Agenda item

To consider an update report on the implementation of the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy.

Consideration was given to an update report and presentation by the Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion, the Assistant Director of Housing, and the Head of Housing options, who were joined by the CEO of local partner organisation, Shiloh. The presentation summarised progress on the implementation of the refreshed Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy, including context information around the increase in homelessness nationally and regionally, due to factors such as cost of living, cost of housing, and support needs. The response to these challenges experienced by the Service in Rotherham was described, and the results of a public engagement exercise at the Rotherham Show were shared, indicating room for greater awareness among Rotherham residents of the issues around homelessness and the support available.

The refreshed strategy had placed additional Service emphasis on prevention and early intervention. Trauma involved in having to move can actually be avoided with the right support in place. It was noted that some rents were rising, which put pressure on individuals, and there are fewer moving on options for people. All local authorities were seeking to employ homelessness officers, and the Service was now fully staffed. A training programme was being delivered to develop staff, and current case loads were described, including new cases and closed cases. The highest reasons for presentation were family and friends not being able to accommodate, the loss of private rented accommodated, and the sales of the properties.  Families temporarily in hotels were moved into permanent housing or other housing as soon as possible, because it was unlawful to have more than six families in hotels for more than six weeks. The lettings and move on information for households were also provided.

Rough sleeping counts had been reducing steadily since 2018. There were three that had been found in September, who were not engaging with services. The six o’clock walks by officers had been accompanied by councillors. If the offer of support was refused, the Service kept trying, as sometimes it was hard for the person to decide to engage with Services for a range of reasons.

The Chief Executive of Shiloh then summarised the activity and delivery of the Shiloh charity in Rotherham which prioritises services toward those most in need. The Shiloh services were delivered from a neutral venue, primarily set up for rough sleepers to provide a warm welcome, and offer a full change of clothing, laundry, and food. These Monday and Friday drop-in services were delivered specifically for the homeless team for Rotherham Council. This is because rough sleepers struggle to engage with authority. On Wednesdays, a multi-agency drop in was hosted for a two- to three-hour window, providing access to every service within one place, including officers from the Council’s homelessness team, drug and alcohol service, universal credit, citizens advice, Gates surgery and NHS mental health clinician. This helped to stop the entrenchment that made engagement very difficult.

In conclusion, the presentation reaffirmed the six priorities of the Strategy and outlined improvements to the refreshed website for the Service where additional information had been made available.

In discussion, Members requested additional details regarding the possibility of increasing energy standards for private rented properties. The Assistant Director of Housing provided context for the discussion around energy standards for the private rented sector. The shortage of accommodation and retrofit rules were described, and the lack of security in the sector which was a key driver in central government’s own impact assessment, leading to the likelihood that there would not be a requirement to achieve C energy efficiency under the Renters Reform Bill. The Council was in a position that was unfortunately in competition with other authorities who were placing within the Borough, and landlords were more likely to work with the Home Office because this paid more. The private sector therefore presented challenges, and it was important for the Council to consider continually how its schemes can be more attractive options for landlords.

Members noted the excellent cross-agency working which was delivered by the Service and sought additional information regarding landlords who may not be following the requirements around Section 21 notices and whether the Service worked with developers in the built-to-rent market. The response from the Assistant Director of Housing and the Head of Housing Options noted that staff were aware of how it should be done and were thoroughly trained to pick up on any issues with section 21 notices. Built to rent developments involved rates that were higher than the local housing allocation rate. This was one of the big challenges that the homelessness service has in finding prospective properties. The suggestion of working with professional landlords was noted to be explored further.

Members expressed curiosity around whether there was any desire to keep some private rented houses available for use as temporary accommodation when needed? Hotels were hard to find within Rotherham. The Service had at times had to move people out of hotels because the hotel was taken over by the Home Office. Other local authorities also placed people in hotels within Rotherham. If there was a show on at the arena, for example, this had an impact on whether local hotels were available for families. Sometimes, the Service found there was not a place in Rotherham, requiring the Service to look further afield for placements such as within the Dearne Valley, or Attercliffe, which were as near to Rotherham as possible and still within South Yorkshire. The portfolio of temporary accommodation was being expanded. Key choices property management achieved 100 properties, and the service was currently considering incentives for landlords such as rent guarantees to provide assurances. This involved setting out what would be the offer and the business case to see what would attract landlords to take a homeless household. A gap analysis regarding age groups had been done, and the Service had successfully obtained funding for single people, with four assessment beds in ten properties.

Members sought additional details around sustainment of the Service, especially for the Service to be able to answer or return phone calls and respond to enquiries. The response from the Head of Housing Options described assistance from the contact centre with fielding calls when the team were down to three staff members. The team had now taken the calls back, and there was now a prevention and intervention team. The team were dedicated to managing with the resources that the team had. Members expressed thanks to the three officers who continued to deliver the Service during such a pressured time.

