Agenda item

REVIEW OF SOCIAL HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY

To receive a report on Social Housing Allocations Policy.

Minutes:

RECEIVED the report of Neil Wightman (Director of Housing Services (residents). 

 

Neil Wightman presented this item which was a follow up to the last report at the last Housing Scrutiny meeting. The report provided an update on the review of social housing allocation scheme.

 

The responsibility of any scheme is to allocate a very limited resource to those in the greatest need. This is regulated under the Housing Act which provides the framework for how the scheme is run and what must be included.

 

Any new scheme will have an Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken.

 

The Scheme was last updated 18 months ago so this will be a light touch review. The Government is consulting on this which was covered in the report to the last meeting and the main areas that they are looking at are detailed in the report.

 

There are two options for the scheme these being bands or points. Under points the need is calculate against different points examples are contained in the report. Bands is usually easier to understand and involves 4 to 5 bands. Point schemes are more flexible despite being more complicated as there are more categories. Points systems better represent those who have more complex or cumulative needs.

 

The points scheme is currently used and going forward it is proposed to continue. The current scheme uses Choice Based Lettings which ais a national product the recommendation will be to keep CBL.

 

Qualifications was covered at the last meeting; part of the consultation will be on whether to move to a longer period to establish a local connection. The Government is proposing 10 years for UK residents. A number of local authorities are moving to a higher threshold.

 

Priorities will be looked to see if they can be improved the main priority will remain overcrowding. The question to be looked at is who should be prioritised in terms of overcrowding and the issues to consider exception exclusions were detailed in the report. Adults in the household to be looked at a number of schemes with other local authorities do not include this group.

 

Enduring and cumulative needs will be recognised, want to look at where there is greater need within a household. The possibility of including neurodiversity is being explored going forward, particularly around children. There is a legal duty to offer a secure tenancy to households in temporary accommodation pre 2012 (currently 270 households).

 

There are a limited number of priorities that can be maintained due to the number of allocations made. Approximately just over 400 allocations are made each year including housing associations as well as Councils own stock. But with thousands of people on the register and thousands of homeless households, it is a difficult balancing act. Each year the number of people applying for housing goes up.

 

It was stressed that this is not a waiting list it is a Needs Register people often find this difficult to understand or rationalise. This is especially true if they have been waiting a long time.

 

Observations and discussions were then held around the following:

 

It was confirmed that the 10-year local connection will not be retrospective.

 

The one offer on Regeneration will be maintained, and these residents will not be impacted by the local connection.

 

At the point of consultation there will be a fully worked up document to look at. This will include Impact assessment information.

 

Clarification was sought on potentially including neurodiversity what this could mean. Generally, schemes that exclude over 21 years olds do not exclude people with health problems or vulnerabilities. Neurodiversity would be explored with dependent children. It was noted that families may have multiple complex needs including, physical health, neurodiversity as well as mental health. Trying to explore within the scheme giving additional priority.

 

The points system in general is a frequent casework item for many councilors. It was felt that residents did not appreciate that it is a need register rather than a waiting list. Residents get very frustrated. It was felt that it is very important to make clear when people apply that it is needs based and waiting time does not affect their place. Officers advised that whilst it is explained, this remains a constant question and frustration for people, with unfairness perceived. Officers confirmed that will be reviewing what is on the website and information provided to try to make more straightforward and clearer. Action Neil Wightman

 

Observation regarding 10-year local connection, there maybe people with a shorter local connection who often have an association with a lower income or more instability in their life. There was also mention of those who live on the borders on neighboring boroughs and may move short distances and this be counted against them in respect of a 10-year connection, it was felt that a little flexibility is needed. Officers advised that it is difficult to build in too much flexibility as the scheme then become open to challenge. People can apply to multiple local authorities; many local authorities will have same threshold. Nuances to be worked through.

 

Around exceptions to exclusions for those over 21 indicated in agenda papers are over 60 years old, it was queried why they are included as a blanket category. Over 60 years olds are not inherently vulnerable. Officers advised that a suggestion is that this group could be included and is open for discussion. It is ensuring that people are included for the right reasons, challenge on this point noted.

 

It was raised that the Allocation scheme is unpopular and complicated and leaves many disappointed families. There needs to be a way to explain better each time residents contact how the scheme works and the effect of any changes to their points. Overall improved explanation and education is needed. Officers advised that this will be part of the process going forward.

 

Officers were thanked for their time.

Supporting documents: