Agenda item

A presentation was given by the Business Manager, Housing on the Allocations Policy, which was under review. The key policy issues on which the PDG was asked to have input were also listed in report number BMH103.

 

As background to the discussion, the PDG was given a brief explanation of the purpose of an allocations policy: to select a person to be a secure or introductory tenant of the council or accommodation held by another housing authority or to become an assured tenant of accommodation held by a registered provider. The Council had a statutory duty under Part 6 of the Housing Act to have an allocations policy. An allocations policy provided a framework for deciding who should live in vacant properties based on priority need.

 

Local authorities could set their own scheme but reasonable preference had to be given under the homelessness duty, where housing was overcrowded or unsatisfactory, there was a need to move on medical/welfare grounds or where people needed to move to a particular part of the district and failure to meet that need would cause hardship.

 

The existing allocations policy, which introduced a banding system, had been in operation since September 2013. As well as incorporating legislative changes and good practice, the new policy needed to address a number of omissions and be more explicit in conveying to customers and other partner agencies the criteria that against which individuals/households were prioritised.

 

The principles behind the allocations policy were:

 

·         Reduction of voids

·         Making best use of stock

·         Taking account of need across the district

·         Enabling those in the most need to have priority

·         Facilitating sustainable communities

·         Enabling mobility

·         Acknowledging behaviours

 

Under occupation/overcrowding

 

Officers explained that the current policy did not give priority to households seeking to move as a result of under-occupation or overcrowding. Instead it was proposed that some priority should be attached to enable chain letting within the housing stock. During discussion, members stated that they did not think that appropriate for officers to undertake proactive work, encouraging tenants who were living in properties that were under-occupied, to move.

 

Members agreed with the proposal that overcrowded properties lacking two bedrooms should be given band 1 priority while those lacking one bedroom should fall within band 2 and in cases of under-occupancy, households should be put into band 3. There was some concern about managing expectations of tenants that although they had gone up in their priority band, a move was still dependent on the availability of suitable properties following offers to households with higher housing need.

 

A suggestion was made that going forward the PDG might look to consider whether tenants were entitled to a tenancy for life.

 

Refused access

 

Members’ attention was brought to a current disparity between the way the council dealt with applicants who were on introductory and demoted council tenancies and housing association tenants. While on an introductory or demoted council tenancy, tenants were not eligible to go back onto the housing register while housing association tenants could go straight onto the Council’s housing register on being provided with accommodation. The PDG noted that under the proposal, the only exceptions to the policy would be made under the Council’s homelessness duty. Members agreed that these should be aligned.

 

Homelessness

 

The suggestion was put forward that a higher priority band should be given to tenants in the private sector who have been served a notice seeking possession. Under current arrangements, on being given notice applicants would fall into band 3 and only be given priority when they were homeless. It was proposed that the new South Kesteven policy should align with others in Lincolnshire that put those applicants served with such a notice straight into band 1, preventing them from completing a homelessness claim.

 

Members agreed with the proposal.

 

Banding

 

The current policy included provision for 4 bands of need. A new band of need was proposed for those applicants with no local connection, reduced priority because of unacceptable behaviour or rent arrears, or with sufficient resources. Members agreed with the principle of adding an additional band to cover these groups.

 

Income levels

 

Discussion ensued about whether there should be a cut-off point at which an applicant for housing should be considered to have sufficient resources. It was proposed that a maximum of £16,000 in assets (as per requirements for claiming benefits). A maximum income was also proposed. A suggestion was made that there should be no income limit to maintain a mix in housing and prevent the creation of ‘sink estates’. Other members felt that £16k in assets (excluding pensions) was too high, particularly with the suggested income limits of £30k for a single person and £50k for a couple.

 

After considerable debate, members of the PDG asked for more information including the practice of other authorities and comparator figures.

 

Owner occupiers

 

Currently owner-occupiers were accepted for sheltered housing if they were over 50 or there was a medical need. Members were asked to consider whether owner-occupiers should be excluded from the list or whether there were new opportunities that could be explored. Examples of schemes elsewhere included accepting the owner-occupier into sheltered housing on signing an agreement leasing their property to the Council for a specified period. Members were generally supportive of this proposal however a number of questions were raised about ongoing liability for repairs and other practicalities of the scheme; these would need to be the subject of a further paper. Alternatively the Council could look at introducing a scheme where it could buy the property outright. Adopting this proposal would not affect the entitlement of anyone needing to move for medical reasons.

 

The PDG agreed that it wanted to undertake further work on this subject.

 

Local lettings policy

 

It was suggested that future flexibility to introduce a local lettings policy could help manage anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood nuisance where there were identified needs in local neighbourhoods.

