
homelessness monitor
The Heriot Watt analysis
then goes on to estimate the impact of ten policy measures which
might reduce future homelessness, namely:
· Increasing LHA rates
· Limiting evictions in the private rented sector
· Increased homelessness prevention
· Increased homelessness social housing allocations
· Making Universal Credit and other benefits more accessible
· Increasing Housing First provision
· Increasing new social housing supply
· Higher economic growth
· Levelling Up to make regions outside London more prosperous
· A large increase in welfare benefits
The estimated impacts of these measures on core homelessness are shown in Figure 27, with a combination of such measures predicated to reduce the growth of core homelessness or to bring about a reduction in core homelessness.
Figure 27. Total core homelessness in England with the sequential addition of ten policy scenarios to reduce core homelessness in the period to 2041 (number of households) – source 2023 England homelessness monitor
It is worth noting, that, with the significant exception of increasing welfare benefits or making them more accessible, these measures are almost all current government policy. However, it is impossible to predict how successfully they will be achieved and what the impact on future homelessness might be.
Probably the most prudent assumption is that homelessness will
continue to increase nationally or stabilise at current levels and
that this will also be reflected in New Forest.
In a New Forest context,
it is worth considering trends in poverty and housing affordability
as these are likely to affect future homelessness levels.
Figure 28 compares child poverty in New Forest with the other
Hampshire districts using DWP data[28]
to consider both relative and absolute poverty before housing
costs, and End Child Poverty Coalition (ECPC) data[29]
to look at relative poverty after housing costs.
Figure
28
According to the latest
data for 2023/24, New Forest has the third highest levels of child
poverty of the Hampshire district authorities on any of the
measures, with 14.6% of children living in a household in relative
poverty before housing costs, 12.4% in a household experiencing
absolute poverty before housing costs based on the DWP
measure, and 24.9% living in relative poverty after housing costs
according to the ECPC.
Poverty is lower than in Havant or Gosport, but higher than in
Basingstoke & Deane, East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Fareham,
Rushmoor, Test Valley or Winchester.
Interestingly, looking at
trend data from 2014/15 to 2023/24 as shown in Figure 29, whilst
child poverty before housing costs has risen significantly in New
Forest over the past decade, child poverty after housing costs has
remained at the same level over the period according to the
published data. This is mirrored in the national trend.
It may be that this is largely due to housing benefits compensating
for lower incomes relative to housing costs.
Figure 29
Another indicator of potential homelessness pressures due to unmet housing demand are house price to earnings affordability ratios. New Forest has the highest ratio of median house prices to median earnings among the Hampshire districts with the ratio at 10.6 in 2024 as shown in Figure 30. A high ratio tends to mean that less residents can afford to buy, leading to increased demand for rented accommodation, so that rented accommodation can be less accessible to households on lower incomes who may be at risk of homelessness.
Figure
30
Figure 31 compares the
trend in this affordability ratio between 2017 and 2024 in New
Forest with the Hampshire districts, the South East, South West and
England. Housing has been less affordable to buy in New Forest than
any of the comparator areas for the whole period. However,
affordability has been improving slightly in New Forest since
2022.
Figure
31
3. Preventing and Relieving Homelessness
Staffing
The New Forest Housing Options service includes, homelessness
prevention, homelessness relief, allocations, temporary
accommodation, rough sleeping and Ukraine resettlement. The service
is led by a housing options manager, who reports to the service
manager for housing options and tenancy accounts.
Unlike some councils who have generic housing
options officers covering both homelessness prevention and relief
New Forest District Council has three dedicated prevention officer
roles and is in the process of enhancing homelessness prevention
activities by adding additional homelessness prevention staff,
including a prevention team leader. There are three homelessness
relief officers managed by a homelessness team leader, who is also
in charge of rough sleeping
The council also employs a mental health homelessness practitioner
and an accommodation for ex-offenders officer who are able to
assist on preventing and relieving homelessness and rough sleeping
for people experiencing mental health issues and people leaving
prison.
In addition, there is a housing options reviews and projects
officer, two homelessness triage officers, a homelessness and
housing officer, two Ukraine officers, and an accommodation support
worker.
The homelessness team also includes homelessness navigators and
assertive outreach workers primarily concerned with addressing
rough sleeping.
The Council also maintains active links with Citizens Advice and voluntary sector groups The Crossings and Youth and Family Matters Totton who engage with people in housing need. This extends to council officers attending drop in sessions to give advice housing options advice.
Access to assistance
The Council’s website suggests that the
easiest way to get help if at risk of homelessness is to refer
oneself through the online portal.
However, the portal requires quite high level of literacy to be
able to use it and asks for a lot of information. It is unlikely
that this would be appropriate for anyone at risk of homelessness
and in need of informal advice short of making a homelessness
application.
There is also a phone line on the website, but this explicitly
states it is for people who are ‘homeless today’ rather
than anyone at risk of homelessness.
There is also a video ‘guide to homelessness
prevention’ under the heading ‘Refer someone else
for help’. The video does indeed seem targeted at
professionals, as the content is all text, and quite complex
text.
There does appear to be a lack of an accessible route for people to
get housing advice short of making quite a complex
self-referral.
The position is more straightforward for agencies, who have the
option of making a referral through the portal or by
email.
We tried telephoning the number the website
suggests to call, if homeless on the day. This was engaged and then
disconnected the call the first time we tried but led to an
automated message when we called a second time.
The message gives 5 options, one of which is
‘homelessness’. There is then a choice between needing
urgent help and making a ‘general enquiry’. If the
general enquiry option is selected, then the message directs the
clearer to the council’s website to fill in the portal.
Immediately after this, however, there is an option to please hold
if ‘you do not have access to the internet’.
The call was then picked up quite quickly by a triage officer.
After explaining that this was a mystery shopping call to support
the review, the officer explained that although people are
encouraged to use the portal, in practice they would help anyone in
difficulty and would take details over the phone. For an
application to be made, documents would be required, but these
could be scanned at a local office close to where the person is
calling from. The officer was clear that help would be given to
match the person’s needs.
Overall this suggests that those not at immediate risk of
homelessness, who have not approached another agency, are not
encouraged to approach the council for homelessness prevention
advice, other than through the portal. Officers informed us that
previous transformation work aimed at reducing the number of phone
calls received, opened up digital channels to manage incoming
contact. However, there is no clear written advice for people at
risk of homelessness for what to do in different circumstances,
other than formally applying for assistance through the
portal.
However, the impression based on this one call was that if a caller
did persist in trying to get through, they would be helped, or that
at least suggestions would be given for where they might be
able to get help.
Prevention and relief outcomes
In the period April 2023 to September 2024, 729 homelessness prevention duties ended and 585 relief duties ended in New Forest[30].
Figure 32 compares the number of prevention and relief duties ended per thousand households in New Forest over this period with the Hampshire districts, ONS near neighbours, the South East, South West, and England.
Figure 32
New Forest ended the highest number of prevention duties compared to its population of any of the comparator areas but the second lowest number of relief duties, with only the Hampshire districts ending a lower number of relief duties per thousand households.
Of the prevention duties ending in New Forest,
47% resulted in accommodation being secured for at least 6 months,
30% ended with the household becoming homeless, 11% of duties ended
because contact was lost, 8% of cases ended because 56 days elapsed
and no further action was taken because homelessness had not
occurred. In 4% of cases the application was withdrawn.
Of the relief duties ending in New Forest, only 23% ended by
securing accommodation for at least 6 months, with 67% ending with
56 days having elapsed without securing settled accommodation, 4%
with contact lost, 4% with the application withdrawn, 1.2% due to a
local connection referral being accepted by another local authority
and 0.7% due to intentional homelessness from accommodation
provided.
Figure 33 shows the percentage of prevention and relief
duties ended by securing accommodation for at least 6 months in
each of the Hampshire districts and Figure 34 compares New Forest
with our comparator areas.
Figure 33
Figure 34 
New Forest ended a lower proportion of prevention duties and a
significantly lower proportion of relief duties by securing
accommodation for at least 6 months compared to any of the
comparator areas.
When comparing with the individual Hampshire districts, New Forest
was below average, but did perform slightly better than some other
districts in both preventing and relieving homelessness, measured
in this way.
It is impossible to determine from these figures what the reasons are for New Forest’s relative lack of success in preventing and relieving homelessness. This might be at least partly due to the relative lack of accommodation in New Forest compared to other areas, but it is very difficult to be certain the extent to which this is the cause from the available data.
However, some light can be shed on this by
breaking down the figures further.
Prevention activity
Looking more closely at prevention duties in Figure 35, New Forest had the lowest proportion of duties ending in securing accommodation and the highest proportion ending in homelessness compared to the comparator areas.
Figure 35
Of the 339 New Forest prevention outcomes where accommodation was
secured for at least 6 months 24% were able to stay in their
existing accommodation and 76% moved to alternative
accommodation. As shown in Figure 36, this is a lower
proportion of successful outcomes where households were able to
stay in their existing accommodation than any other area except the
Hampshire districts, where the average of 24% was the same as New
Forest.
This may suggest that there is scope to increase the number of preventions in New Forest in the future, where households can remain in their existing accommodation, where this is a safe option.
Figure 36 
This point is further illustrated in Figure 37, which looks at the percentage of different activities used to successfully prevent homelessness across New Forest and the comparator areas.
Comparing New Forest with other areas, it is clear that there are some significant differences.
One area where New Forest appears to stand out is that there are far more properties where the applicant has found their own property than where the local authority has secured accommodation. Empowering applicants to find their own properties is good practice. However, discussing this with officers, it may be that this is to at least some extent a reporting anomaly than a real difference, and that New Forest’s prevention officers find more accommodation than is suggested by the published data.
Perhaps more significantly, only 4% of New
Forest’s homelessness preventions were as a result of
negotiating to prevent eviction or to secure a return to staying
with family and friends. This compares with 14% in the South East,
12% in the South West, 14% in England, 11% across the Hampshire
districts and 12% in the ONS near neighbours.
It's also interesting to note that only 0.3% of homelessness
prevention in New Forest were achieved by providing supported
housing, a fraction of the number in any of the comparator areas.
This reflects the low levels of supported housing within the New
Forest area.
Figure 37
Looking at the types of accommodation secured to prevent homelessness in Figure 38, it is clear that whilst the proportion of private rented sector accommodation is the highest, the proportion of preventions into social rented sector accommodation is by far the lowest in New Forest at only 10%, compared with 29% across the Hampshire districts and 34% across the South East. It’s also striking that 26% of New Forest’s preventions are recorded as being into accommodation whose type is not known.
