Agenda item

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director of Housing regarding a suggested Council response to the CLG Consultation Paper on a revised Allocations Code of Guidance.

 

In January 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation paper on “Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England. The closing date for responses was 30 March 2012.

 

Chapter One

 

(1)        Does your allocations scheme/transfer policy already provide for social tenants who are under-occupying to be given priority?

 

Response:     Yes. Tenants who wished to “downsize” were given both Band One priority and also received a financial incentive.

 

(2)        Do you intend to revise your allocation scheme in order to make it easier for under-occupying social tenants to downsize to more appropriately sized accommodation?

 

Response:     Members would give the matter consideration later in the year, once the final guidance had been issued.

 

(3)        If so, what changes to your allocations scheme will you be considering to make it easier for under-occupying tenants to downsize?

 

Response:     The Government could consider removing any penalties for refusals of tenancy offers for those downsizing and also reducing the age restriction for occupying bungalows for those downsizing.

 

Other comments:      Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation stated that transfer applicants with “reasonable preference” were to be treated on the same basis as new applicants, whereas authorities could set their own transfer polices for these applicants who did not have reasonable preference. Therefore, this meant that any priority could be given to transfer applicants who were not entitled to reasonable preference. There should be provisions for preventing any authority from prioritising in this way.

 

Chapter Two

 

Other comments:      The Council welcomed paragraph 2.5 for the opportunity of having its own eligibility criteria for its waiting list and the proposal that an applicant could be treated as ineligible if they were guilty of serious unacceptable behaviour.

 

With regards to paragraph 2.6 of the consultation, the Council consider it very unfortunate that the existing legislation allowed for a right to a review on eligibility as this would be difficult to administer.

 

Chapter Three

 

(4)               Do you agree that members of the Armed Forces and former Service personnel should not be disqualified on residency grounds? Is 5 years from the date of discharge an appropriate time limit for this restriction? If not, what would be a more appropriate period?

 

Response:     The Council supported the proposal that members of the armed forces and former service personnel should not be disqualified on residency grounds. However it was believed that an appropriate time limit would be 3 years from the date of discharge because this was considered a more appropriate period within which they could have found settled accommodation. “Members of the armed forces and service personnel should be more clearly defined than was set out under Section 374 of the Armed Forces Act. Did this include clerical workers for example?

 

(5)        Does the draft guidance provide sufficient clarity on how to implement the new power for housing authorities to set their own allocations qualification criteria? If not, in what areas would more guidance be useful?

 

Response:     It could be made more clearer that if an applicant had “reasonable preference” but did not meet the eligibility criteria for joining the housing register, then they could still be excluded from the list,

 

Chapter Four

 

(6)        Do you agree that the bedroom standard is an appropriate measure of overcrowding for the purpose of according reasonable preference? If not, what measure do you consider would be more appropriate?

 

Response:     No. Bearing in mind the shortage of accommodation it was considered reasonable for same sex persons to share a bedroom irrespective of their age. Therefore, it was suggested that there should be the following two bullet points included in Paragraph 4.11:

 

• Married or cohabiting couples; and
• Two persons of the opposite sex over the age of 8 years.

 

(7)        Should this guidance provide advice on how to define “overcrowding” for the purpose of according additional preference? If so, would an appropriate measure be two bedrooms or more short of the bedroom standard?

 

Response:     The Council considered that “overcrowding” should be determined based upon the current requirements of the Housing Act Part X.

 

(8)        How does your allocations scheme currently define “overcrowding” for allocation purposes? Does it, for example, use the bedroom standard, the statutory overcrowding standards in Part X of the Housing Act 1985, or another definition? If the last of these please provide brief details.

 

Response:     “Where the permitted number, in accordance with the provisions of S.326 of the Housing Act 1985 is exceeded.” However, applicants lacking a bedroom were also given some priority.

 

(9)        The Government proposes to regulate to require housing authorities to frame their allocations scheme to provide for former service personnel with urgent housing needs to be given additional preference for social housing. Do you agree with this proposal?

 

Response:     The Council generally supported the proposal. It would be helpful if paragraph 4.19 was clearer. Did this mean that former members of the Armed Forces would be given additional preference above those applicants who were already in reasonable preference categories?

 

(10)      Does your allocations scheme already make use of the flexibilities within the allocation legislation to provide for those who have served in the armed forces to be given greater priority for social housing? If so, how does your scheme provide for this?

 

Response:     No

 

(11)      If not how do you intend to take advantage of the flexibilities in the allocation legislation to provide for former members of the armed forces to be given greater priority for social housing? If so what changes might you is considering?

 

Response:     The Council did intend to provide greater priority for members of the Armed Forces for social housing. Members would be considering the matter on receipt of the final guidance. The Council welcomed the proposal to disregard any lump sums received by a member of the Armed Forces as compensation for injury or disability sustained on active service.

 

(12)      Does your allocations scheme already provide for some priority to be given to people who are in work, seeking work, or otherwise contributing to the community? If so, how does your scheme provide for this?

 

Response:     The District Council’s scheme gave some priority to applicants who were needing to move to be nearer to their place of work, or to take up a permanent offer of employment, or a long term training opportunity which may lead to employment.

 

(13)      If not, do you intend to revise your allocations scheme to provide for more priority to be given to people who are in work, seeking work, or otherwise contributing to the community? If so, how does your scheme provide for this?

 

Response:     Members would be considering whether or not they wished to give further priority to people who were in work, on receipt of the final guidance. It may be difficult to define what “contributing to the community” means.

 

(14)      Are there other ways in which housing authorities can frame their allocation scheme to meet the needs of prospective adopters and foster carers?

 

Response:     The Council considered that there was a marked difference between an adopter and a foster carer as adoption was a more long-term permanent arrangement. If the Council decided to use Flexible Tenancies in the future, these could be granted to adopters and foster carers for an appropriate fixed-term and be reviewed at the end of the period under the assessment criteria. The guidance may want to include this approach as a possible way of dealing with prospective adopters and foster carers. It was suggested that Children’s Services should notify the Council when an appropriate point had been reached in the adopting/fostering process where any person was likely to be accepted.

 

(15)           Does the draft guidance provide sufficient clarity on the extent of flexibilities available to housing authorities when framing their allocation schemes?

 

Response:     Yes, subject to the comments made under each consultation question.

 

Under paragraph 4.38 of the consultation, officers felt that providing an additional bedroom for carers who were not residing at the property could be open to abuse and the potential waste of a bedroom. The Council would currently only consider granting an additional bedroom if a carer was living at the accommodation as their only, or principle home and could demonstrate that they had given up permanent accommodation to enter into the arrangement.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)        That the CLG Consultation paper “Allocation of Accommodation: Guidance for Local Authorities in England,” be noted; and

 

(2)        That the proposed Council response to the consultation be agreed.