Minutes:
Sandra Tolley (Head of Housing Options), Jill Jones (Homelessness Manager) and Sandra Wardle (Housing Advice and Assessment Manager) gave the following powerpoint presentation:-
Overview of the Housing Register
- Band 1 246
- Band 2 1,668
- Band 3 1,783
- Band 4 1,755
- Transfers 1,336
- Total 6,788
Overview of the Housing Register
Band 2 Reason |
Number of applications
|
Statutory Homeless (pre April Legislation) |
19 |
Medical priority (reviewed 980) |
1,280 |
Statutory overcrowded |
19 |
Not ready for independent living held in suspension |
147 |
Leaning supported housing ready to live independently |
67 |
Requiring extra care housing |
5 |
Offender not a high risk to the community |
4 |
Applicants living in private rented who cannot afford the rent but are employed |
24 |
Victim of domestic violence |
96 |
Looked after child ready to live independently |
7 |
Total |
1,668 |
Recommendation 1
The current banding related to homelessness households be enhanced to award a higher banding following a full homeless assessment
Rationale
- Legislative changes which aim to prevent homelessness earlier
- The Allocation Policy must adhere to a legal framework outlined in Part VI and Part VII of the 1996 Housing Act
- Meeting demand
The Demand
Homelessness Category |
Total number of applications in each Band |
Number of homelessness applications |
% of homelessness applications as a % of the total in that Band |
Band 1 Homeless households who are both homeless and also have a medical need |
246 |
61 |
24.80% |
Band 2 Unintentionally homeless households who are in priority need |
1,688 |
19 |
1.14% |
Band 3 Unintentionally homeless but not in priority need |
1,783 |
280 |
15.70% |
Band 4 Threatened with homelessness awaiting assessment |
1,755 |
217 |
12.36% |
Total |
5,452 |
577 |
10.58% |
Proposed Policy
- Applicants in priority need who actually become homeless and a relief duty is owed or when a full housing duty is owned are placed into Band 1
- Applicants in priority need who are faced with homelessness and a prevention duty is owed are placed into Band 2
- Non-priority homeless applicants, who are owned a prevention or relief duty, be placed into Band 3
- Applicants awaiting a homelessness assessment are placed into Band 3
Recommendation 2
Review the downsizing policy to award Band 2 status to Council or Housing Association tenants who are under occupying their home to move to a property with at least 1 less bedroom, a flat or a bungalow (a medical assessment will be required for bungalows)
Rationale
- Current Policy confusing
- Impacts on waiting time for applicants who have been assessed for a bungalow
Current Policy
- Tenants under occupying a 4 bedroom house can move to a 2 bedroom house
- Tenants who are affected by the Bedroom Tax can move to any type of property with 1 less bedroom
- Tenants who are not affected financially can only move to a flat or a bungalow
New Proposed Policy
Review the downsizing policy to award Band 2 status to Council or Housing Association tenants who are under occupying their home to move to a property with at least one less bedroom, a flat or a bungalow (a medical assessment will be required for bungalows)
Recommendation 3
Increase the quota of advertised properties in Band 2 from 50% to 60%, reduce the quota of advertised properties in Band 3 from 40% to 30% and retain the 10% quota for Transfers.