Figure 38
Looking at the percentage of prevention duties ended by securing accommodation on a quarterly basis from Q4 2020/21 to Q2 2024/25 in Figure 39 shows evidence that New Forest’s performance compared to other areas has been improving over time.
Figure 39
Relief
activity
Turning to the outcome of relief duties in Figure 40, New Forest
had the lowest proportion of duties ending in securing
accommodation and the highest proportion ending in because 56 days
elapsed compared to the comparator areas, with only 132 out of 585
relief duties ending with accommodation secured.
Figure 40
Figure 41 looks at the percentage of different activities used in cases where homelessness was successfully relieved across New Forest and the comparator areas.
Comparing New Forest with other areas, only 6% of successful reliefs in New Forest were recorded as being a result of accommodation being secured by the local authority, compared to 44% in the South East, 37% in Hampshire and in the South West, 50% in England and 46% in ONS near neighbours. On the other hand, and positively, 58% of New Forest reliefs were recorded as being the result of applicants finding accommodation for themselves, much higher than any other comparator area. It is likely, therefore, that the difference is at least in part a result of different recording practices.
As with homelessness preventions the number of New Forest homelessness reliefs into supported housing is particularly low and the proportion of reliefs recorded as ‘other’ is particularly high.
Figure 41
Looking at the types of accommodation secured to relieve homelessness in Figure 42, it is clear that, as with preventions, the proportion of reliefs into private rented sector accommodation is the highest and the proportion of preventions into social rented sector accommodation the lowest in New Forest compared to any of the comparator areas.
Figure 42
Looking at this
numerically in each of the Hampshire districts in Figure 43, New
Forest secured easily the highest number of homelessness reliefs
into private rented accommodation, and easily the lowest number of
reliefs into social rented accommodation, compared to any other
district.
Figure 43 
Looking at the percentage of relief duties ended by securing accommodation on a quarterly basis from Q4 2020/21 to Q2 2024/25, Figure 44 shows that, whilst performance has been deteriorating in England, the South East and the South West as well as in New Forest, New Forest has been less successful at relief over most of the period. As illustrated above, this is likely to be in large part due to the small number of relief duties ended in social housing in New Forest. This is not necessarily a bad thing if social housing allocations are going to homeless households in TA or other households with an urgent need.
Figure 44 
It is also interesting to compare New Forest with other areas to
understand the extent to which those successfully accommodated to
end a homelessness prevention or relief duty are accommodated in
New Forest or in other local authority areas.
Location
Figure 45 shows the proportion of those for whom a prevention duty
was ended with 6 months accommodation during 2023/24[31],
where the accommodation was in the same local authority area, in
another local authority in the same region, or in another region.
59% of those accommodated with New Forest’s help were
accommodated within the New Forest area, a significantly lower
proportion than in any of the comparator areas, although this
figure must be treated with some caution because of the high number
(24%) of New Forest cases where the location of accommodation was
recorded as unknown.
Figure 45
Figure 46 makes a similar comparison for
accommodation used to end homelessness relief duties.
For relief duties, the distinction between New Forest and
comparator areas is even more stark, with only 48% of accommodation
within New Forest, compared to 76% in both the South East and South
West, and 72% for the Hampshire districts as a group.
This may be partly explained by the fact that nearly all
successfully ended relief duties in New Forest are ended in PRS
accommodation rather than social housing, and the fact that private
rented accommodation in New Forest is particularly hard to find,
although it is beyond the capacity of this review to make an
objective assessment of how much harder it is to find affordable
PRS accommodation in New Forest than other areas.
Figure 46
The data also suggests that compared to most other areas,
those accommodated by New Forest to end a prevention or relief duty
(where a local connection is not required to receive assistance)
are much more likely to be approaching the council from outside New
Forest. Figure 47 shows that 41% of those helped to secure
accommodation under a prevention duty and 52% of those helped to
secure accommodation to end a relief duty by New Forest approached
the council from outside New Forest. These are much higher figures
than for Hampshire districts (22% and 28%) the South East (18% and
24%) and the South West (19% and 24%). The reasons for this are not
completely clear, and we lack more detailed data on the
geographical origins of those approaching the council. However it
seems clear that the influx of people from outside the area
approaching the council as homeless in New Forest adds
significantly to the homelessness pressures New Forest District
Council has to manage.
It is impossible to tell from the published data to what extent the
council is accommodating households from outside New Forest in TA
and how this compares with other places.
Figure 47
4. Main Homelessness Duties
In the period between April 2023 and September 2024 New Forest took 372 main duty decisions where a relief duty had ended without homelessness being relieved. Of these 266 (72%) resulted in accepting a main duty, 93 (25%) resulted in a homeless but no priority need decision, 7 (2%) resulted in an intentional homeless decision and 6 (2%) resulted in a not homeless decision.
Main duty acceptances per thousand households were 40% higher than the average for Hampshire districts and higher than the average for ONS near neighbours, but lower than the average for the South East, South West and England, as shown in Figure 48.
Figure 48 
The percentage outcomes of main duty decisions were broadly similar to those of the comparator areas, as shown in Figure 49.
Figure 49
Taken together, this data suggests that the
fact that main duty acceptances were 40% higher than the average
for the Hampshire districts and the number of prevention and
relief duties was only 8% higher than the Hampshire average is due
to lower levels of success in preventing and relieving homeless in
New Forest than because main duty decisions in New Forest are more
likely to result in an acceptance. In fact, the 72% main duty
acceptances in New Forest was slightly lower than the Hampshire
average of 76%.
Figure 50 tracks the change in the quarterly number of main duty
acceptances per thousand households from Q4 2020/21 to Q2 2023/24
for New Forest, the South East, South West, and England.
Although there are some significant fluctuations in the reported
New Forest figures, overall the pattern seems to be that the number
of accepted main duties in New Forest has remained at about the
same level whereas the figures for the South East, South West and
England have all risen steadily over the period, so that New
Forest’s position has changed from the highest number of main
duty acceptances per thousand households to the lowest over the
period, remembering however that New Forest’s current figure
is still significantly higher than the Hampshire average, as
already discussed.
Figure 50 
Looking at the reasons for priority need for households owed a main
duty in Figure 51, the percentage figures for New Forest are
similar to comparator areas, but with a higher than average
percentage of priority need due to physical ill health but a lower
percentage due to domestic abuse or mental health problems.
|
Figure 51: Percentage reason for priority need for households owed a main duty April 2023 to September 2024 |
||||||
|
Reason for priority need |
New Forest |
South East |
South West |
ENGLAND |
Hampshire |
Nearest neighbours |
|
Household includes dependent children |
52% |
51% |
47% |
52% |
48% |
51% |
|
Physical disability / ill health |
18% |
12% |
15% |
12% |
13% |
15% |
|
Mental health problems |
8% |
10% |
12% |
10% |
12% |
12% |
|
Household includes a pregnant woman |
3% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
|
Domestic abuse |
4% |
7% |
7% |
8% |
6% |
5% |
|
Young applicant |
4% |
2% |
2% |
2% |
3% |
2% |
|
Old age |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
|
Homeless because of emergency |
1% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
|
Other |
7% |
6% |
5% |
5% |
7% |
5% |
|
Vulnerable with children |
2% |
8% |
5% |
7% |
5% |
6% |
The percentage reasons for ending a main duty are shown in Figure
52. These are broadly similar to comparator areas but with a
slightly higher percentage of duties ending in an accepted offer of
social housing and a lower percentage ending in a private rented
sector offer – the reverse of the position for ending
prevention and relief duties.
|
Figure 52: Reasons for the ending of a main duty April 2023 to September 2024 |
||||||
|
|
New Forest |
South East |
South West |
ENGLAND |
Hampshire |
Nearest neighbours |
|
Housing Act 1996 Pt6 social housing offer - accepted |
77% |
73% |
75% |
72% |
69% |
75% |
|
Housing Act 1996 Pt6 social housing offer - refused |
0% |
2% |
2% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
|
Private rented sector offer - accepted |
4% |
7% |
5% |
7% |
8% |
7% |
|
Private rented sector offer - refused |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
Voluntarily ceased to occupy |
6% |
7% |
6% |
5% |
8% |
6% |
|
Refused suitable TA offer, withdrew or lost contact |
9% |
6% |
8% |
7% |
7% |
7% |
|
Became intentionally homeless from TA |
3% |
5% |
4% |
4% |
5% |
4% |
|
Ceased to be eligible |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
Not known |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
5. Securing Accommodation
Housing
in New Forest
According to MHCLG data for 2024[32]
6.2% (5,205) of dwellings in New Forest are local authority owned
with 4.2% (3,530) owned by Registered Providers (RP)s. This
compares with an average for the Hampshire districts of 3.4% of
dwellings owned by local authorities and 10.6% owned by RPs.
Figure 53 shows the proportion of dwellings in 2021 which were owner occupied, private rented or social housing for all the Hampshire districts. Since the 2021 data[33], this information has not been published.
Figure 53
Overall, New Forest has a lower proportion of housing let as social
housing than the average for the Hampshire districts, around the
average proportion of private rented accommodation, and higher than
average owner occupation.
However, as a stock retaining authority, boosted by the fact that
New Forest has a common allocations policy which allocates to 100%
of social rented housing in the area, New Forest has more control
than some of its neighbours on who is allocated social
housing.
Social Housing Allocations
New Forest’s allocations policy operates
on a choice-based lettings basis and has four priority bands.
Band 1: Emergency Need to Move includes urgent
management moves; urgent health and well being; emergency
disrepair; and moves due to risk of violence or serious
harassment.
Band 2: Serious Need to Move includes
those with a main homelessness duty, where it has been assessed
that they cannot be expected to move to private rented sector
accommodation; under-occupation of social housing by 2 or
more bedrooms; severe overcrowding; move on from Care or supported
housing; and less urgent health and wellbeing or disrepair issues
that do not qualify for Band 1.
Band 3: Need to Move includes lower levels of
overcrowding; lower levels of health and wellbeing; some current or
former members of the Armed Forces; those owed a homelessness
prevention or relief duty; some transfers from other local
authorities under the Right to Move scheme; some types of
homelessness risk where no duty is owed; some key workers; people
owed a main homelessness duty but who can access the private rented
sector.
Band 4: Lower Need to Move
The New Forest allocations policy is to be
reviewed in the near future.
