Agenda item

The Housing Options Manager gave a presentation which is attached to these minutes.

Following the presentation, a member asked for further details in terms of London boroughs paying incentives. Officers advised that this was often financial – some councils did not have their own temporary accommodation and relied on the private sector and London authorities would attach payment to a landlord in order to work with them. Several councils were facing a serious financial situation partly due to temporary accommodation costs. Most of the resources available to the team came from the annual government grant and Homeless Prevention Grant which were finite, so if there was a race to maximise incentives the money could soon disappear. Officers had trialled ideas including such financial incentives but there had not been significant interest. Other incentives that had been explored were guaranteeing rent; landlords who had experienced tenancies ending with rent owed or damage to the property and a scheme promoted by government utilised a niche insurance whereby landlords were offered guarantees against rent arrears and property damages. The Council had worked to promote this and landlords who had used the scheme found the process straightforward.

A member asked about the form of housing (private or social) that people approaching the team had been in – it was agreed the Housing Options manager would provide details of this after the meeting - and how this compared to neighbouring authorities. The Housing Options Manager explained he met regularly with his local counterparts who had similar headline figures. There was a mix of types of councils locally and officers had spoken to some in Hertfordshire as well as in Kent and Essex to understand their best practices.

ACTION: Housing Options Manager.

Post meeting note:

“Of the total number of those that approached, 2523 households, of which:

• 26 were owner occupiers
• 543 were privately rented
• 185 council tenants
• 70 housing association tenants

In comparison, for some additional context:

• 721 were living with friends or family.
• 560 were no fixed abode of some description.”

A member asked about the removal of S21 of the Housing Act 1988. Officers noted this was still in the early stages with the new government and it seemed as though the repeal of S21 would take place which would be likely to see a reduction in no-fault evictions, although as other homelessness figures were rising this would not necessarily mean a reduction on current numbers.

A member commended the work of the Housing Options team who were very helpful. She commented that it was dispiriting when residents did not see themselves progressing up the list for housing and suggested there was scope for how this was explained to them. Another member supported this, noting the Council used a housing needs register rather than a housing waiting list and this could be better communicated. She proposed an article be written in One Magazine about housing needs and how they were managed, as the magazine reached all homes in the borough. Officers responded that they regularly included information in One Magazine but it was difficult to get the balance right in getting these points across and also providing a lot of information. The magazine had asked residents to let the Council know about rough sleepers they were aware of, and also stated where people could obtain housing advice.   

A member reflected on challenges such as increased rough sleeping and the lack of move-on accommodation and social housing, and felt it would be useful for CHP to consider key performance indicators so it could monitor the situation.

Responding to a question from a member, officers clarified that 408 people had needed accommodation in the last calendar year; this did not necessarily equate to 408 bed spaces but demand exceeded current provision, so private sector accommodation needed to be used to deal with the overspill at any given time.