Agenda item

RESOLVED:

·         That the Committee recognised the very difficult circumstances under which the housing service was currently operating and noted this report.

Fenella Beckman (Director of Housing Strategy), Ellie Eghtedar (Head of Housing Needs and Refugee Services) and Theo Bonner (Accommodation Supply and Resettlement Service Manager) introduced the report. This was followed by a discussion by the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

1.1. There were currently 2,806 households in temporary accommodation provided by Lewisham. The Committee enquired how many of those 2,806 did Lewisham owe the Section 193 duty to and how many of those did Lewisham owe the Section 188 duty to. Officers reported that they didn’t have the detailed figures to hand but around 50% of the 2,806 were owed the Section 193 duty. The full data would be circulated to the Committee following the meeting.

1.2. Due to the decrease in the Council’s stock of temporary accommodation, it was becoming increasingly reliant on the use of expensive nightly paid temporary accommodation. When residents were housed in nightly-paid accommodation, they still paid the LHA rate (Local Housing Allowance) and the Council paid the difference to meet the nightly accommodation cost (known as the housing benefit subsidy cost). This was to minimise the negative impact on residents but was leading to overspend in the Council’s budget.

1.3. The Local Authority could discharge its relief duty by housing residents in accommodation in the private rented sector. However, due to the lack of such properties, more and more residents were being placed into temporary accommodation. If residents were still in temporary accommodation when the Council’s 56-day relief duty lapsed, then the Council accepted full housing duty for them. Therefore, Lewisham’s acceptance rates were quite high. However, officers were using the Council’s Procurement Strategy to try and meet this demand.  

1.4. Work was ongoing to ensure that empty properties in the borough were being brought back into use as soon as possible, using a combination of support for landlords/ owners, issuing Empty Property grants and carrying out enforcement action. This work was being undertaken by officers in the Private Sector Licensing and Home Improvements team. Several factors contributed to the prolonged process of bringing an empty property back into use, beginning with the search for the landlord/ owner. It was suggested that the Council could look into giving some incentives to landlords to bring empty properties back.

1.5. In certain circumstances a Local Authority could apply for an Empty Dwelling Management Order when a property had been empty for 6 months. Given the shortage of properties for temporary accommodation, it was suggested that the use of these orders be considered. However, it was noted that it was a labour-intensive process.

1.6. It was clarified that point 7.8 of the report meant that out of the 2,806 Lewisham households in temporary accommodation, 53% of them were placed within the borough of Lewisham.

1.7. As part of the Procurement Strategy, there was a review of the packages being offered to landlords and one part of that review was looking at the Council bridging the gap between the LHA and market rate, to be able to procure accommodation in the private rented sector. There was also the Housing Acquisition Programme which was helping to increase the supply of cost-effective temporary accommodation.

1.8.  Many landlords were just exiting the market and looking to sell due to high interest rates, and many people who could previously buy a property were now looking to rent, further reducing the supply of properties in the private rented sector. The high demand and the lack of supply of accommodation in the private rented sector was a big challenge and had also been highlighted to the EMT (Executive Management Team) as a corporate risk. Given how difficult the situation was, the Accommodation Supply team at Lewisham was performing really well compared to other London boroughs. Nightly-paid temporary accommodation was only used when necessary after other avenues had been explored and officers were consistently trying to move residents out of nightly-paid accommodation.

1.9. The Council’s temporary accommodation budget was forecast to overspend by £9 in 2023/24. It was noted that the Council’s high costs for temporary accommodation came out of the General Fund and not out of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

1.10. Point 7.9 of the report highlighted that there were 60 households on the housing register that required a permanent wheelchair adapted property. The scarcity of such properties posed a significant challenge. To address this, officers recently introduced an Accommodation Adaptation Register. Officers also assessed adapted properties in new builds so that individuals with these needs in temporary accommodation could be relocated to those properties via a management bid or direct-let. It was difficult to secure wheelchair-adapted properties in the private rented sector. Even if the Disabled Facilities Grant could be used to adapt the property, landlords remained hesitant, primarily due to their eventual desire to reclaim the property.

As part of the Acquisition Programme, specially adapted properties were actively being sought. It was also worth noting that sometimes individuals approached the Council proactively to offer adapted properties.

1.11. The report mentioned that a full equalities impact assessment was undertaken for the Procurement Strategy. A Committee member requested that in future reports when references were made to any relevant equalities assessments, that they be hyperlinked in the report.

1.12. It was noted that as of mid-December 2023, 1,178 families were in nightly paid temporary accommodation.

1.13. According to government guidance, if no alternative accommodation was available, families with children could be placed in shared accommodation for a maximum period of 6 weeks. Officers reported that Lewisham had 8 families in shared accommodation but at the time of this meeting, the number of families in shared accommodation was down to zero. There were boroughs across London with more than 100 families in shared accommodation. Officers had a weekly action plan and reviewed the cases of families in shared accommodation consistently to ensure families were moved to a more appropriate accommodation as soon as possible. For the longest time, Lewisham had zero families in shared accommodation but unfortunately that couldn’t continue due to the supply demand crisis. It was noted that there was an exception to this 6-week rule as the government could keep asylum seeking families in initial assessment accommodation for longer than 6 weeks.

1.14. Temporary accommodation supply was low as it locked landlords into a limited period lease and paid the LHA rate which didn’t translate into much profit for landlords especially with the interest rates going up. There was a lot of competition for temporary accommodation properties in Lewisham as it was one of the more affordable boroughs in South London so other authorities were still placing people in Lewisham. One such example was Pentland House- which was being used as Home Office accommodation and was recently decanted. Lewisham tried securing the property but was unsuccessful and an East London borough had procured the whole block.

RESOLVED:

·         That the Committee recognised the very difficult circumstances under which the housing service was currently operating and noted this report.