HOUSING SCRUTINY SUB COMMITTEE MINUTES of the OPEN section of the SPECIAL meeting of the HOUSING SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE held on 30 MARCH 2004 at 6.00 PM at the Town Hall, Peckham Road, London SE5 8UB PRESENT: CO-OPTED MEMBER (NON VOTING) ALSO PRESENT: OFFICERS: Councillor Gavin O Brien (Chair) Councillor Fiona Colley (Vice-Chair) Councillors Dr Abdur-Rahman Olayiwola, Charlie Smith. Mr Al-Issa Munu Tenant Representative Mr Lionel Wright Tenant Representative Councillor Beverley Bassom Chair of Allocations Review Board Ade Lasaki Tenants Representative on Allocations Review Board Glen Egan Legal Services Miny Jansen Housing Options Manager Carina Kane Scrutiny Team Carol Smith Housing Options Initiatives Manager APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Councillors Jonathan Hunt, Abdul Mohamed Anne Yates; Dave Clark and John Nosworthy. CONFIRMATION OF VOTING MEMBERS The Members listed as being present were confirmed as the Voting Members. NOTIFICATION OF ANY OTHER ITEMS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMS AS URGENT There were no items. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS Councillor Charlie Smith said that he was a member of the Allocations Review Board, whose proposed policy was being discussed for item 1 on the agenda. The Legal Officer advised that this was no prejudicial. 1
RECORDING OF MEMBERS VOTES Council Procedure Rule 1.17(5) allows a Member to record her/his vote in respect of any motions and amendments. Such requests are detailed in the following Minutes. Should a Member s vote be recorded in respect to an amendment, a copy of the amendment may be found in the Minute File and is available for public inspection. The Sub-Committee considered the items set out on the agenda, a copy of which has been incorporated in the Minute File. Each of the following paragraphs relates to the item bearing the same number on the agenda. 1 HOUSING ALLOCATION REVIEW POLICY 1.1 The Chair gave a brief introduction to this item and said that the Sub-Committee had previously endorsed Choice-based lettings as an approach. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the draft Lettings policy prepared by the Housing Allocation Policy Review Board. The draft policy would go to Executive in April 2004 for an inprinciple agreement prior to embarking on consultation. 1.2 Lionel Wright and Al-Issa Munu asked for legal advice on the Executive taking an inprinciple decision before consultation. The Legal Officer advised that there was nothing to prevent this approach, and added that it had the advantage of focusing those being consulted so enabling more informed input into the consultation. 1.3 Miny Jansen (Housing Options Manager) gave a presentation which outlined the background to the policy, the composition of the Allocations Review Board, information about the changes proposed in the document and the proposed process for advertising vacancies. Key points to note included: The main Board decisions related to how to maximise choice and who to give priority to. The policy proposed four priority bands, and priority for bids would be determined by which band the bidder is in, and within the band, the date they registered on the Housing list. Modelling demonstrated there was likely to be a significant increase in rehousing applicants who were overcrowded or had medical needs from the proposed policy, but a decrease in lettings to homeless people, particularly in the few years following scheme implementation. A new category of multiple needs in Band 2 addressed a current policy problem, as it gave priority to those with multiple problems (such as overcrowding and medical needs). Greater priority would be given to overcrowding, and there was now a less stringent definition of tenants living in overcrowding conditions. Considerable research had been done, including site visits to other boroughs. Pilot schemes had indicated a high level of customer satisfaction (e.g. more flexibility if you change the criteria about what you want); void turnaround either improved or remained the same; only a small proportion of households required intensive assistance for scheme participation; reduction in homeless applications. 2
1.4 There was a discussion about the Home Office policy to give amnesty to asylum seekers. Housing Officers said that Southwark had good practice in dealing with asylum seekers granted indefinite leave to remain. Approximately 300 families were in this situation in Southwark, only one so far required a homeless application (because the landlord would not give tenancy). Under the proposed policy, asylum seekers would be treated the same as everyone else once they had been granted indefinite leave to remain. 1.5 Officers explained that the accessibility of the proposed bidding arrangements had been considered. For instance, it was intended that there would be a talking heads system on the internet which explained the bidding process in a variety of different languages, including sign-language. A similar system would be in place for telephone bids. It was recognised that not everybody could collect the fortnightly magazine, so there would also be a mailing system. One issue that still needed to be resolved was in relation to the magazine it was not practical to translate it into a number of different languages. 1.6 Officers said that there was an intention to simplify the application form. However, this review had not yet started. 1.7 Miny Jansen confirmed that they intended to proactively pick up those people who were missing out on bidding for some reason. They also believed it was worth investing resources into people who made several unsuccessful housing bids in order to establish where there was a problem. Miny added that the policy still allowed for officers to make direct offers. 