(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-039-2017/18).
Decision:
(1) That the recommendations of the Communities Select Committee be accepted, as per Appendix A of the report;
(2) That one change to the draft Scheme be agreed in response to comments made by Nazeing Parish Council following the outcome of the consultation exercise with the Tenants and Leaseholders Panel, local residents, partner agencies, Parish and Town Councils and Housing Association partners, as set out at Appendix B of the report;
(3) That the four changes made to the Housing Allocations Scheme (subsequent to consideration by the Communities Select Committee) be agreed in accordance with the advice received from the external legal advisor, as set out at Appendix C of the report;
(4) That under the penalties for refusals of offers of accommodation (Paragraph 18.9 of the Scheme refers) the numbers of offers within any period before any penalty was applied be increased from three to four for existing tenants of the Council who were under-occupying accommodation and wished to move to smaller Council accommodation with their application being deferred for a period of twelve months; and
(5) That the Communities Select Committee be requested to review the Housing Allocations Scheme again after 3 years of operation.
Minutes:
The Chairman of the Communities Select Committee presented the report from the Select Committee on the review of the Housing Allocations Scheme.
The Chairman reported that, at its meeting on 5 September 2017, the Select Committee considered a report on the review of the Housing Allocations Scheme, which came into force on 27 July 2015.
The Select Committee was asked to give detailed consideration to the revised Scheme having regard to the initial informal views of Cabinet Members, which it did, and a copy of the draft amended Scheme was now submitted to the Cabinet for consideration. There were four main changes recommended by the Select Committee:
(i) That the Residency Criteria be increased, with any new applicant who had lived in the District for less than seven continuous years immediately prior to their date of registration, not qualifying for inclusion on the Council’s Housing Register.
(ii) That any applicant who, in the view of the Director of Communities, had deliberately disposed of assets by means of wilful deprivation within the previous 6 years would be non-qualifying under the financial criteria.
(iii) That the period of ineligibility for any person found to be guilty of serious unacceptable behaviour as set out under the Scheme be increased from 3 to 7 years.
(iv) That any home seeker who refused two offers of suitable accommodation for which they had expressed an interest within any period should have their application deferred for a period of 2 years, or any tenant of the Council who was under-occupying and wanted to move to smaller Council accommodation, who refused three offers of suitable accommodation for which they had expressed an interest within any period, should have their application deferred for a period of twelve months.
The Chairman requested that the Select Committee’s recommendations be accepted and the Council’s revised Housing Allocations Scheme be adopted with a target date of 1 July 2018.
The Leader of the Council thanked the Select Committee for their report and advised that the draft revised Scheme was consulted upon, as well as external legal advice sought. The responses to the consultation were detailed within the report, and a further change to the Scheme was proposed in order to clarify that Council properties built in rural areas under Section 106 Legal Agreements would be re-let under locality provisions rather than the residency rules. Four further changes had been made following the receipt of advice from the external legal advisor, which the Cabinet was also requested to agree. The Cabinet was further asked to consider reducing the level of penalties to be applied to Council tenants who were downsizing to smaller Council accommodation. Finally, the Select Committee was requested to undertake a further review of the Scheme after it had been in operation for a period of three years.
Cllr J H Whitehouse felt that the Council should take issues such as family support into account when considering the suitability of accommodation for homeless applicants, and that it was unfair to make applicants brought up in the District as children to start all over again to build up their seven years eligibility if they move out of the District for more than two years and then return to the District. The Assistant Director of Communities (Housing Operations) reassured the Cabinet that firstly the suitability of accommodation for each applicant was assessed by Homelessness Officers under the Homelessness legislation, and a lot of work went into this. Suitability of accommodation was defined in the Homelessness Code of Guidance. Secondly, when reviewing the Scheme, the Communities Select Committee agreed to provide applicants who met the residency criteria but then moved out of the District with two years protection, which was in line with the protection granted under the Homelessness legislation whereby if any applicant was accommodated out of their host authority’s area for a period in excess of two years then the duty of that authority ended. It therefore followed that any applicants who left the District for more than two years should lose their residency under the Scheme.
In response to further questions from the Members present, the Assistant Director added that changing the residency criteria from five years to seven years would not affect the Council’s approach to dealing with homelessness cases, and although it might reduce the eligibility of some people to join the Housing Register. With respect to any possible Officer discretion in waiving the Residency Criteria, the Assistant Director informed the Cabinet that this issue had been the subject of a recent case involving the Council in the High Court, the outcome of which was a ruling that authorities did not need to have such discretion in their Schemes. It was further explained that the Barrister representing the Council strongly recommended any discretion should only be for qualifying applicants, i.e. those who met the Residency Criteria and all other aspects of the Local Eligibility Criteria. Cllr Brookes supported the comments of Loughton Town Council for the residency requirement to remain at five years.
The Leader of Council welcomed the proposed changes as they would give priority to local people on the Council’s Housing Register, and also manage the expectations of applicants on the Register.
Decision:
(1) That the recommendations of the Communities Select Committee be accepted, as per Appendix A of the report;
(2) That one further change to the draft Scheme be agreed in response to comments made by Nazeing Parish Council following the outcome of the consultation exercise with the Tenants and Leaseholders Panel, local residents, partner agencies, Parish and Town Councils and Housing Association partners, as set out at Appendix B of the report;
(3) That the four changes made to the Housing Allocations Scheme (subsequent to consideration by the Communities Select Committee) be agreed in accordance with the advice received from the external legal advisor, as set out at Appendix C of the report;
(4) That under the penalties for refusals of offers of accommodation (Paragraph 18.9 of the Scheme refers) the numbers of offers within any period before any penalty was applied be increased from three to four for existing tenants of the Council who were under-occupying accommodation and wished to move to smaller Council accommodation with their application being deferred for a period of twelve months; and
(5) That the Communities Select Committee be requested to review the Housing Allocations Scheme again after 3 years of operation.
Reasons for Decision:
To periodically review the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme and ensure that it met all of the requirements under Statutory Government Codes of Guidance, was lawful and took into account local needs and priorities.
Other Options Considered and Rejected:
To not agree the recommendations of the Communities Select Committee, or to make alternative changes to the draft Housing Allocations Scheme.
Supporting documents: