Agenda item

4.1 The Chair opened the item by explaining that the Commission had requested this item as it was keen to hear about how the new Lettings Policy had affected residents since its implementation.

 

4.2 The session would cover the advice and guidance in place for residents that no longer qualify for the housing register, and to those that face a long wait or are unlikely to get housed, and the impact of the policy on prioritising residents in the greatest need and providing more predictable outcomes.

 

4.3 Representing London Borough of Hackney

 

·  Councillor Sade Etti, Mayoral Advisor for Housing Needs and Homelessness

·  Rob Miller, Strategic Director of Customer and Workplace

·  Jennifer Wynter, Head of Benefits and Housing Needs

·  Marcia Facey, Operations Manager - Benefits and Housing Needs

·  Andrew Croucher, Operations Manager - Benefits and Housing Needs

·  Zoe Tyndall, Change Support Team Manager - Digital and Data

 

4.4 The Chair invited the Mayoral Advisor for Housing Needs and Homelessness to give a short verbal presentation on the context of local housing needs in Hackney. The main points are highlighted below.

 

4.5 In 2001, the average house price in Hackney was £139,000. This had since increased to £705,000, meaning an increase of over 407%. This represented the biggest increase across all local authorities in the UK.

 

4.6 For anyone to be able to buy a house in Hackney, they would need to have a household income of £140,000 and a deposit of £70,000. This did not reflect the financial circumstances of most residents in the borough.

 

4.6 The key support that the Council had provided over the past decade to low-income households that were renting in the private sector was the Local Housing Allowance.

 

4.7 Before 2013, the Local Housing Allowance was linked to the local cost of rent, meaning that it went up to reflect the rising cost of rent in the borough. However, since 2013 the legislation that provided for this increase had been removed and the allowance had been frozen.

 

4.8 In addition to this, in 2016/17 there were around 1229 council homes available to local residents in need. In 2019/20, this had decreased to only 409 council homes.

 

4.9 This had led to a variety of issues for local residents, including overcrowding and exploitation by rogue landlords. It had also meant that many families have had to leave the borough to find more affordable housing options.

 

4.10 The Chair then invited the Head of Benefits and Housing Needs and the Operations Managers to make any follow up points on the presentation. The main points are highlighted below.

 

4.11 Over the last few months the housing crisis had worsened further, with increasing volatility in the property and housing markets. This had led to an increase in families presenting to the Council as homeless, particularly those fleeing domestic abuse and gang violence.

 

4.12 Such families have needed to be provided with emergency temporary accommodation, at a time in which there were 30% less privately rented properties available in Hackney than before the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

4.13 Should a homeless family approach the Council for emergency temporary accommodation at this time, the closest location that it would be able to offer that family would be Wolverhampton, Coventry or Derby, and for a single homeless person the closest location would be Crawley.

 

4.14 Capital Letters, the local authority owned and funded housing company along with the Department for Levelling Up, Communities and Housing, had not provided any properties since September as it had not been in a position to do so.

 

4.15 In regard to what had been put in place to provide housing advice and guidance to residents that no longer qualify for the register, and those that faced a long wait or that were unlikely to get housed, the following points were made.

 

4.16 The changes to the Lettings Policy had removed 5,000 residents from the housing register, nearly 3,000 of which had been on the reserve band, with the remaining 2,000 on the general band. The reserve band was a band for residents that were housed in their assessed bedroom needs and so the Council considered them to be adequately housed.

 

4.17 The Council reached out to the 3,000 residents which had been on the reserve band, of which only 5% had responded with queries. Of those removed from the general band, 17% responded with inquiries, 50% of which were Hackney Housing residents.

 

4.18 Overall, of the 5,000 residents that were removed from the housing register, only 10 raised an inquiry as to why they were being removed. Every resident removed from the housing register had been given the opportunity to rejoin the housing register if they qualified to do so.

 

4.19 Dedicated, personalised housing advice and support had been provided for those residents no longer eligible for the housing register to help find suitable privately rented accommodation.

 

4.20 An enhanced mutual exchange offer was in place to help households already in permanent social housing to find and agree a transfer to alternative accommodation. This had included an event for residents in March 2022, and further events were planned.

 

4.21 Each resident no longer eligible for the housing register that had contacted the Council for support had been provided with an individual tailored plan detailing their alternative housing provision options.

 

4.22 An example of what had been put in place with tenants willing to consider alternative housing provision was provided.

 

4.23 A couple were seeking a larger premises in the N16 area so that they could apply to have their child back into their care. Due to their medical requirements, they were in need of a two-bed ground floor property with level access and a wet room.

 

4.24 The case was taken to court, in which an officer gave evidence of the lack of housing supply in that area and in Hackney in general. It became apparent that a property with those requirements was not available in the area, and the couple decided to seek housing provision in the private rented sector.

 

4.25 A named officer had been put forward to support their search for a property, and would negotiate with any landlord should they find the right property for the couple. They were also able to access financial support to assist them with a rental deposit and removal costs, and had a tailored housing plan with support from both housing and social care.

