Agenda item

Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Central Services, introduced the item. The Select Committee heard from Sonia Stewart, Independent Domestic Violence Manager, and from Sultana Ahmed, Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA).

 

Sonia Stewart and Sultana Ahmed addressed the Select Committee providing an overview of the Hillingdon domestic advocacy service and highlighting its evolution over the past two years from focusing solely on high-risk victims of domestic abuse to now supporting victims across all levels of risk.

 

Members heard that the service now included a floating support side, catering to low and medium-risk victims, in addition to the high-risk interventions provided by the Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs). The team comprised 5 IDVAs and 3 floating support workers, offering both short-term crisis intervention and long-term support.

 

Officers raised concerns regarding the approach to housing for victims of domestic abuse. It was noted that victims presenting to housing were often asked about police involvement (which formed part of the enquiries the Council made when a victim approached the Council for assistance), which could influence the support they received. This was concerning as not all victims may involve the police for various reasons, including threats from the perpetrator.

 

The Committee heard that the requirement for documentation when seeking housing support posed a significant challenge for victims fleeing emergency situations. It was recognised that in such circumstances, victims may not have the ability to gather necessary identification documents, which were crucial for accessing housing support.

 

The challenges faced by victims of domestic abuse when seeking housing support were highlighted. Concerns were raised about the need to ask about police involvement, which may not always be present despite the occurrence of domestic abuse.

 

It was highlighted that victims fleeing domestic abuse were often offered accommodation far from their support systems, which could exacerbate their vulnerability. The Committee recognised the significant impact of relocating victims away from their jobs, families, communities, and children's schools, especially when they or their children had additional complex needs.

 

Members were informed that inconsistencies were reported by clients when approaching housing services for assistance, particularly concerning the advice given about the possibility of remaining within the Borough. The lack of clarity in policy or criteria used to determine why some victims stayed in Borough while others were relocated outside the Borough was highlighted as a matter needing further enquiry.

 

It was noted that while advising clients, there was a need to manage their expectations regarding potential housing outcomes. However, the inconsistency in the application of housing policies had led to confusion and the need for correct and effective guidance.

With regard to the Sanctuary Scheme, officers noted that the scheme assessed properties to implement additional security measures for victims of domestic abuse who wished to remain in their homes. There was a lack of clarity around time frames for referrals and responses. Automated messages to confirm receipt of referrals and inform clients of expected contact times would be welcomed.

 

In terms of staff turnover, the Committee was advised that there was a high turnover of staff within the housing team. Clients and advocates were not always informed about staff changes. The importance of consistent communication and updates for clients was highlighted. It was noted that some housing officers left their jobs without informing clients, leading to missed communications and unresolved issues.

 

In respect of appointments and Housing Reception, officers raised concerns about victims being turned away if they arrived without an appointment. There was a need for clear guidance on what reception staff should advise clients. Members heard that victims arriving at housing reception without an appointment were signposted to main reception where security could provide immediate assistance and an appointment made

 

Officers commented that it was vital to use professional interpreters for clients who did not speak English rather than relying on family members or children.

 

In respect of the Housing Reception environment, it was noted that this was not a welcoming place. Victims were at times obliged to spend the whole day there but there were no amenities for them and their children such as water, toys, and magazines to meet clients’ needs. Clients were scared to leave for fear of missing their chance to speak to someone.

 

Members were informed that the working relationship with housing officers had improved since HDAAS had relocated to the Civic Centre. Officers worked proactively with housing colleagues and were able to communicate directly with housing officers to address concerns and discuss risks. However, the importance of consistent communication with housing officers, especially during staff changes was reiterated. Timely updates on case allocations were essential. At times, officers and clients received bounced back emails and notifications about staff changes when chasing up cases which was unhelpful.

 

With regards to Domestic Abuse training, Members heard that training had been offered to various departments within the Council but there had been a lack of response from housing managers. The importance of understanding victims’ perceptions of risk and being supportive and believing their disclosures was highlighted - victims may be discouraged from seeking help if they felt disbelieved or unsupported.

 

Rachel Bulley, Social Prescribing Link Worker representing Colne Union PCN, NHS, addressed the Committee. Rachel began by explaining the concept of PCNs (Primary Care Networks), which were collections of GP surgeries that worked together within a network. Colne Union PCN represented the areas of West Drayton and Uxbridge. There were many social prescribers across the Borough of Hillingdon, each associated with different PCNs. The organisation they worked for was called Confederation Hillingdon, a CIC (Community Interest Company) based around healthcare.

 

Social prescribing was a relatively new role within the NHS, focusing on the social elements of a person’s well-being. The NHS had traditionally focused on healthcare, but now there was a comprehensive approach to consider patients’ social, practical, and well-being needs. Social prescribers received referrals from GPs, reception staff, and even residents themselves. They assisted with a wide range of issues, including social isolation, housing problems, debt, finance issues, bereavement, and cancer care.

 

Rachel emphasised the importance of social prescribers understanding and being aware of local support and community services within Hillingdon. Integrated care was crucial, as gaps in services could lead to patients falling through the cracks and returning to primary care. Preventative support in primary care was essential to avoid escalation to secondary care. Social prescribers worked with local authorities, medical abuse charities, and other organisations to ensure residents were aware of and could access the services they needed.

 

Rachel expressed her support for the points raised by Sonia and Sultana regarding domestic abuse. Although social prescribers did not necessarily deal with domestic abuse directly, many of the issues raised were relevant to their work.

 

Members expressed concerns about the experience of victims of domestic abuse noting that some victims did not feel believed when they presented themselves to the housing department, which could lead them to return to their perpetrators. Councillors emphasised the importance of understanding the strength it took for a victim to disclose their situation and the negative impact of dismissive attitudes from housing staff. The ongoing effects of domestic abuse, including post-traumatic stress were highlighted; it was vital that support should not end once a victim left their home.

 

Officers echoed Members’ concerns. The lack of empathy and understanding experienced by some patients in dire situations was noted. Examples of negative feedback included unsupportive questions about overcrowding.. It was explained that social prescribers often found themselves stuck between patients and housing officers who did not connect with the humanistic side of patients. However, Rachel also mentioned that her organisation had been working with the transformation team in the housing department to bridge the gap between primary care and the local Housing Authority. Initiatives included Brightside Workshops for primary care staff, the potential creation of a new role within housing to act as a link between patients and housing, and the development of Q&A leaflets to address common patient questions. Training for housing staff to improve their understanding and handling of domestic abuse cases was of paramount importance.

 

Questions were invited from Members. One Councillor highlighted a concerning issue that had come to light during their visit to the housing reception / contact centre. They noted that the housing reception felt like a custody suite and questioned the process of directing individuals to the security desk. The Councillor expressed concern about the treatment of domestic abuse victims who presented at the housing reception without an appointment, questioning whether they were turned away or advised to go to the main reception to speak to security. They emphasised the need for clarity on this process and the training provided to security personnel, noting that interactions with security could be triggering for some victims.

 

Another Councillor enquired about integrated care within housing, particularly concerning homelessness caused by drug and alcohol abuse. They asked about the availability of detox facilities and mental health care services. Officers responded, explaining that social prescribing in Hillingdon involved referring patients to ARCH, the main service for addiction support. They acknowledged capacity issues within ARCH and highlighted the role of mental health practitioners in triaging patients and providing support in primary or secondary care. They also mentioned ongoing neighbourhood projects addressing anxiety and depression.

 

The Committee thanked the officers for their presentation and acknowledged the concerns raised about communication and inconsistency of approach. They enquired about staff turnover and resource availability, asking how the Council could better support the officers’ work. Officers explained that their service had grown stronger with additional staff and floating support workers. They shared statistics on high-risk referrals and emphasised the need for accessible counselling services for domestic abuse victims. They noted the challenges in finding counselling services due to long waiting lists.

 

The discussion continued with a focus on improving communication and coordination. Officers stressed the importance of having a single point of contact within the domestic abuse team to streamline communication and reduce the need for constant chasing. They highlighted the need for clear processes and better understanding of available schemes, such as the rent deposit scheme and local housing living allowance. Officers described the difficulties faced by patients in accessing these schemes and the vicious cycle of requirements and delays.

 

Councillors sought further clarity regarding the impact of housing issues on residents’ mental health. Officers explained that housing crises significantly affected patients’ mental health, often leading to resistance in accessing mental health services. They noted the gap between primary and secondary mental health services and the challenges in supporting patients with situational mental health issues. Officers emphasised the need for better communication and understanding of processes to support residents effectively.

 

Councillors and officers agreed on the importance of clear communication, accessible support services, and streamlined processes to better serve residents and address the challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness and related issues.

 

Councillors sought recommendations from officers regarding improvements to the service and emphasised the importance of understanding how the service could be improved.

 

Officers provided an update on the current progress. They mentioned that, slowly but surely, improvements were being made, particularly through collaboration with the transformation team and housing departments. Officers highlighted the involvement of key individuals, such as Fola and Reginald, in integrating services. They discussed the potential benefits of having a single point of contact to provide patient support and information. Officers emphasised the importance of a two-way relationship between housing officers and their team, where both parties supported each other. They also mentioned ongoing roadshows aimed at educating residents about housing expectations and processes. Officers stressed the need for clear communication and support for residents, avoiding confusing jargon.

 

Members thanked the officers for their hard work and acknowledged the importance of scrutinising the service’s effectiveness. They sought further clarification regarding the experiences of counterparts in other boroughs and whether there were any best practices that could be adopted.

 

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that housing departments across different boroughs faced similar issues, particularly in supporting domestic abuse victims with empathy and without unnecessary scrutiny. They shared examples of gatekeeping and the challenges faced by victims in accessing support. Officers mentioned that colleagues from other boroughs, such as Hounslow, experienced similar issues. They highlighted the difficulties in signposting clients to other boroughs for emergency accommodation and the lack of communication and consistency in support. The Committee was advised of the challenges in accessing refuge spaces for victims and the need for better coordination.

 

A representative from the public health team offered to provide data on homelessness profiles against comparator sites via other boroughs. They mentioned that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) held relevant data and could assist the Committee in understanding the broader context.

 

Councillors expressed interest in having sight of said data and emphasised the importance of understanding the current standing to effectively improve the service. They also enquired about support from other bodies, such as the Greater London Authority (GLA), and whether additional support had been requested. Officers acknowledged that they had not asked for additional support from other bodies but indicated that it might be beneficial.

 

The Committee enquired about the process of relocating clients out of the Borough and whether they remained with the service or were transferred to the local authority in the new area. It was confirmed that clients relocated out of the Borough were referred to the domestic abuse service in the new area. If children were involved, a transfer to the new area’s children social care team would be arranged. Members heard that some clients returned to their original area due to familiarity and support networks.

 

Members raised concerns about the lack of communication when high-risk cases moved back to the Borough and the potential gaps in support. They also highlighted the need for an in-house counselling service for both victims and staff, given the emotional toll of their work.

 

In response to this, officers agreed with the need for clinical supervision and support for team members who regularly dealt with harrowing accounts of violence. They emphasised the importance of having someone independent to offload to and discuss their experiences.

 

Dan Kennedy, the Corporate Director of Central Services thanked the Chair and everyone for their contributions. He provided context on the current tough environment, noting that the number of housing needs approaches had increased by about 28% since 2019, with 120 to 140 approaches every week. He highlighted the compounded challenges due to rising mortgage interest rates, increasing rents, and landlords exiting the market. Mr Kennedy emphasised the support from the Cabinet, which had invested in acquiring 300 extra properties and working with housing associations to increase housing supply by an additional 300 properties this year compared to last year, rising to 500 homes over the next three years.

 

The Corporate Director of Central Services also mentioned that the changes made over the last year had reduced the number of placements into temporary accommodation by 10% compared to the previous year. He stressed the importance of preventing homelessness to provide stable and secure housing for families, which lead to better outcomes for children. He noted a 7% drop in the number of households living in the highest cost temporary accommodation since mid-April, with no families in commercial hotels and no families with children living in shared accommodation for more than six weeks.

 

Mr Kennedy acknowledged the need for consistency and mentioned efforts to strengthen staff training. He discussed the challenges of handling referrals from other boroughs and the importance of asking the right questions with empathy. He expressed the intention to reinstate a model with dedicated officers for domestic abuse cases to build expertise and empathy. The importance of having champions for other services, such as hospital discharge, and the need for a triage function to handle cases effectively was highlighted.

 

The Committee was appraised of the importance of relationships with private landlords and the need to increase the supply of private rented sector accommodation. The Corporate Director recognised the pressure on staff and mentioned efforts to strengthen welfare arrangements and supervision policies. He discussed the need to improve communication with residents, including making letters more understandable and providing clear explanations from housing officers. Moreover, he addressed the appointment process for housing needs reception, noting the importance of safety for staff and the need to improve the system to provide a better customer experience. He mentioned ongoing work with the corporate management team to make further improvements.

 

Officers expressed concern about the low number of domestic abuse referrals from housing. They questioned whether housing officers were referring victims to domestic abuse services and children’s social care in the new boroughs when victims moved out of the Borough. The need for better coordination and communication to ensure that victims received the necessary support was highlighted.

 

Officers and witnesses were thanked for their attendance and for their invaluable testimony which would assist in formulating recommendations for the review.

 

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