Agenda item

(Director of Communities) to consider the attached report.

The report on the Homeless Initiatives was introduced by the Assistant Director, (Housing Operations), Roger Wilson.

 

The Committee was asked as part of their Work Programme to consider various mitigation strategies in order to deal with the current and future increasing pressures due to the rise in homelessness.  The latest figures on homelessness in England reveal that nationally the total number of households in temporary accommodation had increased by 53% from 48,010 in December 2010 to 73,120 in June 2016, with 14,930 households being accepted as homeless between 1 July and 30 September 2016. Local Authorities took action to prevent a further 52,920 households becoming homeless in the same period which increased by over 2,000 compared to the previous quarter.    

 

The Committee was asked to consider strategies for the Homelessness Prevention Service. In 2015/2016 the service prevented homelessness in 625 cases.  The number of cases being prevented in the first six months of this year was 264 which may result in a lesser number being prevented in 2016/2017.  This was due to the difficulties being experienced by the Team in being able to place applicants in the private rented sector which had resulted in the number of homelessness acceptances increasing from 52 in 2014/2015 to 71 in 2015/2016 and the numbers placed in temporary accommodation increasing from 74 in 2014/2015 to 111 in the second quarter of 2016/2017.  

 

As at 30 September 2016 (date of the last Government statistical return) there were 111 applicants placed in both temporary and interim accommodation which has resulted in the homeless persons’ hostel at Norway House, North Weald and Hemnall House, Epping being full most of the time. In order to increase the number of applicants being able to be accommodated at Norway House, officers were investigating the possibility of dividing up some of the larger rooms at the hostel to provide greater flexibility of use.  Furthermore, as the chalets in the grounds of the Hostel were falling into disrepair, the option of replacing the chalets with “modular units” was being investigated which may enable the Council to increase the number of units in a more cost effective way. It may also be possible to use such accommodation in other areas.

 

Genesis Housing Association, under the Housing Association Leasing Direct Scheme (HALD), originally provided 20 units of accommodation for our homeless applicants.  However, as private landlords are becoming increasingly reluctant to lease their properties in this way, Genesis now only has 15 units of accommodation, all of which were now occupied.   

 

The Council also provided bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation for predominantly single homeless applicants and has a contract with a number of Hotels who were selected following a 3 yearly competitive tendering exercise which had taken place now on 2 occasions.  The numbers placed in B&B had increased from single figures to around 20-25 applicants.  Under Government Regulations, the Council should not place families in such accommodation for more than 6 weeks. 

 

It is important to note that over recent months the Hotels used have been full due to placements being made at the Hotels by other Councils.  This has left officers with no option other than to use other Hotels in accordance with the delegated authority granted to the Director of Communities. Furthermore, due to the increasing pressure on homelessness, the Council currently had 14 homeless families placed in its own housing stock (very often without the applicant meeting the 5 years residency criteria under the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme) on non-secure tenancies until their cases were resolved. 

 

Mr Marshall asked if the proposed ‘Modular Units’ had shared kitchen facilities. Mr Wilson said that officers were keen that they had shared facilities in order to ensure no tenancy status was created. Councillor J H Whitehouse noted that at present they shared bathrooms; would these new units have specially designed shared facilities. She was told that they would, they could be designed and placed at different locations. A pilot scheme was proposed for a few units to see how it would work. Councillor Whitehouse asked where else they would be located, Mr Wilson said that this was yet to be decided. Councillor Surtees asked if they could be put in some of the Council’s car parks and was advised that there were all sorts of options, but they were taking it one step at a time.

 

The Committee then considered the ‘invest to save’ funding proposals for two initiatives.

 

One was for ‘rental loans’, a scheme to provide applicants with a rental loan to meet the costs of (or contribute towards) the first month’s rent in advance when securing accommodation in the private sector. Applicants were required to repay the loan on an interest free basis over 24 months recycling the budget to enable others to benefit from the Scheme in the future.

 

The other invest to save proposal was for ‘Landlord Deposits’. In addition to meeting the cost of the first month’s rent, applicants also must pay a landlord’s deposit.  The cost of the deposit was in accordance with Housing Benefit Local Housing Allowance rates (being the maximum housing benefit a person can claim towards their rent), which ranged from £296 to £1,359 per month depending upon the rent, size and location of the property.

 

It was therefore considered that the funding should now be made available for rental loans equivalent to 4 weeks rent and/or landlord deposits (lodged with a third party by the landlord) in appropriate cases with repayments being made for both loans over an increased period of 36 months in order to make it more affordable to the applicant. 

 

The Committee then went on to consider the placements of homeless households by London Boroughs outside of London. Following representations from Essex councils, figures for placements across Essex have now, for the first time, been provided by around 24 of the 32 London Boroughs.  As not all London Boroughs had provided this information, the true figures were likely to be much higher,  but Boroughs have placed applicants in 47 private properties (that we were aware of) in the last 12 months.

 

Some are in order for London Boroughs to discharge their homelessness duties which can lead to the Council taking responsibility for such households should homelessness re-occur after two years.   

 

One of the problems that these placements cause the Council is that it makes it very difficult for our own Homelessness Prevention Service to secure accommodation in the private rented sector for homeless and potentially homeless households.  This was one of the main reasons why the numbers of homeless households in EFDC’s own temporary accommodation was increasing. Furthermore, landlords are reluctant to accept applicants from the Council due to London Boroughs paying landlords in the District generous incentives ranging between £2,500 and £6,000, in addition to rental loans and landlord deposits. 

 

For the above reasons, the invest to save budget remained unspent. Officers explained the difficulties of landlord deposits being held by a third party on behalf of the Council and why this had proved to be unworkable.

