Agenda item

Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Central Services), Melissa Blower (Housing Improvement Programme Manager), Debby Weller (Head of Housing Strategy and Policy) and Maggie Nelson (Head of Housing Needs) were in attendance to present the report and answer Members’ questions.

The Corporate Director of Central Services acknowledged that the current situation in relation to homelessness was extremely challenging. There had been a 27% increase in demand with 100 people presenting as homeless each week. This was primarily being driven by evictions from private rental accommodation. It was noted that, over the last five years, there had been an increase in demand but a 41% reduction in affordable privately rented accommodation supply. The Council’s strategy focussed on homelessness prevention and boosting of supply; 500 new homes were to be purchased and officers were also exploring ways in which they could increase supply in the private rental sector. The Council was also investing in improved systems and processes to improve the customer experience.

The Head of Housing Needs addressed the Committee Members and provided an overview of the customer pathway from start to finish. Members heard that customers usually approached the Council via the website in the first instance by completing an online form. The information provided was assessed and advice and guidance given if necessary. If appropriate, the enquiry was then passed to the triage team who assisted the customer in providing the information required and determined which additional documents needed to be provided. This enabled the team to establish whether the customer was eligible for assistance; some applicants had limited / no recourse to public funds. If eligibility was established, the case was assigned to a case officer.

Once assigned to a case officer, the first stage was prevention; officers tried to intervene as early as possible e.g. by negotiating with landlords in an attempt to enable the tenant to stay in their current accommodation. If prevention was unsuccessful, the next stage was the relief stage at which point alterative accommodation was sought. A maximum of 56 days was allocated for both the prevention and relief stages of the process. During the relief stage, advice and guidance was provided to assist the client in securing accommodation. If they had a priority need for temporary accommodation, this would be provided. Temporary accommodation for larger families was difficult to source and very expensive, so these families were sometimes encouraged to remain in situ for as long as possible i.e. until a bailiff warrant was secured; however, they had the right to assist on temporary accommodation being provided if they did not wish to wait.

Once an individual or a family had been placed in temporary accommodation, officers then tried to secure private rented accommodation for them; affordability was a factor and the accommodation offered was sometimes out of borough. Once a property had been secured and the clients had moved in, the duty was discharged. If no accommodation had been organised by day 57 of the relief stage, officers would need to reach a decision within 15 days as to whether the Council had a longer-term duty to them.

It was acknowledged that the current situation was challenging with fewer houses becoming available. Many landlords were increasing their rents or choosing to sell their properties. Officers were aware that this was a very stressful situation for people and tried to be as empathetic as possible.

The Head of Housing Strategy and Policy was in attendance and provided an update on partnerships around homelessness. Members heard that the Council had a number of established partnerships with the voluntary sector, particularly with Trinity who assisted in meeting the needs of rough sleepers. Thames Reach also worked closely with the Council and helped with outreach projects to identify those who were sleeping rough at Heathrow and throughout the Borough. Heathrow presented a significant challenge - Thames Reach worked at the airport and a mental health worker also visited the airport to assist.

The Committee was informed that first stage accommodation was available at Olympic House which was managed by Trinity. There were other similar accommodation options across the borough which offered a lot of support including in relation to the health aspects associated with rough sleeping – this was mainly funded by CNWL. The funding was in place until the end of 2025, but it was hoped it would continue thereafter. Other support for those with drug or alcohol addiction was available through Arch – Hillingdon; grant funding was also available for this service.

Members heard that the Homelessness Strategy was a statutory 5-year document which ran until the end of 2024 and was in the process of being reviewed. It was anticipated that a draft of the new Strategy would be available in the autumn. There had been a number of key changes and ‘Project Neptune’ would feed into the new Strategy. There would be a focus on prevention and the issue of Autism / ADHD and the homeless would be explored which had not been included in the past. The current Strategy would be reviewed over the course of the next few months and the consultation process would be completed over the summer. Service users would be involved in this process to ensure their experience of the customer journey and how this fed into service provision was included.