In practice in the calendar year 2024, based on information
supplied by the council:
· 443 properties were let
· 54 of the let properties were to households in Band 1 – Urgent housing need to move.
· 162 of the let properties were to applicants in Band 2 with the housing need reasons ‘full homelessness duty’
o Bedsits – 4 (households)
o 1 bed – 56
o 2 bed – 60
o 3 bed – 39
o 4 bed – 1
o 5 bed
– 1
· 22 of the let properties were to applicants in Band 3 with the housing need reasons ‘accepted prevention and relief duty’
o Bedsits – 4 (households)
o 1 bed – 14 – these allocations were all non-standard general needs accommodation – Extra Care, Rural Parish Connection, age restricted.
o 2 bed
– 4 – 1 general needs, 2 rural parish connections, 1
Extra Care
· 28 of the let properties were to applicants in Band 3 with the housing need reasons ‘threatened with homelessness’
o Bedsits – 4 (households)
o 1 bed – 1 – these allocations were all non-standard general needs accommodation – Extra Care, Rural Parish Connection, age restricted.
o 2 bed
– 6 – these allocations were all non-standard general
needs accommodation – Extra Care, Rural Parish Connection,
age restricted.
In other words, in total 212 lettings out of 443 were as a result of homelessness or risk of homelessness i.e. 48% of all lettings, including 37% of lettings going to households owed a main homelessness duty.
The 1,989 households waiting on the allocations system for accommodation at the end of May 2025 were grouped into the following bands and band reasons:
· Band 1 – 32
· Band 2 – 410 of which are in the following housing need bands:
o 215 - Full homeless duty
o 5 - Assessed to move on from supported accommodation
o 119 – High Health and Wellbeing
o 6 – High state of disrepair
o 45 – Severally overcrowded
o 20 -
Under occupied by 2 bedrooms in social housing
· Band 3 – 657 of which are in the following housing need bands:
o 47 – under occupying by 1 bedroom
o 34 - Armed forces
o 255 – overcrowded by 1 bedroom
o 99 – homelessness Prevention or relief duty
o 118 – threatened with homelessness
o 1 – keyworker
o 102
– medium health and wellbeing
· Band 4 – 890
In other words, of the 1,099[34]
households waiting in Bands 1 to 3, 39% have homeless or risk of
homelessness as a band reason including 20% with a main
homelessness duty.
This shows that the proportion of lettings to households who are
homeless or at risk of homelessness is greater than the proportion
of those waiting for an allocation (in Bands 1 to 3). This is also
true for those with a main homelessness duty, who are the most
likely to be in temporary accommodation.
Overall, this suggests that, within the number of lettings available, the allocations system is operating effectively to accommodate those with homelessness as a band reason rather than not doing so because of factors such as local lettings policies, perceived risk of accommodating homeless households, blockages to allocations such as rent arrears in TA, homeless households not bidding etc.
This does assume, however that those who should be registered on the allocation system as waiting for a let are registered. It also does not account for any blockages or barriers to individual households which may prevent them receiving an allocation.
The number of households in TA in New Forest in September 2024 was 323, of whom 294 were owed a main homelessness duty. Comparing this with the 215 households owed a main homelessness duty waiting for an allocation, there does appear to be a possibility that a significant proportion of those in TA are not registered.
Taken at face value, this data would suggest
that around 25% of households in TA who have had a main duty
accepted are not registered on the allocation system.
We are aware from conversations with council officers that there
had historically been an issue with households in TA not being
registered on the allocations system, but that considerable work
has taken place to improve the position on this. All
new cases are expected to be registered. A proportion of households
historically housed within the council stock had not been
registered. However, these cases are being resolved.
Private rented accommodation
Looking at private rented accommodation, ONS data[35]
shows that following the pattern in much of the country rents have
been rising rapidly recently as shown in Figure 54, whilst the
Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate has been frozen since April
2024.
Figure 54
According to the ONS, the average monthly
private rent in New Forest was £1,221 in May 2025. This was
an increase from £1,133 in May 2024, a 7.7% rise.
The New Forest District Council area falls across three separate
Broad Rental Market Areas (BRMAs):
- Southampton BRMA – This covers most of the New Forest council area, including the majority of settlements within the district
- Bournemouth BRMA – Encompasses parts of the district around Ringwood
- Salisbury BRMA – Covers areas such as Fordingbridge
As market rents in New Forest are slightly
higher than in Southampton, the percentage of properties available
in New Forest at LHA rents or below is likely to be lower than
average for the Southampton BRMA. However, this is not necessarily
the case when comparing New Forest to Bournemouth within the
Bournemouth BRMA, where ONS data tends to suggest that Bournemouth
rents are, on average, even less affordable compared to LHA
levels than New Forest.
Looking at affordability of private rented accommodation based on
the percentage of private renters income taken up by rent, the
latest ONS estimates are from 2023[36].
These show a rent to income affordability ratio of 31.2% in New
Forest. This is the highest of any of the Hampshire districts
except Winchester (32.8%), around the same as Bournemouth
Christchurch and Poole (31.5%), considerably higher than Dorset
(26.4), and slightly higher than Southampton (29.2%). This places
New Forest above the affordability benchmark level of 30% income
going on rent, and places it as relatively expensive compared to
most neighbouring areas.
Turning to the council’s use of temporary accommodation, at the end of September 2024, New Forest had 323 households in TA, of whom 183 were households which included dependent children. Figure 55 shows the trend in quarterly TA numbers from March 2021 to September 2024 in New Forest and demonstrates a gradual fall in number over the period.
Figure 55 
The fall in TA numbers in New Forest goes against national and regional trends of increasing TA use, as shown in Figure 56, which compares the number of households in TA per thousand households in New Forest, the South East, South West and England.
Figure 56
Although New Forest’s use of TA has been falling, it is still the highest of the Hampshire districts compared to populations size, both in the total number of households in TA and the number of families in TA, as shown in Figure 57.
Figure 57
Comparing the number of households in TA per thousand households with comparator areas in Figure 58, the position for both total households and families is that New Forest has substantially higher TA than the Hampshire district average, the ONS near neighbour average and the South West, but around the same as the South East, and substantially lower than for England as a whole.
Figure 58
Types of TA
Figure 59 compares the proportion of different types of TA used in New Forest and comparator areas reported at the end of September 2024. At that time, 48% of new Forest’s TA was private sector leased (PSL), 28% TA using its own housing stock, 8% B&B, 7% hostels including women’s refuges, 6% self-contained nightly paid accommodation, and 2.5% ‘other’.
Compared to other areas, New Forest has
substantially more PSL and substantially less self-contained
nightly paid accommodation. This is positive as both the stability
and standards of PSL accommodation are in general higher than
nightly paid accommodation. This is reinforced by interviews with
officers, who state that the quality of almost all New
Forest’s TA is very good.
New Forest also has a low proportion of its TA as B&B compared
to the average in comparator areas.
New Forest also has a very low proportion of its TA (1%) in another
local authority area, compared to 19% for the South East, 6% South
West, 31% England[37],
15% in Hampshire and 13% in ONS near neighbours.
Figure
59
Accommodation
duties in TA
New Forest’s performance on TA also appears positive when
looking at the duty under which households are accommodated with
91% being accommodated being owed a main duty, compared to
significantly lower percentages elsewhere, as shown in Figure 60.
In other areas, typically much higher proportions of households are
accommodated under an interim duty. Whilst there may be several
contributory factors to this, it is likely to show that New Forest
is efficient in making homelessness decisions, so that households
do not spend long periods in TA before their application is
decided.
Figure 60
TA household characteristics
Looking at the household types of those in TA, the position in New
Forest is broadly similar to comparator areas, as shown in Figure
61, with the largest proportion of TA residents being single female
parents (31%) followed by single male adults without dependent
children living in their household (22%).
Figure
61
Use of B&B
It is generally considered that Bed & Breakfast or other
emergency accommodation with shared facilities is the worst form of
TA, and using this accommodation for families with children is
unlawful except in an emergency for a period of less than 6 weeks.
Reducing the use of emergency accommodation is also the first
priority in New Forest’s Corporate plan.
In September 2024, New Forest had 26 households in B&B or other
shared accommodation of whom 12 were families. 5 of the families
had been in B&B for more than 6 weeks. Figure 62 compares
the number of households in B&B in New Forest with the other
Hampshire districts. New Forest had the 4th
highest number of households in B&B in total, behind Havant,
Eastleigh and Test Valley, but had the highest number of families
in B&B of any of the districts.
It is important to note that these statistics include all nightly
paid accommodation with shared facilities accommodation and that
this includes facilities of different types. Only 7 placements
were in commercial hotels such as Premier Inn and Travel Lodge,
with 2 of the 7 being families.
Figure 62
Comparing the number of households in B&B per thousand households with comparator areas in Figure 63, New Forest has lower total use of B&B than the South East, South West or England. However, for families in B&B, New Forest has higher numbers than the South East, South West, Hampshire and ONS near neighbours, although still lower than for England as a whole.
Figure 63
Figure 64 shows, with some fluctuations including a spike in June
2022, a falling trend in the total use of B&B in New Forest
between March 2021 and September 2024, but without a corresponding
fall in the number of families in B&B.
Figure 64
Quality
of provision
It is worth noting that discussions with accommodation suppliers,
council officers and a small number of service users suggest that
the quality of temporary accommodation used by New Forest is good,
with even the emergency accommodation being of good quality
compared to much emergency accommodation elsewhere.
It also appears from discussions with stakeholders that New Forest are scrupulous in assessing who should go into which types of TA in which location, doing their best to minimise disruption to support networks and to children’s education. This is particularly important due to the lack of regular public transport connecting some parts of the New Forest council area.
The council’s preferred forms of TA
include accommodation that has been specifically developed,
purchased and/or converted by the council to use as TA and also PSL
properties sourced from private landlords.
The council confirmed they had 109 PSL properties at the end of May
2025 and have done considerable work in recent years improving the
quality of PSL accommodation.
New accommodation supply
The number of PSL properties appears to have remained fairly steady
in recent years. While some landlords will exit the scheme at the
end of leases there is also an active programme to bring on new PSL
properties, with a dedicated officer responsible for this
activity.
The council has delivered 76 new TA units through acquisitions
development and conversions in the period 2018 to 2024, including
16 units supported by the government’s Local Authority
Housing Fund (LAHF).