Rationale
- Reduce waiting time for applicants in urgent housing need
New Proposed Policy
|
Old Quota |
Proposed New Quota |
Band 2 |
50% |
60% |
Band 3 |
40% |
30% |
Transfer |
10% |
10% |
Recommendation 4
Single people who are Council or Housing Association tenants living in a flat who are expecting their first child to be eligible for family accommodation on the production of the MATB1 form
Rationale
- To ensure that there is equality and fairness
Current Policy
- Council or Housing Association single tenants living in a flat who are expecting their first child
- Living with parents or in private rented accommodation
New Proposed Policy
Single people who are Council or Housing Association tenants living in a flat who are expecting their first child to be eligible for family accommodation on the production of the MATB1 form
Recommendation 5
A person has local connection if their grandparents live in Rotherham and have done so for the last 3 years. There will be a validation process asking the applicant to provide proof of the grandparent’s address and confirmation that they are in contact with them
Rationale
- To ensure that there is equality and fairness
Current Policy
- Lived for the last 3 years in Rotherham through their own choice
- Currently employed in Rotherham and have been for the last 3 years
- Have direct family who live in Rotherham and they have done so for the last 3 years. Direct family members include spouses, civil partners, parents, sons, daughters, brother and sisters
Proposed New Policy
- Add grandparents as direct family members. There would be a validation process asking the applicant to provide proof of the grandparents’ address and confirmation that they were in contact with them
Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-
· In the case of a person who was in employment but could not afford the rent, options would be considered to enable them to stay in the property e.g. could they share with someone or offer to move them to something cheaper. It was also possible for a Discretionary Housing Payment to pay the rent for a certain period. If someone was really trying to keep their tenancy it would be considered a priority to retain them in the property
· An affordability assessment was undertaken before receiving a tenancy (since April 2018) so it was known what could and could not be afforded before the tenancy commenced
· If someone was accessing private rented property, an affordability assessment would be carried out. A tenant would receive a Housing Allowance as per the Housing Benefit Regulations for that particular size of property. If a person presented themselves through the Homelessness route they would not be signposted to accommodation they could not afford
· OAP Bungalows used to be exempt from Right to Buy if a warden lived on site. However, as the Warden Service no longer existed, they were now eligible
· The inclusion of more homeless people in Band 1 had been in line with the Housing Reduction Act. The Authority had been advised to review its Allocation Policy to ensure homeless households were given the highest priority
· The inclusion of grandparent(s) as regard to the local connection would be checked to ascertain that there was regular contact
· Existing applicants would retain their banding date and remain in Band 1 but new applications would have the new Policy implementation date applied
· The majority of those that occupied a bungalow had had a medical assessment and was over the age of 50 and had a medical need. The 1,650 applicants did not necessarily all require a bungalow but had had medical assessments and deemed to need a ground floor property
· Previously the Allocation Policy had an eligibility age of 60 years but it had been found that they could not be let so the age had been lowered to 50. The shortlist was weighted for those that been assessed and over the age of 50 and then those that were over 50 and not medically assessed but wanted a bungalow. Bungalows were allocated on a need basis but were also kept open to ensure properties could be let and not incur lost rent
· Whilst there was no mention of carers who wanted to move to be nearer to someone they cared for, the medical assessment process did support those in Band 2 if they needed to move
· Consideration could be given to also including a family member who had been the primary carer in childhood with regard to the local connection if the Commission so wished
· Suggestion that existing applicants retain their banding date and remain in Band 1 unless they had a change in circumstances and if so moved to Band 2
· Concern with regard to the length of time some applicants with a medical reason were waiting for a property. Should there be a bidding criteria that stated a person should make a certain number of serious bids for properties in a year or face removal from the waiting list?
· An Equalities Impact Assessment would be completed
· Those wishing to downsize would now be considered in Band 2 rather than Band 1. The properties were awarded to Band 1 applicants in the first instance
· There was a need to look across at possible Policy conflict across the wider Council particularly Adult Social Care
Resolved:- (1) That the current banding related to homelessness households be enhanced to award a higher band following a full homelessness assessment as detailed in section 3.2.6 of the report be supported.
(2) That the review of the Downsizing Policy to award Band 2 status to Council or Housing Association tenants who were under occupying their home to move to a property with at least one less bedroom, a flat or a bungalow (a medical assessment would be required for bungalows) be supported.
(3) That the increase in the quota of advertised properties in Band 2 from 50% to 60%, reduction in the quota of advertised properties in Band 3 from 40% to 30% and retention of the 10% quota for transfers be supported.
(4) That single people who were Council or Housing Association tenants living in a flat who were expecting their first child to be eligible for family accommodation on the production of the MATB1 form be supported.
(5) That a person who has local connection if their grandparents lived in Rotherham and had done so for the last 3 years, subject to a validation process requesting the applicant to provide proof of the grandparent’s address and confirmation that they were in contact with the applicant, be supported.
(6) That consideration be given to extending No. 5 above to include extended family members providing there were close links with family members.
Supporting documents: