In the summer of 2002, local authorities were given new responsibilities to secure housing for homeless 16- and 17-year-olds. Under the 1985 Housing Act, a duty to secure accommodation (a duty that was weakened then restored by subsequent legislation) had been owed to applicants who satisfied four conditions. These conditions were that the applicant was homeless, had not become homeless intentionally, had a local connection with the authority that they had approached and was in priority need. The Act and the accompanying Code of Guidance indicated that an applicant was considered to be in priority need if their household included dependent children, a person who was pregnant or someone who was vulnerable for some other reason (Pleace et al, 1997, p 3).

Historically, there was no clear indication as to which young people should be considered vulnerable, and so be regarded as being in priority need (Pleace and Quilgars, 1999, p 97). However, in April 2000, the government changed the Code of Guidance to indicate that the Secretary of State expected most 16- and 17-year-olds to be regarded as “vulnerable” (DTLR, 2000). While local authorities are only required to “have regard” to the Code of Guidance, this change of approach became a legal obligation in the summer of 2002 as a result of the 2002 Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order, which placed all 16- and 17-year-olds in the priority need category (Statutory Instrument 2002 No 2051).

Treating all 16- and 17-year-olds as being in priority need was a step that some authorities had taken voluntarily: Venn (1985, pp 18-20) noted that five authorities – including Newcastle – extended the priority need categories on the grounds of age. By the time of a further study by Kay (1994, p 2), 23% of authorities were accepting that homeless 16- and 17-year-olds were vulnerable because of their age alone. However, the implementation of the 2002 statutory instrument means that the majority of housing authorities are faced with securing more accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds.

There is evidence to suggest that authorities will need to find extra accommodation for this age group themselves, rather than discharging their duties by making referrals to other landlords. Bevan et al (1995) found that many private landlords did not want to let to young, single people.