 

4.26 In regard to how resident voice and experience had been used to shape the service and how effective it had been at improving outcomes, the following points were made.

 

4.27 Whilst it was too early to demonstrate meaningful outcomes from the change to the Lettings Policy, the value of residents’ experiences of service delivery was not underestimated.

 

4.28 For example, the new online form and application process had been developed using small groups of residents trialling iterations of the form. With a dedicated complaints team, the service had been able to monitor trends and to deliver service improvement regarding processes and messaging.

 

4.29 Recent presentations had also been made to advice partners, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau and Hackney Law Centre, to share resident experiences and to encourage focus on achievable outcomes with clients.

 

4.30 The service had also been working to further develop its support and information offering for residents, advocacy groups and colleagues in other Council services to help them understand the full range of options available to residents in need.

 

4.31 In regard to the impact that the policy has had on prioritising residents in need and providing more predictable outcomes, the following points were made.

 

4.32 Whilst early in the delivery of the new scheme it was clear that residents with similar circumstances have had the same opportunities as other residents no matter the cause of their housing need.

 

4.33 The new scheme delivered more predictable outcomes as the majority of residents joined the register in Band B and would always have priority over residents with similar circumstances who had joined the list at a later date.

 

Questions, Answers and Discussion

 

4.34 A Commission Member noted that there was a national mutual exchange online service in place for social housing tenants to swap their property with another tenant. It was asked whether the Council had considered a local online service for tenants that were interested in mutual exchange.

 

4.35 The Strategic Director of Customer and Workplace explained that the IT team had been working with Housing Needs to develop the mutual exchange process, making it easier for tenants to apply.

 

4.36 It was noted that mutual exchange cases could be complicated, citing an example of a four way swap facilitated by the Council which involved tenants moving between Hackney, Birmingham, Pontypridd and Great Yarmouth.

 

4.37 It was also important to note that in many cases tenants were looking to downsize within the local area, and many were looking for accessible housing options, which narrowed the number of properties available.

 

4.38 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that Hackney was not considering developing a local online service for tenants that were interested in mutual exchange, as the national service was supported by every registered provider and local authority and therefore had the full range of properties available on it.

 

4.39 A Commission Member asked whether the Council was looking at long-term outcomes for residents who had been removed from the housing register and moved into privately rented accommodation, such as how long a tenancy was sustained for, as a measure of success.

 

4.40 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that the Council did not support residents to achieve a letting or tenancy agreement that they could not afford.

 

4.41 It conducts an affordability assessment beforehand which advises residents on what they can afford, with some private landlords also conducting similar checks prior to a tenancy agreement. Once a tenancy was agreed, a tenancy sustainment service was provided for all residents placed in the private rented sector.

 

4.42 The Mayoral Advisor for Housing Needs and Homelessness reiterated that all residents placed in the private rented sector were supported with a personal housing plan which took into account their personal circumstances and the housing options available.

 

4.43 A Commission Member asked what the customer experience journey for a resident who had been removed from the housing register looked like in practice.

 

4.44 The Operations Manager explained that residents were contacted and provided with a Google form which would allow them to make an inquiry about the change. Should an inquiry be made, an officer would call the resident back to discuss the alternative options available to them.

 

4.45 All officers had been trained to provide trauma-informed customer service to ensure that any options presented to residents are informed by a resident’s individual circumstances.

 

4.46 Contact was also maintained should that resident move into alternative accommodation to ensure timely support should that resident experience a change in circumstances.

 

4.47 It was noted that the customer experience may vary from resident to resident. Some residents, especially Hackney Housing tenants, were particularly engaged with officers and as such had better experiences.

 

4.48 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that there was a desire to publish a Lettings Plan on an annual basis detailing how many properties the Council expected to be available throughout a year, and who it planned to let the properties to.

 

4.49 This was considered good practice and was routinely done by many local authorities across London. It was hoped that such an approach would help in making the process more open and transparent.

 

4.50 A Commission Member asked what the outcomes of the inquiries made by residents removed from the housing register (5% of residents contacted on the reserve band and 17% of residents contacted on the general band) had been, and whether their housing needs had been met.

 

4.51 The Operations Manager responded by explaining that of the 120 inquiries received from residents removed from the reserve band, 107 were sent the form to rejoin the housing register, of which 77 were returned.

 

4.52 Of the 391 inquiries from residents removed from the general band, 333 were sent the form to rejoin the housing register, of which 115 were returned.

 

4.53 The Strategic Director of Customer and Workplace explained that multi-disciplinary teams had been set up between Housing Needs and colleagues in health, adult social care and children's social care amongst others to ensure that complicated cases were progressed and outcomes were tailored to individual needs.

 

4.54 Residents were also being supported to ensure they were financially stable, for example ensuring that residents that qualify for benefits are in receipt of those benefits. It was hoped that such work would go some way to supporting residents into suitable accommodation and support tenancy sustainment.