 

Local connection

 

The local connection provision within the current allocations policy required a connection of at least 6 months before being eligible to go on the housing register; the recommendation of the Secretary of State was two years. The PDG noted that neighbouring authorities had a minimum requirement of 2-years and a majority of members agreed that the minimum period in the South Kesteven Policy should be adjusted to align with them.

 

Witness protection

 

The current allocations policy was silent in respect of witness protection. It was suggested that applicants for housing who were part of the programme should be split into two groups with those fleeing life-threatening urgent situations under the national witness protection scheme should be included in the emergency band while those people who were  part of the local witness protection scheme should be placed into band 2. Members agreed with the suggestion.

 

Unacceptable behaviours

 

Behaviour of tenants was currently reviewed by a single officer; it was proposed that responsibility for this should be transferred to a panel of officers with a right of appeal through a senior officer. It was also suggested that those tenants found to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour should be placed into band 5. Behaviours defined as unacceptable would be listed within the policy; members requested an additional opportunity to discuss which behaviours should be included in the list and the trigger points at which they became unacceptable.

 

Harassment/risk of violence

 

While domestic abuse was built into the current allocations policy, other violence was not. Officers advised that domestic violence fell within the emergency band while domestic abuse fell into either band 1 or 2. When there were threats of other violence, it was proposed that victims be placed into band 3 while victims of other violence should be placed into band 2, which members of the PDG supported.

 

Transfer tenants

 

Under the existing policy transfer tenants were included in the main list of applicants. While it was possible to run a second list, there were concerns about the implications of running two systems side-by-side. Alternatively allocations could be made on a quota basis, with, for example, 40% of allocations going to transfers while 60% were offered to the waiting list. A third, preferred option would see the interleaving of transfers with offers being made to the list: all properties should be considered for the emergency band, then priority would fall to band 1 transfer, band 1 ordinary, band 2 transfer, band 2 ordinary, etc. PDG members supported the proposed approach.

 

Multiple needs

 

Consideration was given to households with multiple needs. The current policy considered the person in the household with most need; it was noted that some households’ needs were very complex. It was also noted that trying to build a system that considered all the needs of a household would be expensive and complicated. Instead the suggestion was made that some management discretion should be built into the new policy to enable a panel to take a flexible approach when dealing with households with multiple needs by awarding a band higher.

 

Armed forces

 

The armed forces covenant required the Council to consider those coming out of the forces for five-years from their leaving date. Consideration was also being given to extending that cover to spouses. This would cover those spouses whose partner had come out of the forces and the marriage had subsequently broken down. Members agreed that this should be written into the policy.

 

Regeneration

 

Currently there was no category within the allocations policy for instances where the Council needed to demolish its own properties to build something different. Giving priority to those affected by any such developments within the main banding arrangements would prevent the need to complete a homelessness application.

 

Partnership work

 

Members were asked to consider whether the policy should be extended to recognise children that were fostered or adopted through an authority other than Lincolnshire Children’s Services, which was the case with the current policy. Given the proximity of the district to other authorities with a Children’s Services function, members agreed that this should be extended. Responsibility for the child would remain with the originating Children’s Services Team rather than transferring to Lincolnshire. The PDG supported extending the policy.

 

Changes in circumstances

 

There were three aspects of changing circumstances that the PDG was asked to consider. The first related to awarding priority at Maternity B1 stage instead of waiting until a baby had been born and a birth certificate presented. The second related to ex-right to buy stock and preventing a tenant from buying a property and going straight back onto the housing register because that property was not affordable to them; under these circumstances it was proposed that applicants coming back within 5 years of buying their property be placed into band 5. The final category members were asked to consider in relation to changes in circumstance related to properties where adaptations had been made to a property to accommodate a tenant with a disability and that tenant then presented to the Council for re-housing. A time limit of 5 years was also suggested for this, during which the applicant would be placed into band 5. Members of the PDG supported all three of the policy proposals.

 

Age to have own room

 

Under the current policy young people over the age of 16 would be considered for their own rooms while the Housing Act 1985 Bedroom Standard stated that people aged 21 and over should have their own bedrooms. Members of the PDG supported increasing the age in the local policy to match the legislation.

 

Choice

 

As part of the outgoing policy, offers for different types of property were based on the household make-up. It was suggested that a choice of property type should be re-introduced. This would help reduce void length by getting an offer right first time. Members supported the principle and wanted to be involved in further work on choice based lettings.

 

Management

 

Proposals relating to management were designed to address decisions, reviews and appeals being undertaken by a single officer. It was suggested instead that they should be dealt with by a panel of officers with a right of appeal sitting with a senior officer.

 

The suggestion was made that a workshop of the PDG should be held prior to the next meeting of the PDG to enable further discussion of the issues raised. The new policy would be subject to consultation with registered providers and tenant representatives in the first instance with sessions for elected members also being scheduled.