The council also delivered 6 new accommodation units for people
with experience of sleeping rough with support from the government
NSAP capital funding programme, and a 7 unit scheme with support
from the RSAP scheme.
The above demonstrate that the council has been active in
developing new accommodation to address different forms of
homelessness, and has made effective use of government capital
funding programmes to support this.
Although we did not visit any of the new TA or rough sleeping
accommodation, reports of those consulted during the review
indicate that it is of high quality.
There is also a pipeline of new TA in development including a mix
of family unts and 1 bed flats expected to become available in the
next two years, with the council actively seeking new development
opportunities.
In terms of total affordable housing development, including TA, the
council and housing associations have delivered a cumulative total
of 375 units between 2018/19 and 2024/25 and currently expect
to deliver around 406 additional units between 2025/26 and the end
of 2028/29.
It is probable that these numbers will increase as a result of the
additional funding for affordable housing recently announced in the
2025 Spending Review, and the government’s Planning reforms.
However, development in New Forest is constrained by the fact that
much of the district is a national park.
Support needs of those owed a homelessness duty
Figure 65 shows that the
percentage of households owed a homelessness prevention or relief
duty recorded as having one or more support needs is significantly
higher in New Forest than in comparator areas. In total, 93% of
those owed a duty in New Forest had at least one support need
recorded, compared with 55% in the South East, 63% in the South
West and 62% in the Hampshire districts.
It seems highly unlikely that this can be wholly due to higher
support needs amongst those approaching New Forest. It is much more
likely to be mainly due to good practice in New Forest in being
scrupulous on both assessing and recording support needs amongst
those who apply. As set out above, the higher recording of support
needs at prevention and relief duty stage in New Forest does not
lead to a higher proportion of main duty assessments of priority
need.
Figure 65
Figure 66 looks in more detail at the support needs recorded in New
Forest and other areas.
|
Figure 66. Percentage of those owed a prevention or relief duty with different support needs, April 2023 to September 2024 |
||||||
|
Support need |
New Forest |
South East |
South West |
ENGLAND |
Hampshire districts |
ONS nearest neighbours |
|
History of mental health problems |
62% |
26% |
34% |
27% |
31% |
34% |
|
Physical ill health and disability |
43% |
19% |
24% |
20% |
21% |
24% |
|
At risk of / has experienced domestic abuse |
28% |
11% |
14% |
12% |
13% |
15% |
|
Offending history |
25% |
7% |
11% |
8% |
9% |
11% |
|
History of repeat homelessness |
25% |
6% |
11% |
7% |
8% |
11% |
|
Drug dependency needs |
11% |
6% |
8% |
6% |
7% |
7% |
|
History of rough sleeping |
31% |
5% |
10% |
6% |
8% |
11% |
|
Alcohol dependency needs |
9% |
5% |
7% |
5% |
6% |
7% |
|
Learning disability |
29% |
6% |
9% |
6% |
8% |
10% |
|
Young person aged 18-25 years requiring support to manage independently |
9% |
4% |
5% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
|
Access to education, employment or training |
42% |
4% |
6% |
5% |
7% |
12% |
|
At risk of / has experienced abuse (non-domestic abuse) |
9% |
3% |
5% |
3% |
3% |
5% |
|
At risk of / has experienced sexual abuse / exploitation |
14% |
2% |
4% |
2% |
4% |
5% |
|
Old age |
3% |
2% |
3% |
2% |
2% |
3% |
|
Care leaver aged 18-20 years |
3% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
|
Care leaver aged 21-24 years |
1% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
Care leaver aged 25+ years |
2% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
|
Care leaver aged 21+ years (retired option) |
1% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
|
Young person aged 16-17 years |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
Young parent requiring support to manage independently |
2% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
|
Former asylum seeker |
0% |
2% |
2% |
3% |
1% |
2% |
|
Served in HM Forces |
4% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
Victim of modern slavery |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Difficulties budgeting |
30% |
6% |
8% |
5% |
9% |
12% |
62% of all those owed a prevention or relief
duty in New Forest are recorded as having a history of mental
health problems, with 43% having physical ill health or a
disability, 42% lacking access to education, employment or
training, 31% having a history of rough sleeping, 30% with
difficulties budgeting, 29% with a learning disability, 28% at risk
of, or having experienced domestic abuse, 25% with an offending
history and 25% with a history of repeat homelessness.
On average across all the support needs listed, any given support
need was 2 to 3 times more likely to be recorded by New Forest than
in the comparator areas.
A question which arises from this and not answered by the published
data, is to what extent these support needs, having been
identified, were able to be addressed by the council and its
partners.
Anecdotally, discussions with stakeholders and council officers
suggested that New Forest is unusually scrupulous, compared to some
other local authorities in following up with clients who have
been placed in emergency accommodation to address any issues which
arise.
On the other hand, there may be a lack of supported accommodation
below the threshold for Supported Living accommodation provided
under the Care Act, and there is no Housing First provision in New
Forest.
It is hard to be sure what impacts this has, but there is
accommodation for people with complex needs in the Tourlands scheme
for example, and the Council has clearly been successful in
reducing rough sleeping to a minimum in recent years.
Conversations with Hampshire Children’s Services suggest that
New Forest Council engages well with Children’s Services
around provision for care leavers, and regularly attends joint
meetings with Children’s services to discuss cases. The
council is also reported to have worked hard at building
relationships with Children’s services officers and is an
active participant in the ‘Hampshire Care Leavers Joint
Working Housing Protocol’[38]
established in 2023.
Discussions with Hampshire Adult Services also indicate that the
council works well with the county’s adult social services
around people with complex needs, including people who have
experienced street homelessness and people being discharged from
hospital. There are a number of Supported Living schemes in the New
Forest area, which can be used to accommodate people who have
experienced homelessness where this is appropriate. New Forest was
praised for making prompt referrals when social care input is
needed, and for being willing to work constructively to find
solutions for service users. The council also regularly attends
joint meetings.
Two possible areas for greater cooperation, could be to have more
rapid co-ordination of professionals around the duty to refer e.g.
to set up a multi-agency call, and to work together between Adults
and New Forest housing officers to provide support tenants who
self-neglect.
Discussions with prison and probation services also indicate good
working relationships with the council and appropriate joint
working to prevent and relieve homelessness amongst those being
released from prison.
Specialist workers are employed within the homelessness team
working on mental health and on accommodation for ex-offenders.
There are also two workers within the homelessness team working on
Ukraine resettlement.
The council’s relationship with Sovereign Network Group
(SNG), the leading RP in the area was also described positively by
SNG.
Voluntary sector collaboration
We also spoke to Citizens Advice; The Crossings; and Youth and
Family matters, Totton all of whom work in the community with
people who may be homeless or at risk of homelessness through
drop-ins, advice sessions, phone calls etc.
All of these organisations reported very positive relationships
with the council’s housing options service, with officers for
the council attending regular drop in sessions organised by
voluntary groups, and being reported as supportive and willing to
give advice and help and to take responsibility where needed e.g.
if a homelessness duty might be owed.
This relationship between the council and these community groups
can be highly complementary, as typically the voluntary sector
groups may be more physically accessible to service users and able
to spend more time working with them than the council realistically
could.
The one criticism of the council raised by all
three groups was that the council’s housing options services
are not always very accessible for someone without an advocate
acting on their behalf, due to the complex nature of the
information required by the council and the difficulty sometimes of
getting through on the telephone.
The council has also approved a domestic abuse strategy 2025 to
2028[39]
for formal consultation which is aligned to the Hampshire Domestic
Abuse Strategy 2023 to 2025[40],
and sets out how New Forest is implementing the Domestic Abuse Act
2021.
This includes a statement that: ‘NFDC Housing Services is at
the forefront of delivering services to survivors of domestic abuse
including providing early housing advice, housing options,
prevention and homelessness services to survivors. We also
engage with alleged perpetrators of domestic abuse, signposting to
specialist support services. We also provide a fully funded
additional security scheme, allowing victims survivors to remain in
their homes through enhanced security measures, should they
choose.’
All the external stakeholders we spoke to as part of the review,
from social services to the voluntary sector, to emergency
accommodation providers, were full of praise for New Forest
District Council in the way the council works with them in areas
related to homelessness and housing need, emphasising the diligence
of staff compared to some other local authorities, the efforts the
council has made to engage with them and the positive attempts at
joint working.
It was also clear from a meeting with a small
number of representatives of the New Forest tenant’s group,
that at least amongst those attending the discussion, the council
is trusted to work sensitively with people and to do it’s
best to help address their needs. One member of the group who had
been in TA about three years ago did report a very high number of
moves between different types of emergency accommodation over about
10 months, but despite this very challenging experience she was at
pains to point out that within the constraints the council had they
did their best to make sure the all the placements were suitable
and within areas where she could continue to access services and
her child could continue to attend school,
In the context of this positive feedback, a desire was also
expressed by both external stakeholders and some New Forest
officers for more support for key groups, especially for drug users
in New Forest with high levels of self-neglect, residents of
temporary accommodation with unaddressed support needs, and care
leavers who have had to go into generic TA, but who would benefit
from dedicated private rented sector accommodation or other
training flat ‘provision’ where support could be
provided by Children’s services. This latter would be
building on an existing scheme of this type, which New Forest has
set up with SDM property group.
A lack of suitable move on accommodation was also raised by one
emergency accommodation proprietor, who cited an example of a
single woman with support needs who had been moved into unsupported
PRS accommodation in Bournemouth and subsequently disappeared, as a
result of more suitable provision not being available.
Like all other local housing authorities, New Forest is impacted by
the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. The key
provisions of the act are that it:
· Enables locally led licensing of supported (exempt) housing schemes in England.
· Mandates National Supported Housing Standards covering property quality and support.
· Introduces a duty for local authorities to produce strategic supported housing plans.
·
Establishes an expert advisory panel to monitor the sector.
Consultation ended in May 2025 on the future
shape of locally led licensing, national supported housing
standards, and potential housing benefit reforms.
The government is expected to publish its response
to the consultation responses and to set out draft regulations,
probably in late 2025. The licensing regime should roll out locally
once regulations in place.
Local authorities will then be required to develop five-year
supported housing strategies looking at supply and demand for
supported housing, probably from 2026 onwards.
7. Resources for Tackling Homelessness
Homelessness provision in New Forest is
provided through a variety of sources. Whilst the main provider of
services is New Forest District Council, important contributions
are also made by Care Leavers teams and Family Help teams in
Hampshire Children’s Services and by Mental Health and
Substance Misuse teams, Learning Difficulties teams and sometimes
Older People teams in Hampshire Adult Services.