 

Councillor Surtees noted that the effect of exporting people from London could be devastating, Thurrock for instance. We should follow the recommendations of the officers and do something to help.

 

Councillor J H Whitehouse asked if officers were flagging up this issue with MPs and Parliament. Mr Wilson replied that they were doing so. Members were keen that our 5 year residency was increased to 10 years. But the homeless had a much less qualifying period. He could not see legislation stopping the London Boroughs from placing people here. They could however, change the law about us accepting responsibility after two years, but this was unlikely. The problems were radiating out from the London Boroughs who reported they were swamped by homelessness and were pushing this out to the outlying local authorities.  We could use the invest to save to help our problems.

 

Councillor Baldwin asked why couldn’t the Council rent housing from the private sector and then sublet to their tenants and not use Genesis Housing Association. Mr Wilson said that it was easier for them to do it. We would need much more staff and would need to set ourselves up as a private company to enable us to do this. It was just cheaper and easier to outsource it. Mr Wallace the Housing Options Manager added that landlords have  found other tenants to take on their property and not use Genesis.

 

The Committee then went on to consider rough sleepers, noting that in August 2016, the two year Government funded Essex-wide Rough Sleeping Outreach service ended.  This service provided visits to rough sleepers late at night and in the early hours 24/7 to offer assistance and case management until the person was able to move off the streets.  When the funding ended, the Council approached the service provider to provide a stand-alone service to the Council. But they were not able to assist.  Although the Council only receives around one report each month of rough sleeping, there was a risk of a person becoming at risk due to rough sleeping without specialist help. 

 

Officers were having discussions with other providers of specialist rough sleeping support and expect the cost of such services to be around £200 per case. This would result in a budget of £2,500 per annum funded by the General Fund to provide specialist services to rough sleepers.

 

Councillor Surtees commented that it would be of benefit to co-operate with neighbouring authorities. Mr Wallace commented that Harlow ran a successful scheme; we had also run a successful scheme, but had run out of funding.

 

The Committee then noted that the Homelessness Reduction Bill was currently making its way through Parliament and was likely to become law later this year, this new Bill would put a significant call on our resources by putting additional duties on authorities to prevent and reduce homelessness. It would also place substantial additional work on an already stretched Homelessness Prevention Team.

 

Councillor Stavrou commented that pressures were building up on our staff. In the past the Cabinet had laid down stringent ways on the way money was spent; but we have to act now to enable our staff to cope with the future.

 

Mr Marshall asked when this Bill would come into force and was told probably by this summer.

 

Councillor Surtees commented that a lot of this would not be needed if every authority was as good as Epping Forest DC in dealing with homelessness. We have to make provisions to keep our standards of service.

 

The Committee noted that the Council had discontinued with the in-house Housing Appeals and Review Panel (HARP) and officers have suggested that an outside company be employed to take up the burden of carrying out these reviews. The Housing Options Manager had undertaken 30 reviews this last year with a further 15 being undertaken by the Assistant Director (Housing Operations). Soft market testing had established that the average cost per review by an external company would be around £200. Based on the number of reviews undertaken in the last 12 months an annual budget of £9,000 funded from the General Fund would be required.

 

In the future we will also need to carry out detailed reviews on each homelessness case and this would create a lot more work and doing this and undertaking homelessness reviews would entail taking on more staff which would cost a lot more than employing an outside company.

 

Councillor Surtees was amazed that a case would cost just £200, was it a loss leader? Should we be wary of this?

 

Councillor Rolfe was worried that the external company would only cost £200; would they be good enough. Mr Wilson said that the decision not to have the HAR Panel was correct, counsel was concerned that members were making these decisions, and said that they should not be doing this. No other Local Authority, bar one, had a HARP. It took a lot of officer’s time. An external company would go through a selection process and would also be closely monitored by officers. Mr Hall added that if they were not up to an acceptable level we would not use them.  Experience from other authorities suggested that this worked and they were happy with it.

 

Councillor Rolfe was still worried about putting our faith in an outside company.

 

Councillor Knight commented that £9,000 was a small amount for the use of a specialist outside body. We were out of our depth with HARP and members were really not qualified to hear the appeals. Also, an outside company would be monitored and scrutinised by us.

 

Mr Wilson stated that there were experienced companies out there who were monitored and regulated by the law.

 

Councillor Lea agreed with the officers on this.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1) That, in accordance with its Work Programme, the Communities Select Committee undertook a review of the homelessness loans and tenancy deposits scheme (funded under “Invest to Save”); considered the homelessness situation generally in the District and mitigation strategies, and recommend to the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee that the following bids be made for CSB Growth from April 2017/18:

 

(a)  £32,000 per annum for the appointment of 1 FTE additional Grade 6 Homelessness Prevention Officer in order to deal with the requirements of the expected Homelessness Reduction Act and the additional workload generally due to increasing homelessness pressures; 

 

(b)  £9,000 per annum to fund an external company to undertake Homelessness Reviews; and  

 

(c)  £2,500 per annum to fund an external company to provide specialist services to rough sleepers;

 

(2) That the Communities Select Committee recommend to the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee that the existing Invest to Save Funding of £90,000 over a 3 year period now be used for providing applicants with a rental loan of up to the equivalent of 4 weeks rent to meet the costs of rent in advance when securing accommodation in the private rented sector and /or a landlord deposit in accordance with LHA rates (lodged with a third party by the landlord) with  applicants being required to repay loans on an interest free basis over an increased period of 36 months, thereby re-cycling the budget to enable others to benefit from the Scheme in the future; and

 

(3) That a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Cabinet on the feasibility of the use of “modular units” to provide temporary accommodation for homeless applicants.