I got told the other day at my booking appointment that although I could book in for a homebirth, if the hospital was busy they'd insist on me coming in so they didn't have to take up a midwife on me being at home. I had read some of the quoted above and thought that they HAD to attend at home and I could refuse to go to hospital, but I asked and she said they'd just leave me to labour at home alone. Apparently a couple of cases over the past couple of years have clarified the issue, and they're not obligated to send someone to attend you at home if you refuse to go into hospital.
That's crap! They have agency midwives they can call in if they're short staffed.
They're not obliged to send a midwife out to you no, but I've been researching homebirths since I was first pregnant with my son two years ago, and I have never heard of them refusing point blank to come out when a woman has actually been in labour (though I have certainly heard of them trying it on!)
I'm not sure if your "That's crap!" is directed at me or the system, but I can assure you that is what I was told they would do, and although up to a couple of years ago the law implied the had to attend, a couple of court cases have since clarified that them offering a hospital place is sufficient to be fulfilling their legal duty to provide a midwifery service. I agree they should bring in bank midwives, and that their staffing issues shouldn't dictate where we give birth, but I'm not sure I want to risk being left alone in my first labour.