In common with the other Hampshire Districts, New Forest has
recently lost grant funding from Hampshire to provide housing
related support to people with experience of homelessness, dating
back from the former Supporting People programme. However, this is
largely offset by recent increases in homelessness funding from
MHCLG.
Prison and Probation services, Health Services and Job Centre Plus
also all work with the council in different ways to prevent and
relieve homelessness and to provide support to people who have
experienced homelessness.
The council also has an important role to play
in preventing homelessness through its housing management function
for council tenants, with housing associations playing a similar
role.
In the period April 2023 to September 2024, only 19 households were
recorded by New Forest as being owed a prevention or relief duty as
a result of a general needs social housing tenancy ending, compared
to 287 prevention and relief duties as a result of the end of a
private sector tenancy, indicating that social landlords in New
Forest are doing a good job of preventing evictions.
However, these figures do not include those households who become
homeless as a result of being evicted by their parents from social
housing or fleeing domestic abuse taking place within social
housing, which are likely to be significantly higher but cannot be
determined from the published statistics.
The voluntary and community sector also play a role in preventing homelessness.
In New Forest, Citizens Advice and faith-based
organisations The Crossings and Youth and Family Matters, play an
important role in supporting people with housing issues and have a
good relationship with the council. We understand that the council
is interested in building relationships with other faith-based
groups.
However the most important organisation in preventing and relieving
homelessness, tackling rough sleeping, and providing accommodation
for those who experience homelessness is the council.
The resources required to do this are
significant. They include providing a housing options service
carrying out homelessness prevention, homelessness relief,
homelessness assessment, work with rough sleepers and specialist
work around Ukraine resettlement, mental health and work with
ex-offenders.
The council also incurs homelessness related costs in legal
services, allocations, IT and rent accounting, and management and
maintenance costs for the council’s in house TA and PSL
properties.
Net general fund[41]
expenditure on homelessness and allocations more than doubled
between 2020/21 and 2024/25 as shown in Figure 67. However, a
modest decrease in net expenditure is forecast in the 2025/26
budget.
Figure 67
The increase in net expenditure between
2020/21 and 2024/25 is despite a significant increase in grant from
MHCLG over the period from just over £1m in 2020/21 to over
£1.7m in 2025/26. As can be seen in Figure 68, the major
drivers of the increase in council costs are the increase in the
net costs of B&B and of PSL accommodation.
However, B&B is much more expensive per household to the council than PSL. Based on an estimated average[42] of around 25 households in B&B during 2024/25 and 150 households in PSL, the net cost of B&B to New Forest per household was over 10 times the net cost of PSL per household.
Figure 68
The best way to reduce the costs of homelessness to the council and
to improve the experience of households would be to decrease the
use of B&B.
This can in principle be achieved through three mechanisms:
1. more homelessness prevention and relief so that less people need to go in to TA
2. moving people out of TA more quickly into social rented or private rented accommodation
3. increasing
the use of TA which is less expensive and better quality than
B&B, such as PSL and council owned TA.
8.Consultation
As part of this review an online survey was
conducted over 1 month between 6th June and
6th July 2025. The survey was advertised by the
council to households in TA and other households who had used the
council’s homelessness and housing advice services in the
last few years.
In total 55 people began filling in the survey. 82% of these had
approached the service but 18% had not. Those who said they had not
approached the service were automatically disqualified, so that 45
people continued with the survey. Respondents were free to answer
individual questions or to skip any they did not wish to
answer.
The length of time since respondents had first approached the
council is shown in Figure 69. This shows a spread between recent
approaches and approaches more than 2 years ago.
Figure 69
Of those responding who did not skip the question, 85% were female and 15% male, with 36% being in a couple with one or more children, 21% single parents, 31% single with no children and 7% couples with no children.
Figure 70
In terms of current accommodation, 28% said they were in TA, 26%
were council tenants, 26% private tenants, 10% housing association
tenants and one home owner.
Figure 71
67% of respondents who didn’t skip the
question said the council had either provided or helped to secure
their current accommodation and 24% said the council had helped
them to keep their current accommodation and prevent them becoming
homeless.
There
was considerable overlap between these groups, so that overall, 69%
of respondents who didn’t skip said that they had been helped
to access or keep their current accommodation by the council. In
subsequent questions, those who said they hadn’t been helped
were more likely to skip questions, so that responses are skewed
towards the views of those who had been helped.
The reasons why people said they had approached the council for
help were, as expected, mainly about homelessness or risk of
homelessness in some form. However, they included several who said
they needed more affordable or more suitable accommodation, or who
needed to get away from their current accommodation for some
reason. For example:
“Need ground floor living due to health
issues”
“Breakdown of relationship”
“Was homeless, living in a car for 6 years”
“For my mother who came from Ukraine on the family scheme because of the war”
“I'm paying extortionate monthly rental in a private property whilst studying as a mature student to be a teacher; on a low income. I simply cannot afford it but I need to house my son.”
“I was in expensive private rented accommodation”
“Section 21 issued by current landlord” – there were several of these
“Need for an adapted property”
“Because we were in private rented & would have been made homeless if they’d not been able to help by offering us a housing association house.”
“To find an affordable secure property to rent”
“To rehouse my daughter who is being stalked by her neighbour and who was sexually assaulted in her home”
“90 and 81 year old living in a 1st floor flat no bus route husband disabled needing ground floor accommodation”
“Ran a pub and was being evicted due to ceasing trading”
When
asked what the result was of seeking help from the council,
responses were quite mixed. For example, on the positive
side:
“We were safely & securely housed!”
“Housed in an appropriate property”
“I received emergency accommodation then temporary accommodation then my own flat.”
“I got really perfect help and I am grateful for it”.
Unfortunately, more negative responses were more common. It is
possible that those who were not happy were more motivated to
respond to the survey, but:
“No help”
“Nothing”
“Very limited, no financial support with the deposit or
rent”
“Nothing for years, now in a bedsit”
“No help. I am listed in category 4 on Home Search and I seem
to have no chance of gaining an affordable property to house myself
and my son. I'm stretching my finances so broadly at the moment,
its incredibly hard to live and stay healthy whilst doing
so.”
“Added to housing list but told after 8yrs i had gone to
bottom of list because I found private rental.”
“Absolutely nothing apart from a missed appointment with the
social worker instigated by the housing officers which she
didn’t turn up for.”
“No help and no response. Waited weeks and weeks, phoned and visited the reception with our completed forms for help.”
“Living in a rented property which was only meant to be temporary. I've been on the waiting list nearly 11 years and recently been told because I'm band 4 I'm likely to never get a property. This is incredibly frustrating because we are struggling where we are, but no one seems interested”
“It is really awful accommodation. Firstly, flat had have normally heater, no hot water in bathrooms and we have to pay double for going to swimming pool and wash there. Secondly, flat has had mould in bedroom. Thirdly, bedbugs in this property. Firstly, we became really homeless and should to sleep in the floor in the kitchen. What do you think is it normally for British?”
“Didn't feel listened to or supported for over a year, when I did after abusive relationship felt a relief but has been a really harmful process”
“Currently living in a 1 bedroom flat with my husband and
3 children (two with SEN)”
Other responses were more matter of fact:
“Emergency housing and now temporary
housing”
“Being placed in NFDC private sector temporary
accommodation”
“I was put in a hotel for 2 days then got moved to emergency
accommodation. An incident happened there as it wasn't the greatest
of places. I then got moved to a B&B and then a temporary
accommodation. (Self contained flat)”
When asked: ‘What were the best things New Forest District
Council did to help you?’, again there were quite a lot of
answers saying “nothing” or words to that
effect.
But other responses were positive or more nuanced, for
example:
“Offering a bedsit after breaking hip on ice while living
in a car”
“Eventually get me into permanent accommodation”
“Communication with the OT”
“Found us a home!”
“Reasonably easy to deal with, acted fairly quickly”
“Not much - rent a garage”
“A very quick referral”
“Once an allocation officer understood our needs progress was made”
“Gave me a new start”
“Communication real assistance treated like person not
number”
“Put a roof over my kids heads”
“Didn’t judge me”
“When I got into my temporary flat finally can breathe”
“The support was amazing”
“Both the housing officers that were allocated to us were
extremely helpful and understanding. We wouldn’t be in this
house without them.”
When asked: ‘What could New Forest have done better?’,
the responses were in some cases quite stark, and quite often
focused on perceived lack of empathy or the bureaucratic nature of
the process. Although there were a small number of responses along
the lines of “I think everything was perfect”,
the following examples are more representative of the general
mood:
“Not be so blinkered to individual needs not everyone fits
in a neat box”
“Everything. I’m homeless, disabled my only company is my little dog. They’ve told me the only way they will Possibly help me is for my dog to be put down or rehomed. At nearly 11 years old”
“Financially support my mum, who is 72 and very little
savings, with the rent and deposit as other Ukrainians
were”
“Put a roof over my head while living in a car with mental
health problems”
“Give more chance to good people who are trying hard in
category 4 banding. I seem to currently have next to no chance of
securing an affordable home for myself and my son. If my landlord
increases my rent, I'm unsure of how we will be able to stay in our
current property. We may not have the greatest need currently, but
we still have need. Don't forget us!”
“Have more staff, as when the Homeless Prevention Officer was
absent through leave or sickness, no one took over my case. Again,
have more staff in the Home Search department, to clear the backlog
of cases awaiting assessment.”
“Found me a property, having lived here for 40 yrs, and being
a single employed parent, with primary age child.”
“Made the system more straight forward, less tick box
exercises, more user friendly application system, Used a decent
company for the DFG grant instead of paying for unfinished work and
unmet promises. Nearly 3 years later the work isn’t finished.
better understanding of the needs of the whole household”
“Not require so many forms and documents. I was lucky to
still have a phone and a place I could print things and had access
to passports and bank statements etc. Most people experiencing
homelessness don't have access to these things.”
“Be more empathetic towards the situation and provide more
resolutions in a quick manor instead of pushing to private rent
when sometimes this is not possible, and more regular updates to
keep the anxiety down. so the people know what is going on instead
of being lost in the system.”
“In early stages there was an almost total lack of genuine
communication. And what little communication there was - was a tick
box exercise and failed to address any questions.”
“Get rid of band 4. It's pointless! All other bands are given
the priority. I've lived in the new forest since 2011, been on the
waiting list for almost 11 years but that doesn't seem to matter.
