Agenda item

To consider the adoption of changes following a review of the existing Housing Allocations policy (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Members considered the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which asked members to consider the adoption of changes following a review of the existing Housing Allocations Policy.

The Assistant Director - Housing introduced the report and raised the following main points:

• Proposed amendments to the existing Housing Allocations Policy 2021 considered major changes within the meaning of the Housing Act 1996;
• Following scrutiny of the proposed policy changes at the current meeting, a formal consultation would take place before the final version was considered by Cabinet in January;
• The policy would remain under review and be regularly updated as appropriate;
• The key updates to the Housing Allocations Policy were outlined at point 2.2 of the report;
• The Housing Allocations Policy 2023 was detailed at Appendix A;
• The proposed amendments to the Housing Allocations Policy were highlighted at Appendix B;
• At the time of the report, 628 applicants were on the Housing Register, within the following bands:
  • 24 applicants were within the emergency band;
  • 71 applicants were within the urgent band;
  • 244 applicants were within the high band; and
  • 289 applicants were within the identified housing need band.

Members considered the proposed changes to the Housing Allocations Policy and made the following comments:

Members referred to the ‘emergency’ band where one offer of accommodation in the district would be made to applicants, and queried the following:

• Who decided which cases were deemed to be an emergency;
• Were applicants consulted about the offer – there was a need for the council to be supportive; and
• What period of notice was given to applicants.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing responded that:

§  The Housing Allocation Team were aware of all information regarding each application and therefore the priority need of cases was assessed according to individual circumstances;

§  One offer would be made in liaison with the applicant however this could be reviewed if any factors had been overlooked; and

§  A reasonable notice period, assessed on a case-by-case basis, was given to applicants – for example, those moving from a hotel could move more quickly than those moving from a property.

·       Members referred to proposed changes to the ‘overcrowding priority’ noted at point 2.2 of the report and expressed concern regarding how ‘overcrowding’ was defined and assessed. In particular, it was important that the nature and severity of overcrowding was individually established during priority assessments.

o   The Assistant Director – Housing responded that:

§  A statutory overcrowding assessment would be undertaken to establish need. Where overcrowding was established, such cases were moved to band 1. This mechanism remained unchanged from the existing policy;

§  The overcrowding priority considered additional vulnerabilities such as welfare and medical needs, rather than being solely based on bedroom requirements, and aimed to balance the increased homelessness pressures faced by the authority whilst ensuring a fair allocation of accommodation; and

§  Members comments regarding the need for clarification and expansion of the ‘overcrowding’ definition was noted.

·        Members asked the following questions regarding accessibility needs of residents and the availability of adapted properties:

o   Members enquired which band would be allocated to an applicant who, as a result of an urgent medical need, such as disability, needed to move property or have a property adapted. It was hoped that these would be placed in the emergency band;

o   Were adaptations to a property carried out prior to or after the resident had accepted the offer.

o   How many applicants, in the emergency band, band 1 and band 2, could not be housed due to the lack of availability of adapted properties to match their needs. This information needed to inform SHDC policy in respect of the purchase or building of adapted properties.

§  The Assistant Director – Housing responded that:

o   Where a property could not be adapted, applicants would be placed in band 2 (urgent);

o   Discretion could be used to move applicants into the emergency band;

o   Adaptations could be made to a property prior to occupation and this would be carried out in liaison with the applicant to ensure needs were met;

o   Where the need for an adapted property was required, the applicant would be prioritised for an adapted property over an applicant who did not have such a need;

o   Members’ request for the number of applicants unable to be housed in an adapted property would be investigated and circulated to the Panel after the meeting. 

·        Members referred to the sharing of information of a ‘new tenant and their household’ with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and asked for clarification regarding:

o   The type of information that would be shared;

o   Whether the request for household information was  justified as only the tenant had signed the agreement; and

o   Whether the tenancy would be invalidated if the submission of information was not forthcoming.

§  The Assistant Director – Housing responded that:

·       All social housing providers were required to submit information to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities through their ‘Core’ system;

·       The information was used by central government for statistical monitoring purposes and to ensure that properties were correctly allocated;

·       The information submitted was extensive and related to the facts of the allocation, including, but not limited to: property type, property size, number of residents living in the property, type of rent and type of tenancy;

·       Sensitive data regarding an applicant’s personal circumstances was not submitted; and

·       Should information not be given, the allocation of a tenancy would not be affected however a blank return would be queried by Core.

·       Members asked whether a person living in the same property as their parent, could be added to the tenancy agreement in order to inherit the tenancy in the future.

o   The Assistant Director – Housing stated that intergenerational tenancies ceased under the Housing Act in 2012 however a provision existed within the Housing Allocations Policy to assist with the provision of suitable alternative accommodation where a tenancy had ended.

• If an applicant made themselves homeless by rejecting their ‘one’ offer of permanent accommodation, members asked whether SHDC would retain an obligation to rehouse them? Had resources to deal with resulting extra workload been considered?
  • The Assistant Director – Housing responded that:
    • A refusal for accommodation was considered unlikely due to the considerable work undertaken between the Housing Allocations Team and applicant prior to the offer being made;
    • If SHDC was satisfied that a reasonable offer had been made, then the applicant would be expected to exit supported accommodation should an offer be refused;
    • Should the applicant present as homeless thereafter, an immediate obligation would exist to investigate the circumstances however a duty to rehouse would not apply; and
    • Two offers of accommodation would be made to homeless households in bands 3 and 4. Applicants in the emergency band who were owed the full housing duty would continue to receive one offer only. Applicants in supported housing, deemed ready for move on would also only receive one offer. The clarity of this point would be strengthened within the policy.
  • The Assistant Director – Wellbeing and Community Leadership added that:
    • Under the revised policy, applicants who would be subject to ‘one’ offer of accommodation were those already in temporary accommodation. The aim of the policy change was to work with applicants to expedite the process of relocation from temporary accommodation to a permanent home.
• Some members of the Panel remained unsure of the change to ‘one’ accommodation offer. Progress of the revised policy would be reviewed by the Panel one year from adoption.

• Members requested the period that SHDC expected people to remain in temporary accommodation:
  • The Assistant Director – Wellbeing and Community Leadership responded that:
    • The period should be as short as possible - between 1 to 3 months;
    • Temporary accommodation not only bore budgetary pressures on the council but also contributed to issues relating to poor health and wellbeing outcomes;
    • Central government stipulated that children could only be housed in Bed and Breakfast accommodation for a maximum of 6 weeks;
    • The temporary accommodation period was sometimes affected due to the requirement for additional works on void properties.

• Members asked for the average void turnaround period.
  • The Assistant Director – Housing responded that the most recent service update had reported an average void turnaround period of 28 days.

AGREED:

After consideration of the Review of Housing Allocations Policy by the Policy Development Panel:

a)    That the Panel supported the recommendation to Cabinet to adopt the revised Housing Allocations Policy;

b)    That the Panel supported the recommendation to Cabinet to delegate minor operational amendments to the Assistant Director – Housing in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Operational Housing;

c)     That the comments of the Panel be noted; and

d)    That a Housing Allocations Policy update be presented to the Policy Development Panel one year from adoption.