Agenda item

RESOLVED:

·         That this report be noted along with the Committee’s concern regarding the time delay between properties being advertised and occupied, attributed in part to the properties not being ready to let at the time of being advertised.

Fenella Beckman (Director of Housing Strategy), Ellie Eghtedar (Head of Housing Needs and Refugee Services) and Nina Morris (Housing Register Assessment and Allocations Manager) introduced the report. This was followed by a discussion by the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

1.1. The report set out the key elements of the Allocations Policy and the impact of the revised policy in the first year of its implementation, along with including information that was specifically requested by the Committee.

1.2. The revised Allocations Policy was implemented in October 2022. The key revisions made to the policy were- introduction of Band 4 and changes to existing bandings; introduction of statutory overcrowding measures, reassessed bandings for homeless applicants; introduction of smart lettings and the change form a three-offer rule to a two-offer rule.

1.3. For residents in temporary accommodation, when their lease was ending and the landlord wanted the property back, this allowed that household into Band 1 priority. This was to ensure a speedier move for the household and minimise the negative impact on them. The ending of this lease was a rehousing reason built into the Allocations Policy. In the report, under the table in point 5.2, the ‘property hand back request’ referred to this rehousing reason where the lease was ending, and the landlord had requested the property back.

1.4. The report highlighted that in Band 4, there were 12 households that were statutorily overcrowded but not overcrowded by one bedroom. Based on how statutory overcrowding and overcrowding by bedroom standard was measured, the Committee wasn’t sure about how the 12 statutorily overcrowded households were not overcrowded by the bedroom standard. Officers stated that they would look at those 12 cases and provide the Committee with a detailed answer. However, they suspected that this may have been due to the properties being studio properties and the family make-up or it could be that some of those households were in HMOs (Houses of multiple occupation).

1.5. In cases of ‘direct let’ where a household refused the property and it was re-let to a different household, the Locata system removed the primary rehousing reason for the first household that refused the direct-let. This was a glitch in the Locata system and would be rectified moving forwards.

1.6. The table under point 5.5 in the report, included data on the number of lettings by band reason before and after the introduction of the 2022 Allocations Policy. According to the table, before the 2022 policy, there were 288 lettings under the homeless band reason and after the introduction of the 2022 policy this number went up to 423. It was clarified that there was no change in the statutory assessment of homeless households. This increase in number of lettings was due to the change in policy which meant that households with their primary rehousing code as homeless could appear in Bands 1 & 2 and not just in Band 3. It was a choice based letting system and homeless households bid more regularly, therefore appearing higher on the shortlist resulting in more successful bids and higher number of lettings.

1.7. It was discussed that the numbers of applicants and transferring tenants engaging and updating their on-line housing applications to be assessed for statutory overcrowding was relatively low. Mandatory questions about room sizes were incorporated in new applications so this information was being captured for all new applicants. But for existing applicants, this information had to be provided through a change-of-circumstance form and not many existing applicants were filling those out.

1.8. A Committee member enquired about the difference between a management bid and a direct-let. A management bid was when a bid was placed on behalf of the client, so Council officers acted as an advocate on behalf of the client during the bidding cycle.  This was only used in extenuating circumstances for example for vulnerable clients with complex needs.

Direct Lets were offers of accommodation made outside of choice-based lettings (Find Your Home scheme). In this case a property was matched and directly-let to a client because it had been advertised without any successful bidders and was considered a hard-to-let property.

1.9. The duration between bidding and letting of a property was 8 weeks on average. The Committee noted that this was a long time and enquired whether this was because properties were being advertised too early. It was reported that there had been some issues with early advertising and then later on finding out that substantive repair works were needed to bring the property up to letting standard. Officers were consistently having conversations with RPs (Registered Providers) around this to discuss void turnaround and timely advertising of properties. Council officers also liaised with the planning and development team regularly and if they were made aware of any significant delays in new-build properties, they would then contact residents who had bid on the properties to inform them of the delays so that residents could make informed decisions.

1.10. The rehousing reason ‘management discretion’ was used in cases where the manager had used their discretion in line with the Allocation Policy to change someone’s Band priority or in some emergency housing cases where Locata didn’t have a particular primary rehousing code.

1.11. Locata had a list of both ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ reasons for refusal for those applications that had a limited offer policy. The system automatically suspended any applicants who refused offers for unreasonable reasons. An example for a ‘reasonable’ reason would be when an applicant had a genuine need that was not met by the offer such as a necessary medical equipment that couldn’t be brought into the property. An example for an ‘unreasonable’ reason would be when an applicant refused an offer because they thought the property was small even when it met their assessed needs.

1.12. It was noted that letting studios and 1-bed properties had always been difficult.

RESOLVED:

·         That this report be noted along with the Committee’s concern regarding the time delay between properties being advertised and occupied, attributed in part to the properties not being ready to let at the time of being advertised.