There should be a period of time where band 4 are on the list and
given a priority over a amount of time. All my children are
neurodivergent and we need support and at least considered for a
property.”
“I think more care needs to be taken with regard to service
users’ emotions, I was left in tears many times by the
housing officer.”
“Not such long wait times to find out what’s going on
leaving us in limbo”
“More communication once in emergency re available property
home search took two months then asked for all same info again
which given when first applied and unable to contact via phone no
reply to email”
“More one to one talks on phone not just emails makes you
feel like a robot, find out more if you talk to a person than an
email otherwise I'm happy with the service they provide”
“Helped more instead of first stating I couldn’t afford a property”
“Took on my case earlier as my mental health was awful having
nowhere stable or comfortable to live and worse not feeling taken
seriously”
“Helped us before it got to bailiffs/ helped us closer to
support network as adviced from GP”
“Been more empathetic. Actually suggest and give options that
a lot of people know to be available but the council try to cover
it up or say its "no longer available"
When asked how satisfied they were with the
overall service provided by the council, responses were mixed, but
with slightly more people saying they were dissatisfied than
satisfied including 23% of respondents who said they were very
dissatisfied.
Figure 72
The comments in response to this question
again tended towards the negative. For example:
“The whole process was incredibly stressful on our whole
family”
“Spoken to like I was a lesser person”
“Feeling scared and sad”
“Takes a toll on your health living in a car for
years.”
The most positive comment also suggested areas for
improvement:
“The homelessness officer who dealt with my case was
great, but the whole process should had been a lot quicker but
understandable with the current housing crisis. If the turn around
times on moving on accommodation was a bit quicker the process
would be a lot smoother. I had 3/4 temporary placements offered to
me in which they had to be taken back due to disrepair on the
property so overall I waited over a year to be placed into self
contained temporary housing. The people in the housing team do all
that they can and keep you updated as long as you are patient even
in a hard time things will work out and they are there to support
you.”
When asked about the result of their approach to the
council’s homelessness and housing advice service, 24% said
they had been helped to move to settled accommodation and 24% said
they had been given a place in TA. Only 11% said NFDC had not been
able to help. However, 41% responded ‘Other (please
specify’, with it being clear from the comments that in most
cases this meant respondents felt they had received no help yet or
were in an unsatisfactory situation such as being in emergency
accommodation.
Figure 73
Those respondents who said they had been placed in TA, were asked
more questions about that TA. Here the results were generally more
positive.
More people were satisfied than dissatisfied with the TA they had
been placed in and with the way their TA was managed. Only 25% of
respondents said they were dissatisfied with the way their TA was
managed.
“General management & day to day liaison was good and
friendly”
“Have a few problems with upstairs neighbours sometimes
slamming doors, banging and arguing late at night and early in
morning makes the flat shake when they slam their door but
otherwise ok”
Figure 73
Figure 74
Repairs and maintenance were also reported on
positively with only 16% dissatisfied, a figure some councils would
envy.
“Very satisfied with day to day maintenance - both call
centre & engineers However bigger problems such as damp etc was
a problem”
Figure 75
50% of respondents were satisfied with the location of their TA,
including 29% very satisfied. This compared with only 21% who were
dissatisfied, although location was a significant issue for some
people:
“I need to be close to my son and I'm not which is highly
upsetting.”
“Family support system is 40 minutes
away, with children with additional needs this is very
hard”
Figure 76
There was, however, more dissatisfaction with options to move out of TA, with 40% dissatisfied, compared with 32% satisfied.
“We have NOT
been given any options at all and have been told to look for
private when we are unable to afford this on our budget and we
would not be left with anything to even afford a day out for our
children”
“Housing association bidding process is just awful! Always
show things for over 60s and rarely properties for younger
generations.”
“We can't bid every week sometimes for a few weeks as there
nothing to bid on”
Questions then moved away from TA and focused on people experience
of the homelessness and housing advice service.
People tended to find it difficult rather than easy to speak to
someone in the service.
“The Homeless Prevention Officer was
often unavailable on the telephone and I had to communicate via
email. Home Search do not use the telephone, only
email.”
“NFDC wish to do everything by email”
“Until near the end contact via email or phone was almost
impossible. With tick-box nebulous responses for the most
part”
But with some exceptions:
“My emails where always dealt with quickly and if I
couldn’t get a response via email I would call and my housing
officer would call me back within 24 hours”
Figure 77
20% of respondents said they were dissatisfied
with how staff treated them personally compared to 36% who were
satisfied and 43% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Comments here were quite polarised:
“Everyone was very understanding and kind.”
“Person that answers my call are always
polite”
But also:
“I was spoken to as if I was a nuisance, no emotional
support offered whatsoever, extremely emotionless responses and no
regard to mental welfare during the process of being
homeless.”
“When I first spoke to a woman she was very rude very blunt
and not empathetic at all. She really couldn't of cared less about
my situation and made me have a full on breakdown.”
Figure 78
Respondents were fairly evenly split on satisfaction with how long
they had to wait for an appointment.
Figure 79
When asked how well they were listened to and understood, 47% said
they were dissatisfied compared to only 34% who were
satisfied.
Only 2 respondents left comments for this question and so these may
not be representative:
“I may as well shout it into the wind”
“Initially almost totally ignored - however (after several
years) once someone actually read paperwork service
improved”
Figure 80
Respondents were fairly evenly divided on how well things were
explained to them. This, however, may not be considered good
enough. Whilst providing suitable housing can be very challenging,
explaining things in a way that service users can understand should
be more achievable.
“I told staff I struggle with forms, phone calls ECT and
it got brushed away”
“Initial responses were just to fob you off”
Figure 81
When asked how helpful the council was in resolving their
situation, 16% of respondents who did not skip the question said
‘extremely helpful’ 16% very helpful, and 19% somewhat
helpful. However, 41% said the council was ‘not so
helpful’ and 9% said ‘not at al helpful’.
Figure 81
Of those who used the council’s website, the most common view
was that the information was ‘somewhat helpful’
Figure 82
Asked about the helpfulness of any written
information they were given, 23% said they had not been given any
written information and 19% said ‘don’t know’. Of
those who expressed an opinion only a small proportion felt the
information was very or extremely helpful. Overall, this suggests
that there is scope to make written information more user
friendly.
“Because I am not very good in spoken English”
“I struggle to read big paragraphs due to medication
amounts”
Figure 83
When asked about their level of satisfaction
with their personal housing plan, 29% said they did not complete a
personal housing plan. As this is a legal requirement for
anyone who approaches the council who is homeless or at risk of
homelessness within 56 days, it suggests that people were not as
involved as they could have been in their PHP or that PHPs may in
some cases be seen as a token exercise.
This is reinforced by the 19% of respondents who said they did not
know how satisfied they were with their PHP. Of those who expressed
an opinion, about the same number were satisfied as dissatisfied.
Figure 84
Finally, people were asked how satisfied they were with the outcome
of their approach to the New Forest homelessness and housing advice
service, a sightly different questions to the one previously asked
about how satisfied they were with the service.
Of those respondents who did not skip the question, 20% were very
satisfied, 23% satisfied, 13% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,
27% dissatisfied and 17% very dissatisfied. As might be expected,
responses here depended significantly on what outcome had in fact
been achieved.
“We gave up so does not apply”
“Eventual outcome was good although Housing Options need to
be more integrated with tenancy team. Found the service to be very
hit and miss - once we were lucky enough to speak with the right
person it went well - Again this is not about hearing what you want
to hear or timing - but about clear and meaningful communication-
giving frank responses and updates - good &
bad”
Figure 85
9. Findings
Our conclusions are set out following the
order of the discussion within this review.
Current levels of homelessness
Based on the number of
homelessness prevention and relief duties accepted per thousand
households between April 2023 and September 2024, recent
homelessness levels in New Forest were 8% higher than the weighted
average for the Hampshire district authorities, but were 18% lower
than average levels in the South East, 19% lower than the South
West and 35% lower than in the whole of England.
Separating this overall figure into households who approached at
risk of homelessness and were owed a prevention duty and those who
were already homeless when they approached and were owed a relief
duty, 56% of those who approached new Forest were at risk of
homelessness compared to 27% who were already homeless.
This is a significantly higher ratio of homelessness prevention to
homelessness relief than in any of the comparator areas, and this
high prevention to relief ratio has been characteristic of New
Forest for some years.
It is highly positive, and something aspired to by other local
authorities, that more people approach New Forest before they
become homeless as this gives a greater opportunity for
homelessness prevention to take place.
Since at least March 2021, overall homelessness demand in New
Forest has, with some fluctuations, been steady, with no indication
of an upward or downward trend in either the number of prevention
or relief duties.
The main reasons for risk of homelessness in New Forest for those
owed a prevention duty are end of a private rented sector assured
shorthold tenancy (34%) followed by exclusion by family and friends
(33%), followed by domestic abuse (6%).
Whilst this is the same ranking order of causes of risk of
homelessness as in comparator areas, proportionally far fewer
households approach New Forest due to the end of a private sector
tenancy than in other areas and proportionally far more approach
due to exclusion by friends and family.
This is emphasised by the reasons for homelessness for those owed a
relief duty. In New Forest 37% of those owed a relief duty were
homeless due to exclusion by friends and family, with 20%
homeless as a result of domestic abuse, and only 8% due to the end
of an AST. 10% of those owed a relief duty had left an institution
with no accommodation available.
Compared to comparator areas, this was a higher proportion of cases
due to family and friends exclusion, and a lower proportion due to
end of an AST, but with a significantly higher proportion of relief
duties owed due to leaving an institution.
It is expected that more people approach when at risk homelessness
due to the end of an AST because notice has to be given by the
landlord. On the other hand, people at risk of domestic abuse are
more likely to be assessed as homeless than at risk of homelessness
because it is deemed unsafe for them to return to their current
accommodation.
Both the number of friends and family exclusions in New Forest
which lead to homelessness, and the level of homelessness due to
domestic abuse, are cause for concern.
It is less clear that homelessness relief duties owed after leaving
an institution is problematic as this may be due to good practice
in the council picking up relief duties for people in that
situation through effective liaison with prisons and
hospitals.
The relatively low level of homelessness from those losing a social
housing tenancy (4% of prevention duties and only 2% of relief
duties) is positive, and New Forest is lucky to have almost no
homelessness as a result of people leaving Home Office asylum
seeker accommodation.