1.8 In reference to resolutions made by the Sub-Committee on 3 November 2003, Councillor Colley asked if the Council had explored the opportunity to develop a scheme with boroughs in the South-East London Sub-Region. Miny Jansen responded that the Board had thought it important to launch the scheme as a Southwark initiative and then link up with other boroughs to develop a partnership approach. Lewisham and Greenwich had indicated some interest in pursuing a partnership scheme. The North- West arrangements were not as financially advantageous to Southwark. 1.9 Miny Jansen said that there would be a significant step change in priorities. Homeless applicants would be the most affected, though this did not involve large numbers. Homeless would still be accommodated in temporary accommodation, but it would result in fewer offers of permanent accommodation. In addition, those who had been on the Housing List for a long time might be affected due to re-banding. 1.10 Ade Lasaki (Tenants Representative on the Allocation Policy Review Board) then spoke. He said he had been satisfied by the Board s achievements and the transparency in the approach, particularly in relation to minorities. Southwark had the advantage of being able to see best practice in other authorities and learn from their mistakes. 1.11 There was discussion about who would be consulted. Homeless people would be included. Lionel Wright expressed concern that certain groups of people would suffer from the onus being put on them to look for houses (e.g. people who were illiterate). Officers said they were happy to take suggestions as to groups who should be involved in consultation. 1.12 The Chair invited Beverley Bassom to speak about the policy. Councillor Bassom said the following: 3
the Board had worked extremely well together and special mention should be made about the effort and dedication of Ade Lasaki, who had not missed any meetings. the emphasis of the policy was choice people were able to make more informed choices, and had the option of waiting for something they wanted as opposed to something they needed. For example a family may choose accommodation that was one bedroom short of what they needed because it was in a better location school-wise. there would be a Member Briefing on the proposed policy. the Board had sent instructions to the Director of Housing to review dwellings for older people with the aim of having more properties dedicated as suitable for the older age group. She was happy to consider additional questions from Members at a later stage. The Sub-Committee passed on their best wishes to Councillor Bassom, who then left the meeting. 1.13 Lionel Wright was concerned about the policy relating to appeals, particularly the short timeframe for making an appeal. Miny Jansen explained that policy had been carried over from existing policy, and was included in the proposed Lettings policy as a safety net for the few people who were still made direct offers of accommodation. The timeframe of the appeal could was flexible in certain circumstances, such as getting the documentation together. This policy had not posed a problem in the past. Glen Egan (Legal Officer) reminded the Sub-Committee that the Council was unable to make direct offers unless the accommodation was suitable. 1.14 Miny Jansen agreed with a comment that there still seemed to be a gap between information available to housing applicants at neighbourhood offices and the Housing Options Services. She said that they were trying to close this gap; this was not addressed in the proposed policy. There was a proposal to develop a Housing Options Centre to deal with current inconsistencies. 1.15 Some Sub-Committee Members were concerned that procedures were not made clear enough. There was a suggestion that the leaflets which provided advice, such as how to get on housing lists, should be incorporated into the Lettings Policy. Officers advised that this was not practical. 1.16 A query was raised as to why decants were not given any accommodation choice. Officers said this was the current policy, but did not mean that there would be no element of choice. For example, swapping of accommodation between tenants could be done with mutual agreement. 1.17 There was a discussion about room sizes outlined in the draft Lettings Policy. The rooms were set according to Housing Legislation, but Officers would be prepared to review these. The draft policy stated room size in metres, but Officers would consider changing this back to feet. 1.18 Other operational points were also discussed. Officers said: If more than one household was invited to view the same accommodation, the households would be advised that this was the case, and would be advised where they were in the ranking. Not keeping appointments was considered a refusal. There was some flexibility if Officers were informed that people could not make an appointment, however, timeframes were tight for filling the accommodation. 4
No specific groups would be involved in direct offers. However, direct offers would still be made in certain circumstances (e.g. elderly person who had just returned from hospital and could not actively take part in the biddings process). RESOLVED: a) That the Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee gives inprinciple endorsement of the 3 rd draft of the Lettings Policy. b) That the Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee be further involved in the development of the Lettings Policy, and in particular has the opportunity to: i. scrutinise the consultation arrangements prior to consultation taking place ii. consider the consultation results and the final Lettings Policy proposals prior to their final consideration at Executive in late 2004. c) That Officers: i. revisit paragraphs 85, 168 and 196; ii. amend paragraph 201 by removing the words this applies, and replacing with for example. iii. consider extending the period allowed for appeals from direct offers; and iv. review the registration process with a view to simplifying it. d) That the Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee would support a review into increasing the number of blocks dedicated to older people. The meeting closed at 8:35pm. CHAIR: DATE: 5