Members sought further clarification regarding the current staff training programme noting that service users often presented with mental health issues, and some reported that officers were judgemental and lacked empathy. In response to this, it was confirmed that training was available for all staff. Trauma-informed issues training was to be introduced in the near future and was booked for 1 May 2024. New training was also to be introduced in response to new legislation which set out the duty of the Council in respect of domestic abuse.

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confirmed that, in the past, customers often had the same case officer throughout the housing process. Unfortunately, this was no longer the case due to staff turnover and an increase in case numbers; there was a reliance on technology to ensure cases were effectively passed on to new officers.

Members sought further clarity regarding the 56-day relief stage of the process. It was confirmed that, if a suitable property were secured, it would be offered to the family in question. The family was not obliged to accept the property but, if they chose not to, the Council’s duty would be discharged at that point. The customer could request an independent review and a decision would be taken independently – a further 56 days were allocated for this process. Should the Council’s original decision be upheld, its duty would be discharged at that point. However, if the Council’s decision were overturned, the family would be offered an alternative property in due course.

With regard to accountability, the Committee was advised that officers were responsible for ensuring all the necessary information was on file. Senior officers carried out quality assurance checks and met with officers once a month to review their caseload and address any concerns.

Members expressed concern regarding the mental health and wellbeing of officers who were often overloaded with work. It was acknowledged that it was a very stressful role - some officers had previously had up to 100 open cases which was unmanageable. 5 new officers had been recruited to assist and 150 cases had been transferred across to said officers. Staff wellbeing was taken seriously, and extra support was available if needed.

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confirmed that an out of hours housing service was available. It was acknowledged that not all people wanted to / were able to apply for housing assistance online. If necessary, those who presented in person were directed to support services who could assist them in registering online. Information was also available in other languages. It was confirmed that those who were granted leave to remain were given 28 days’ notice then received an eviction letter which only allowed them one week to vacate their premises. Housing officers were working with the Home Office and it had recently been agreed that the 28-day letter would be accepted as notice giving local authorities more time to find appropriate accommodation. It was acknowledged that the situation in relation to single people was particularly challenging as they often did not have a priority need for accommodation.

Councillors enquired whether the IT systems currently in place were fit for purpose and asked how the expectations of clients were managed. In response to this, the Head of Housing Needs recognised that some people thought it was better to present as homeless rather than waiting for a Council property. This was never a good idea. Officers always tried to manage the expectations of customers and ensured they fully understood the process. In terms of the IT systems, Members were informed that Locata was currently used for housing allocations and Jigsaw for homeless applications. From April 2024, the current Jigsaw system would be changing to a Locata-based system thereby enabling the two systems to work together more efficiently. It was confirmed that the new systems would enable officers to drill further into the data to establish patterns and take a more proactive approach. Complaints data would also be used to drive improvements, inform training and improve communication.

Members requested a presentation on the new systems as this would be beneficial.

In terms of acquiring new properties, the Corporate Director of Central Services confirmed that all options were being considered and speed was of the essence. During the first year of a 3-year programme, it would be necessary to purchase property directly, but it was important to ensure that this process did not end up triggering homelessness. If landlords had empty properties or a portfolio to sell, the Council may consider such purchases where appropriate. All options were being considered to boost supply including private rentals of reasonable quality. The social sector was also being explored. The Council would also ensure it achieved the maximum possible in terms of grant funding.

With regard to temporary accommodation, it was recognised that people were sometimes housed in an overcrowded situation for a while due to a lack of available accommodation. If the temporary accommodation provided was not acceptable, action would be taken and the customer would be removed.

Councillors noted that the standard of accommodation provided by private landlords was often unacceptable. A charter was proposed to ensure properties were fully and appropriately vetted. It was suggested that properties should be inspected by other parties to ensure they met the required standard.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that the Head of Housing Needs would prepare a step-by-step summary of the homelessness process which would be circulated to the Select Committee.

It was suggested that a visit to the contact centre would be beneficial to enable Members to better understand the process and see firsthand how officers interacted with other departments across the Council when handling housing-related calls.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the evidence heard at the witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the context of its review of homelessness and the customer journey in Hillingdon .