The Duty to Refer process in New Forest
appears to be working well, with 10% of those assessed due to
homelessness or risk of homelessness being referred by a duty to
refer agency. However there are low levels of referrals from
non-duty to refer agencies, which may indicate barriers to access
outside the formal duty to refer process.
The largest number of referrals received come from the probation
service (30% of referrals) followed by referrals from hospitals and
from children’s social services, indicating that referral
pathways from those key agencies are working well.
In terms of the demographics of those owed a homelessness
prevention or relief duty, ethnicity is overwhelmingly white
(97%), reflecting the local population. Household composition and
age group are similar to comparator areas with singe adult males
(36%) and female single parents (21%) to most likely households
types to be owed a duty.
In terms of employment status, those owed a prevention or relief
duty in New Forest were more likely to be in full or part time work
(31%) than comparator areas, and far less likely to be registered
unemployed (16%). More of those owed a homelessness duty in New
Forest were not working due to illness or disability (22%) than in
comparator areas.
A striking finding is that 41% of those
successfully accommodated[43]
to end a prevention duty and 52% of those successfully accommodated
to end a relief duty came from outside New Forest – a much
higher proportion than any of the comparator areas and about twice
as high as in the South East or South West
regions.
Although levels of rough sleeping are notoriously prone to
fluctuations for reasons outside the easy control of any local
authority, and therefore there is no room for complacency, New
Forest has been extremely successful in recent years in reducing
the level of rough sleeping. The annual published snapshot figure
fell from a peak of 22 people sleeping out on a single night
in Autumn 2019 to one person in Autumn 2024.
Comparing the 2024 figures with comparator areas, the rate of rough
sleeping per 100,000 population in New Forest is not only
much lower than any of the comparator areas but has also been
falling against both the national and regional trends.
This same pattern is also clear when looking at the number of
people estimated to be sleeping rough over the course of any given
month, with the New Forest figure of around 6 people consistently
much lower than either the regional or national average, since at
least the end of 2022.
It is unlikely that this is due to a reduction in the potential for
rough sleeping in New Forest as a result of demographic changes,
and much more likely that the reduction is due to the good quality
of the council’s outreach work and its good use of the
additional revenue and capital funding available to counter street
homelessness, especially since the Everyone In initiative during
the Covid 19 lockdown from March
2020.
There is no accepted model with a
good track record for predicting future homelessness or rough
sleeping.
The most thorough attempt at this in England has been the
projections of ‘core homelessness’ published in the
Crisis homelessness monitor.
According to this model, on current trends[44],
core homelessness in England will continue to rise significantly
until at least 2041. Having said this, as discussed above New
Forest’s homelessness demand has not been rising during a
period when homelessness demand has been rising across most of the
country.
The Crisis model also offers hope that national homelessness could
stabilise or even fall if certain policies were adopted by the
government. Some, but not all of these policy changes are being
attempted by the current government and there is also a new
national homelessness strategy due in Autumn 2025 , which may have
a positive impact.
In terms of local issues, New Forest has both relatively high
levels of child poverty after housing costs compared to the
Hampshire districts, and a very high house price to median earnings
ratio, bit of which are likely to contribute to homelessness
pressures. However, this has been the case for many years and
neither of these statistics are currently on a rising trend.
Our conclusion is that the most prudent assumption is that
homelessness pressures in New Forest will remain at approximately
current levels with the possibility that they may rise or fall
somewhat in the near future. At this point there is no clear
evidence that homelessness in New Forest is likely to rise markedly
or to fall.
New Forest is currently investing on increased homelessness
prevention activity, with the addition new staff paid for through
increased homelessness funding from MHCLG.
However, we note that there is comparatively little activity from
the council to provide housing advice and to fulfil its duty to do
so under S179 of the Housing Act 1996. There is little to no
housing advice on the council’s website and little if any
signposting to where such advice might be obtained.
The council’s website in fact specifically discourages anyone
from approaching them for housing advice, short of making a
formal self-referral for homelessness or risk of homelessness using
the online portal.
This message is reinforced by telephone message for anyone who,
against the council’s explicit instructions, tries to
telephone them for advice or help before they are at immediate risk
of homelessness.
Still less is there any tailored advice available for the at risk
groups specified in the Act for whom tailored advice is
required.
We therefore have to conclude that the council is falling short of
its legal responsibilities to provide housing advice and as a
result is also missing an opportunity to prevent potential
homelessness at an earlier stage.
Lack of easy access to help before homelessness is imminent was
also raised by the voluntary sector groups we spoke to, who were
otherwise very complementary about the council’s
work.
In the period April 2023 to September 2024 New Forest ended more
prevention duties per thousand households than the average in any
of the comparator areas, indicating significant opportunities to
prevent homelessness.
47% of these duties ended successfully through
the securing of accommodation for at least 6 months, lower than the
average success rate in any of the comparator areas.
Amongst those cases where homelessness was successfully prevented
74% moved to alternative accommodation and only 24% were able to
remain in their existing accommodation, in line with the Hampshire
district average but a lower proportion able to remain in existing
accommodation than any other comparator area.
There were particularly low success rates in New Forest in
preventing homelessness by negotiation, mediation and advocacy
work.
There were also low recorded rates of success in the local
authority securing accommodation to prevent homelessness, but high
levels of success in applicants finding their own
accommodation.
Compared to other areas, a large amount of homelessness was
prevented through securing private rented accommodation but very
little by securing social rented accommodation or supported
housing.
59% of accommodation secured to end a homelessness prevention duty
was recorded as being within the New Forest area, a lower
percentage than the average for any of the comparator areas.
Over time since March 2021, although still slightly lower than
average and with some fluctuations, New Forest’s performance
in preventing homelessness has been increasing compared to the
comparator areas, as measured by the percentage of prevention
duties ending with a successful prevention.
In the period April 2023 to
September 2024, New Forest ended a slightly higher number of
homelessness relief duties per thousand households than the
Hampshire district average, but a lower number than any of the
other comparator areas.
23% of relief duties ending in New Forest ended by successfully
securing accommodation for 6 months or more, significantly lower
than the average in any other comparator area. By contrast 67% of
relief duties ended by 56 days elapsing without successful
homelessness relief, significantly higher than the average in any
of the comparator areas.
Compared to comparator areas, almost no homelessness reliefs were
recorded as being achieved by the local authority securing
accommodation or providing supported housing.
On the other hand, a very high percentage of successful reliefs
were achieved by the applicant finding their own accommodation and
the local authority supporting this though a financial
payment.
As discussed in the body of the report, this may be at least partly
due to mis-recording of cases where the council was in fact
instrumental in securing private rented accommodation. It is also
very commendable if applicants are indeed being empowered to find
their own accommodation.
Even more strikingly, New Forest Homelessness reliefs were
overwhelmingly into private rented accommodation, a far higher
percentage of this type of homelessness relief than in the
comparator areas. By contrast, only 6% of New Forest homelessness
reliefs were into the social rented sector, compared to 39% for
Hampshire, 50% for the South East, 57% for the South West, 56% for
England.
This is likely to be partly a result of the New Forest allocations
policy not prioritising those under a relief duty. Whilst there are
competing priorities for allocations of limited social
housing and no clear cut answer to what is best practice in this
area, it is clear that, compared to many other areas, New Forest is
not ending many homelessness relief duties in social rented
accommodation.
Only 48% of accommodation used to relieve homelessness by New
Forest was within the New Forest area, a much lower percentage than
the average in any if the comparator areas, with 42% being
accommodation in another local authority[45].
In contrast to New Forest’s improving relative performance on
homelessness prevention since March 2021 compared to other areas,
the council’s performance on relief has, with some
significant fluctuations, fallen significantly from 37% of relief
duties ending in securing settled accommodation in Q4 2020/21 to
19% in Q2 2024/25, a faster fall than in England, the South East or
the South West[46].
In the period April 2023 to
September 2024, New Forest accepted less main duties er thousand
households than the South East, South West or England, but 40% more
than the average for the Hampshire districts and more than the
average for ONS near neighbours.
In all cases New Forest had a higher ratio of
main duties to prevention and relief duties accepted in the period
than any of the comparator areas. This was especially clear when
compared with the Hampshire districts and ONS near neighbours. New
Forest accepted 8% more prevention and relief duties than the
average for the Hampshire districts but 40% more main duties.
As the percentage outcomes of main duty decisions was very similar
across all the comparator areas, this leads to the conclusion that
New Forest’s relatively low success rates in preventing and
especially in relieving homelessness is leading to more main duties
being accepted and therefore to more households being placed in
TA.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that, as New Forest had a
higher ratio of prevention to relief duties than average, it might
be expected that fewer of those households would progress to a main
duty, as homelessness is normally easier to prevent than to
relieve.
Having made this point, it is also true that New Forest‘s
relative main duty numbers have improved over the period Q1 2020/21
to Q2 2024/25 compared to the South East, South West, and England.
New Forest had the highest number of main duties per thousand
households compared to the other areas in Q1 2020/21 and the lowest
number of main duties compared to the other areas in Q2
2024/25.
According to ONS data from 2021,
New Forest’s housing stock was 75% owner occupied, 15%
private rented, and 11% social rented[47].
Compared to the other Hampshire districts, this is a higher than
average proportion of owner occupied properties, a lower than
average proportion of social rented accommodation and an average
proportion of private rented accommodation.
New Forest is a stock owning authority and benefits from a common
allocations scheme which covers all the council’s properties
and all RP properties in the area.
The allocations policy is choice based with 4 priority bands and is
due to be reviewed. This presents an opportunity to make changes if
needed to make it more effective in helping to tackle
homelessness.
Households with a main homelessness duty are normally in priority
Band 2. Households owed a prevention or relief duty are normally in
Band 3. Data from the calendar year 2024 suggests that the
number of lettings to homeless households at least matches the
proportions of those on the waiting list, indicating that in
general the allocations policy is operating as intended in
allocating properties to households with priority based in
homelessness and that this is not being prevented due to
potential barriers such as local lettings policies, affordability
assessments or support needs assessments.
There is some evidence that not all those in TA are registered on
the allocations system, but we understand that the position in this
has improved significantly.
Private rents in New Forest have risen by 7.7% in the year to May
2025 according to ONS data, whilst LHA has been frozen. Private
rented accommodation is relatively unaffordable in New Forst
compared to most neighbouring councils, but not dramatically
so.
The council reported having 323 households in TA in September 2024
of which 183 included dependent children.
