I think it’s fair to say that most people won’t know much about Supported Exempt Accommodation. But for Brummies, it is something they have become all too familiar with, for all the wrong reasons.
An initiative designed to help vulnerable individuals rebuild their lives, exempt accommodation has garnered a reputation for exacting a heavy toll on the communities that accommodate them. And nowhere is that felt more than in Birmingham.
In an area grappling with bin strikes and a bankrupt council, one issue rises above the rest. Every day, my constituents file reports of people defecating or having severe mental health breakdowns in public spaces; open drug use on streets where parents are walking their children to school. And nearly every time that issues of anti-social behaviour are raised, residents point to the same cause: the high concentration of unkept supported accommodation in their area.
For years, the Government failed to acknowledge the unique pressures placed upon the city that contains more supported accommodation than anywhere else. But that all changed in 2023, when the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act was passed. It promised compulsory minimum standards for exempt accommodation, including on referrals, care and support, and quality of housing. It promised local authorities the ability to enforce these standards and exert greater control over the licensing and planning permission given to providers.
The optimism, however, was short-lived. Since it was passed, the Act has been stuck in the consultation stage and will not be implemented until at least 2027.
In sum, Birmingham City Council has been barred from getting its house in order. The government paints their predicament as a strictly local matter – the Council’s calls for powers to control the concentration of these properties have been written off as nimbyism. But what they don’t appreciate is that the surge has been caused by the city’s importing vulnerable individuals from other local authorities against its will.
In 2022, Birmingham City Council confirmed that only 42% of properties were needed to meet local need, with the remaining 58% being used to house people from other areas. Vulnerable individuals are being placed in exempt accommodation in Birmingham simply because it is available, with no afterthought for the support that tenants can be provided, or for the impact on the local area. This is what underpins Birmingham’s reputation as the go-to place for supported housing – and it is this endless cycle that Birmingham City Council can’t break.
This is about more than antisocial behaviour: it’s about the vulnerable individuals who are being let down by the system, and the residents of Birmingham who feel that their neighbourhoods have been tainted, if not lost.
We do not want the abolition of supported accommodation in Birmingham. When it works well, it changes lives – and I’ve seen that first-hand. But without a robust licensing scheme for supported housing, Birmingham cannot cope. We are asking neighbourhoods to absorb high numbers of vulnerable individuals without granting councils the tools to support them, creating a lose-lose situation for everyone.
Solving Birmingham’s unique predicament demands two things on the government’s part.
Getting the legislation through – and getting it right – is the main priority. Birmingham City Council needs the ability to manage concentration and set boundaries on the people from outside the city that can be housed: that is non-negotiable. The Council also needs the powers to ensure that vulnerable individuals are receiving the best care they can, which means clarifying the duty of care that providers have towards their tenants and the obligations they have towards the local community.
The government also needs to change its analysis of the tensions that exempt accommodation can bring about and give Birmingham the funding to ensure public safety – including a greater neighbourhood policing presence in areas with high concentrations of supported housing.
At the end of the day, this is about vulnerable people who need structured care, communities that need reassurance and a local authority carrying a national burden without national support. Birmingham is not asking to shirk its responsibilities: is it asking for the means to fulfil them. Only the government, and the government alone, can grant it that opportunity.