 

4.55 The Mayoral Advisor for Housing Needs and Homelessness added that the responses on the housing advice line had improved dramatically, with the line being separated into housing advice, homelessness and temporary housing channels.

 

4.56 A Commission Member asked how the Council used landlord incentives to secure private rented accommodation for residents in need, and whether it would consider increasing the amount offered to landlords where appropriate.

 

4.57 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that an interborough agreement was in place across London, which included all London Boroughs other than Chelsea & Kensington, which had agreed pan London rates for procurement including incentive rates. This ensured that any one Council did not outbid another and perversely increase rents further.

 

4.58 It was also explained that since the Covid-19 pandemic private landlords had been less reluctant to let to people in receipt of benefits as employment income was now viewed as less stable than benefit income.

 

4.59 The private rented market across London was extremely competitive, with properties often being taken off the market hours after being advertised. As such officers had to work quickly to secure rental agreements and it was not always possible.

 

4.60 A Commission Member asked whether residents had been engaged in the designing process for Council communications about the housing register and the promotion of alternative housing provision.

 

4.61 The Change Support Team Manager explained that a new content designer post was being funded by the Housing Needs service to review all existing website information to better inform residents on the availability of social housing and alternative options. 

 

4.62 The post holder would work with residents in the first stages of the review to ensure their voice would be central to the process, and in the later stages take different methods of communication to resident groups to see which of them were most effective in changing behaviour.

 

4.63 A Commission Member asked for more information on the aforementioned personal housing plans for those residents removed from the housing register and seeking alternative housing provision.

 

4.64 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that the Council used the statutory housing plan template when assessing residents’ housing needs and agreeing housing plans, and felt that Hackney’s housing plans were good when compared with other boroughs.

 

4.65 Personal housing plans were produced with residents, and residents agree to the steps set out within the personal housing plan. The aim was to assist residents to take actions that work for them and their personal circumstances, rather than make decisions for them.

 

4.66 When producing a personal housing plan, an officer would have an initial conversation with the resident to ascertain what outcomes they wish to achieve in regard to housing, and look to put in place measures to help them achieve those outcomes.

 

4.67 In regard to wider support included within the personal housing plan, such as employment support or training when a resident wants to increase their income and as such the affordability of a property, officers would signpost to relevant services such as Hackney Works.

 

4.68 A Commission Member asked what the impact of the new Lettings Policy had been on officers’ workloads.

 

4.69 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that officers were still having to manually support those residents who had had a change in circumstances due to the ongoing impact of the cyber attack.

 

4.70 As such, officers supporting the housing register were not in a position to be released into other parts of the service until the transition to the new software was complete. However, once the transition was complete (by December 2022) it was expected that these officers would be released into the wider housing advice service, leading to quicker and more receptive housing advice and guidance for residents.

 

4.71 A Commission Member asked for clarification on the Council’s nominations process and how residents were matched with the appropriate number of beds in a prospective property.

 

4.72 The Operations Manager explained that Hackney Housing was the only landlord in the borough that accepted overcrowding by one. The nomination process was based on the number of rooms in a property, as well as the size of the rooms.

 

4.73 Taking the example of a three bed property, should there be two or three double bedrooms the lettings officer would consider nominating a family of six for that property. However, if there were three single rooms, that family would not be put forward.

 

4.74 For Housing Association properties the process varied. Each Housing Association in the borough had its own allocations policy, so when a lettings officer nominates a household for a Housing Association property the decision would ultimately lie with them.

 

4.75 A Commission Member asked whether there was a review process within the team for instances in which residents were wrongly taken off the housing register.

 

4.76 The Operations Manager explained that whilst mistakes do happen, the most common reason for a resident being wrongly taken off the housing register was that the resident had not updated their details following a change in circumstances. Any such instances were being dealt with by officers and where appropriate residents were being put back on the register.

 

4.77 The Head of Housing Needs and Benefits added that the service was ultimately audited by the Local Government Ombudsman, through which residents could make complaints if they felt it necessary.

 

4.78 A Commission Member asked for further information on the role of advice partners in providing support and guidance to residents that had been removed from the housing register.

 

4.79 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that grant funded advice partners supported residents with housing advice and guidance regardless of where they were on the housing register. There was also a floating housing support officer that was commissioned to work across the Council.

 

4.80 The majority of residents on the housing register were residents already in social housing and as such would already have dedicated housing officers and support networks in place should any issues arise.

 

4.81 A Commission Member asked whether there were any plans to engage advice partners to understand some of the issues that residents had been facing as a result of the new Lettings Policy, and whether this would form part of the evaluation process once the transition to the new system was completed.

 

4.82 The Head of Benefits and Housing Needs explained that officers met regularly with advice partners to understand the experiences of residents. These discussions were often open and constructive and centred on how the Council and its advice partners could give residents the best possible advice and guidance reflective of their personal circumstances.

 

4.83 The Mayoral Advisor for Housing Needs and Homelessness added that training was provided for advice partners, as well as ongoing conversations regarding housing support and guidance.