The number of households in TA in New Forest has been falling
gradually since at least March 2021. This is a significant success
compared to the rising national and regional trends over the same
period.
However, New Forest still has more households and more families in
TA per thousand households than any of the other Hampshire
districts.
Compared to comparator areas, New Forest has a significant stock of
PSL accommodation which it maintains to a high standard, and makes
considerably less use of self-contained nightly paid accommodation
than other places.
The council has also been developing and converting new TA held
within its own stock, including specialist accommodation for people
with experience of rough sleeping, funded through government rough
sleeping capital programmes, and accommodation acquired with the
support of the government’s Local Authority Housing Fund.
There is a pipeline of further TA properties coming online within
the next few years and an ambition to provide more in the future as
resources allow.
Although we have not inspected the accommodation, we understand
from both council officers and stakeholders that New Forest’s
TA is of a high standard and is well managed and maintained.
Compared to its population size, New Forest has a low number of
households in Bed & Breakfast or other emergency accommodation
with shared facilities compared to the South East, South West and
England, with the same total use of B&B as the Hampshire
district average, but more than for ONS near neighbours.
However, the number of families in B&B is higher than the
average in any comparator area except the whole of England (where a
comparison is difficult because of the inclusion of London and
other large metropolitan areas with very high homelessness
pressures).
This include some families in B&B for longer than the legal
maximum 6 weeks.
Although, we understand that the B&B accommodation used by New
Forest is well managed and of good quality compared to many other
areas, it is, and should be, a priority for the council to
reduce its use of B&B and to end the placements of families in
B&B for more than 6 weeks.
The total use of B&B by New Forest has fallen significantly
since March 2021, but within that total, the number of families in
B&B has, with some fluctuations, remained at around the same
level over the period.
The council is actively developing new affordable housing, both
itself and with RP partners. Around 375 new homes were delivered
between 2018/19 and 2024/25 and there is an expectation of
delivering around 406 more homes by the end of 2028/29, ignoring
any further increase in delivery which may be possible due to
future funding and planning changes instituted by the current
government.
New Forest is scrupulous is
assessing and recording support needs of those who approach the
council due to homelessness or risk of homelessness, with 93 % of
those owed a prevention or relief duty recorded as having at least
one support need, a much higher proportion than in comparator
areas.
The most common support needs are a history of mental health
problems (62%), physical ill health or disability (43%), and
barriers to education, employment or training (42%). There are also
high percentages of households at risk of domestic abuse, with a
history of rough sleeping, with a learning disability, and with
difficulties budgeting.
It is less clear the extent which it is possible for the council
and its partners to address these issues once identified. The
housing options team employs specialist staff working with
offenders, mental health, rough sleeping and Ukraine
resettlement.
There is also positive joint working with the care leavers team and
other children’s services teams, as well as with the mental
health and substance misuse team in adult services.
There is also access to supported living accommodation for those
who qualify for it.
However there may be a lack of supported accommodation for those
who do not meet the Care Act threshold, and there is no Housing
First scheme which works in New Forest. It was also put to us that
some more vulnerable clients living in TA could be offered more
support than s currently the case.
The council also works well with Citizens Advice and with at least
two faith-based organisations who provide community support to
people in the district who may be at risk of homelessness.
Hampshire children’s and adult social services both expressed
an interest in working more closely with the council in areas such
as provision of training flats for care leavers and in developing a
joint housing and adult social care protocol about addressing self-
neglect.
The requirement on the council to develop a supported housing
strategy following the outcomes of government consultation on
implementing the Supported Housing Act 2023.
Adult services would also be interested in more streamlined
co-ordination between professionals around the Duty to
Refer.
Resources to tackle homelessness
New Forest’s spending on homelessness, including staffing,
emergency and temporary accommodation, homelessness prevention
costs and allocations[48],
has risen rapidly over the past 5 years from £937k net
expenditure in 2020/21 to £2.17m budgeted for in 2025/26.
This is a direct cost to the council after grant income and income
from housing benefits.
However, the budgeted position for 2025/26 does represent a
reduction in net expenditure of £143k in 2025/26 compared to
the previous years actual expenditure.
This increasing cost is despite income from MHCLG grants increasing
markedly from £1.1m pa to £1.7m pa over the same
period.
The largest increases in costs have been in B&B landlord costs,
up £893k (176%) since 2020/21; net PSL costs, up £498k
(330%); and Homelessness service employee costs, up £489k
(72%).
Additional employee costs have in general been funded by additional
MHCLG grant income e.g. for extra services to try to end rough
sleeping. The council is increasing its expenditure on homelessness
prevention in 2025/26 with additional staff as a direct result of
greater MHCLG funding being made available for homelessness
prevention activities. The council is also increasing its joint
work with voluntary sector groups, which should offer value for
money in preventing homelessness.
Additional PSL costs, as we understand it, are partly the result of
improving standards in PSL. PSLs also represent a lower net unit
cost to the council than B&B or emergency accommodation.
The biggest potential area for saving would therefore appear to be
to reduce net expenditure on B&B and other emergency
accommodation. These costs have risen from £151k in 2020/21
to £959k budgeted in 2025/26, with the actual net spend being
£1.29m in 2024/25.
The council’s plans to increase affordable housing supply and
to bring on more dedicated council owned TA supply will help to
reduce the need for emergency accommodation, but it is hard to know
if this will be sufficient to reduce the use of emergency
accommodation.
The council’s PSL scheme performs an important role in
reducing the use of emergency accommodation but comes at a net
budgeted cost of £ 650k in 2025/26.
It could be worth considering expanding the PSL scheme to include
properties leased on a 10-year plus basis. A number of local
authorities are now taking this approach because leases for more
than 10 years are outside the 90% 2011 LHA housing benefit subsidy
limit, allowing local authorities to receive housing benefit
subsidy which is close to covering their full costs.
Such an approach would require careful consideration of the pros
and cons. The potential advantages are that it might reduce net PSL
scheme costs to the council and also support payment of higher
lease rents to support expansion of the scheme and a corresponding
reduction in the use of emergency accommodation.
A potential downside is that offering any increase in lease rents
for PSL could compete with the ability to secure PRS properties at
LHA rents to end homelessness duties. Another possibility is that
the government could change the law to reduce future HB subsidy
income from 10 year plus leasing. Whilst break clauses can be built
into leases to mitigate this risk, it would still be necessary to
accommodate those people housed under the scheme, and market
expectations might have been changed in a way that would make this
more difficult.
The council’s work on reducing rough sleeping has delivered
excellent results but could be at risk if future funding for
2026/27 and beyond is not sufficient to allow the services to
continue, which have been so effective in bringing rough sleeping
numbers down to date.
The online survey to current and former customers of New Forest
homelessness and housing advice services revealed some interesting
findings. Although the small sample size and self-selecting nature
of the people completing the survey means the results are only
indicative and must be treated with caution, the survey showed that
among those completing it:
·
Slightly more respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
(38%) with the overall service they received from the council than
were satisfied or very satisfied (34%), with 23% saying they were
very dissatisfied. This was markedly influenced by whether the
council had provided accommodation or prevented homelessness for
the respondent or not, but 69% of those answering the question had
either been accommodated by the council or supported to keep their
existing accommodation.
·
More people were satisfied (42%) than dissatisfied (31%) with the
TA they had been placed in.
·
Significantly more people were satisfied than dissatisfied with the
way their TA was managed and maintained, and with its location.
However, more people were dissatisfied than satisfied with their
options to move out of TA.
·
The majority of those expressing an opinion said they had found it
difficult to get to speak to someone at the council’s
homelessness and housing advice service, with 13% saying it was
very difficult.
·
Although people were broadly happy with how long it took to get an
appointment and how they were treated personally by staff, 47% of
respondents said they were dissatisfied with how well they were
listened to and understood compared to 34% who were satisfied.
There were some extremes here with some people feeling that staff
had been really supportive but others feeling they had been treated
like a number.
·
Only 16% of respondents who had used the homelessness and housing
advice service said they were satisfied with their Personal Housing
Plan, with 29% saying they had not completed one and 19% answering
‘don’t know’.
These results, whilst inconclusive, and often
influenced by whether the respondent had achieved a successful
housing outcome, do suggest that more could be done to ensure that
people consistently feel listened to and understood, and that PHPs
and other interactions with the service are meaningful for them.
Recommendations
1. The
council should strengthen its offer of housing advice including the
provision of tailored advice to the specific groups included in the
legislation.
This should include clear advice on the council’s website
explaining what to do in the case of different types of
homelessness risk. There should also be an option to speak to
a person to get housing advice, whether within the council or at
another agency without having to complete the online portal
application.
2. The
council should continue its excellent work on rough sleeping,
including its work with offenders and its work in mental
health.
3. The
council should develop its homelessness prevention offer,
specifically to include more effective work to help keep people in
their existing home.
4. The
council should consider developing an early intervention model to
prevent homelessness, particularly to address the main cause of
homelessness in New Forest, which is evictions by family and
friends.
5. The
council should further develop partnership working with
women’s refuges and domestic abuse agencies to examine
whether more can be done to prevent homelessness as a result of
domestic abuse.
6. The
council should continue to develop its collaborative work with
voluntary and community sector groups supporting people in housing
need, with a view to achieving joint working across a wider
geographical area.
7. The
council should conduct an audit into the high number of prevention
and relief duties accepted for people coming to New Forest from
other areas and explore what it can do within the law to reduce
this.
8. As part of
the forthcoming review of the housing allocations policy, the
council should consider whether it should make changes to support
greater use of social housing for homelessness prevention and
relief.
9. The
council should consider the opportunity of establishing a 10 year +
leasing scheme to take advantage of the favourable housing benefit
subsidy position for this type of leasing and reduce its reliance
on emergency accommodation.
10. The council should
continue its programme to develop, acquire and convert
accommodation for use as high quality TA.
11. The council should
review, as part of, or in advance of developing a supported housing
strategy under the terms of the Supported Housing Act 2023 review,
whether the need for supported housing and floating support amongst
people who have experienced homelessness in New Forest is being
met. The support housing strategy should include meeting this
need.
12. The council should
consider expanding its work with Hampshire children’s
services to develop training flats for care leavers and other
vulnerable young people who would otherwise have to go into
mainstream TA.
13. The council should
work with Hampshire adult services to develop a stronger service
offer to social housing tenants suffering
self-neglect.
14. The council should
consider investing further in training for customer facing staff in
the light of the mixed results from the online survey on the
quality-of-service users’ experience.