Members noted that getting the homeless people through this stage of their lives and into training and employment was a credit to the Financial Inclusion Team. Further clarification was requested regarding the rough sleepers figures. The response from the Head of Housing Options clarified the figures in the table which referred to the time between April and September, and the other figures referred to the annual count from March 2022 to April 2023.

Further information was requested regarding the budget for the Service. The response from the Assistant Director of Housing indicated that this year is going to bring significant pressure. There was an overspend that would continue to move around in response to the housing market which was part of the regular budgets which were published. Most of this pressure was related to hotel accommodation.

The Assistant Director of Housing provided an update following the weekend floods, which resulted in a total of 16 households being rehoused into hotel and extended placements to the end of the week, and a series of welfare checks were being undertaken. The service were looking at medium term rehousing for these households, and many wanted to be able to go back to their own homes. The situation of private tenants without insurance was different to a Council tenant who has a property to return to once the Council returned the property to a fit state. Some people will qualify for funding through the Bellwind Scheme which is for major incidents. There were associated budgetary impacts.  

Additional assurances were requested that no homelessness person or rough sleeper was currently in danger. The response from the Head of Housing Options provided assurances that the service worked on the basis of intelligence garnered from officers and rough sleeper outreach workers, and there had been no reports of rough sleepers in flooded areas.

Members offered further condolences to residents in Catcliffe and Treeton and noted the journey to being fully staffed. Foreseeing increased pressure on the service, Members sought to know whether the team could be scaled if needed. The response from officers noted that through a homelessness prevention grant, a migration team had been set up, and there was an accommodation officer to work with private landlords and with the Home Office around decision-making. This specialist support was in place to alleviate pressure. There was also more office-based officer working. There were three experienced officers in the office sharing knowledge to contribute to the rapid training of new team members. New officers were paired with experienced officers to keep people motivated. The managers in the office were also visible to be a resource to team members. There was also a concerted and thorough training plan. It was important to recognise the work staff were doing and to ensure they feel valued.

Members requested additional details regarding actions the Council was taking to increase the volume of temporary residences. The response from the Assistant Director of Housing noted, as an example, that the Council owned a stock of fifteen properties designated for victims of domestic abuse. There was a knock-on effect to increasing the stock of temporary residences, and a decision was open to the Council. The need to increase the stock was evident from the financial pressures that had been mentioned.

Members sought further understand support to streamline the process which requires someone who has been through Key Choices to submit all of their information again to the homelessness Service if they receive a section 21 notice. The response from the Head of Housing Options noted that more support was available, and it was acknowledged that this interface could be more flexible. An external review of the service had been commissioned which would examine the customer journey as part of the review. Some elements, such as providing up to date bank statements did have to be up to date. Specific elements that people had to complete in order to go onto the waiting list that were not included in other submissions would be considered as part of the review.

Members sought to know whether houses purchased by the Council would help with homelessness or temporary accommodation. The response from officers noted that according to the housing acquisition policy, as part of section 106, these homes were added to the Council’s housing stock. This added on the order of 100 properties, including properties that were previously purchased by right to buy. It is often cheaper to purchase these than to build them. The acquired properties would be used as general needs or as temporary accommodation, with the necessary staffing. The Council would make decisions at budget setting around how much of that will be done.

Members sought additional details around whether the Service maintained any register of landlords. The response from officers noted that the Service did have increased knowledge of private sector landlords and had an officer in strategic housing who worked with the private landlords, so although there was not a formal list of properties, officers did have knowledge of this.

Members also sought to know whether the Service rehoused pets as well, and whether the support offered was being shared effectively in messaging. The response from officers noted that one of the hotels accommodated dogs, and a review of temporary accommodation would consider pets. Officers were not aware of other cases where a dog could not be accommodated. The Service offered kennels as required. On Saturday, one of the first things staff were doing was to call around to kennels to try to ensure accommodation. Staff were mindful that a pet is regarded as a member of the family. Sometimes there could be some practical management reasons why this was not always possible to have pets in a property, but as a principle, the Service tried to accommodate pets if possible.

In terms of Council support at Catcliffe, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment described how the drainage team with pumps had been the first to arrive to Catcliffe Friday morning, handing off to the highways team and activating the emergency rest centre in the very early hours of Saturday morning. These teams had maintained their presence there and continued providing support.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That thanks be passed on to the team who have kept the frontline service going during significant staffing pressures.

3.    That thanks to Shiloh and voluntary sector partners be recorded for their work with people who would not otherwise readily engage with statutory agencies and services.