A presentation from Harlesden Area Action put Brent housing chiefs on the spot at yesterday's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee meeting when the Council was accused of not fulfilling their responsibilities as owners of the Freehold at two properties.
They were told that the example above was one of many in Harlesden and Kensal Green where Brent was not fulfilling its responsibility to 'keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of residential properties it owns'.
The property with accumulated waste and evidence of rat infestation, was reported in August 2019 but the issue not resolved until January 17th this year. This meant that Brent Council was not adhering to the duty cited in the Brent Housing Report that 'landlords are responsible to ensure premises are not in a state to be prejudicial to health or nuisance'.
Responding Cllr Southwood, lead member for Housing and Benefits, admitted that the Council needed to be more proactive. They were reliant to issues such as this being flagged up by councillors as a result of residents' complaints, as well as input from Veolia and Streetcare. Improvements were needed in future.
Presenting the Performance Report on Brent Housing Management Cllr Southwood focused on improvements since BHP was brought back in-house in 2017 and Wettons brought in-house later.
There had been an improvement in the speed of repairs and residents' satisfaction with them but more work needed to be done by closer monitoring of Wates, particularly on complex repairs (those that needed more than one trade). The Council hoped that its current review with Wates would result in an an improvement. Wates had been honest about shortcomings enabling things to move forward. There seemed little prospect of this service being brought back in-house.
The Council were introducing a mobile phone App which would enable residents to report repairs 24/7. Customer satisfaction with routine repairs was currently 83% (72% in last full period of the Brent Housing Partnership) and the Council's aim was to increase this to 90%. Some members of the Committee suggested the target should be 100%.
A puzzling finding was that there was no correlation between 'customer satisfaction' and the amount invested in council housing maintenance and refurbishment.
The Committee discussed the importance of hearing residents' voices as part of the Asset Management Strategy. A 'Customer Panel' had been formed. It was not elected but appointed from volunteers in order to cover a range of tenancies and experience. They challenged performance and would be involved in considering any changes of policy. Housing Management were going to suggest that panel members follow a repair through from hearing the initial phone call, going out on the job with Wates, and seeing the repair to completion.
Changes were proposed in broadening the customer survey with a wider range of possible responses and asking tenants and leaseholders how they feel about the service itself.
Councillors questioned progress on Fire Risk Assessments with personal Emergency Action Plans (PEEPs). The Committee asked for a report back on the 12 week programme that is about to commence to identify needs and review any changes required in the blocks.
I
understand both Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council lead member for Housing
and Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, promised that there would be
no evictions of council tenants in rent arrears due to Universal Credit delays,
following the unanimous approval of the motion below at Brent Constituency
Labour Party GC.
MOTION: RENT ARREARS and UNIVERSAL
CREDIT
This GC
notes the clear evidence that where Universal Credit has been rolled out more
people are made homeless as a result of rent arrears. The main causes of
arrears are the five week delay in first payment of Universal Credit and
other delays caused by DWP error.
We
therefore call on Brent Labour Group to follow the lead of Camden Council in
refusing to evict tenants in such circumstances and to urge registered social
landlords and private landlords to do the same.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The demand
was first made at the meeting on Universal Credit held at Chalhill Community
Centre on November 18th 2018. Report on Wembley Matters HERE
Universal Credit, the controversial new integrated benefit system, is being rolled out in Brent. This is the Council' announcement:
The government's long-awaited Universal Credit is being rolled out in Brent from November 2018 on the following dates:
21 November 2018 for Harlesden Job Centre
5 December 2018 for Wembley Job Centre
This means that residents with a change in circumstances or
those moving into Brent making a claim for the first time will have to
apply for Universal Credit instead of the benefits listed below:
Housing Benefit
Job Seeker's Allowance (income based)
Employment and Support Allowance (income related)
Income Support
Working Tax Credit
Child Tax Credit
The six benefits above will be merged into one single payment -
Universal Credit. Unlike many of the existing benefits, Universal Credit
will be paid once a month, rather than weekly, fortnightly or four
weekly as housing benefit is traditionally paid, and will be paid
directly into the claimant's bank account in arrears. This is a change
for many residents who currently have their housing benefit paid direct
to their landlord.
The government wants all Universal Credit
claims to be both made and updated online. If residents do not have
access to the internet, they will be able to visit one of the above Job
Centres for assistance. Each Job Centre will have a front of house team
specifically set up to help and assist residents to make and maintain
their Universal Credit claims online.
To make an application
for Universal Credit, residents will need to apply directly to the
Department for Work and Pensions via their website https://www.gov.uk/apply-universal-credit There is also a free helpline available for those that need any extra support: 0800 328 5644.
Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform said:
These are huge changes, particularly for residents who are already
struggling to get by. The first port of call for formal advice is the
DWP, who are implementing the changes. However, I want to remind
residents that the council is here to help and you should contact us if
you're worried that you might be falling into rent arrears or if you
need support with your council tax.
Who in the Future will be Affected by
Universal Credit (UC)?
1. To date, of the 1 million households now on UC, the vast majority (except in
local pilot areas), have been the unemployed. However that is about to change.
From now on across the country all new or updated benefit claims (with a few
exceptions) including those in work who receive Tax Credits have to be made
through UC.
2.DWP also
plans to force everyone on benefits (including those on Working and Child Tax
Credits) to claim UC even if there has been no change in their circumstances.
DWP has refused to initiate transfers of Tax Credit claims on to a UC regime.
Instead people have to initiate UC applications, a fraught and costly process.
Testing forced transfers, called ‘managed migration’ by DWP, is due to start
for some Tax Credit recipients in July 2019.
3.Nationally,
DWP’s plans mean 3 in 4 of the planned total of 7 million families on UC, would
be in work. So of the estimated 16 million people nationally in families
receiving UC, around 12 million would be in working families.
Background
4. This note outlines the Department of Work and Pensions’ (DWP) plans on UC as
at early November 2018. These plans have changed many times. DWP has said they
may change again if more problems with UC come to light.
5. UC has been criticised by welfare and other advice
agencies after cases of severe hardship came to light and a series of analyses
on the impact of UC especially after funding was cut. Arguably UC has become so
discredited that what its future should be and indeed whether it should have a
future is a matter for serious political debate.
Why have People found the UC Application Process so
Fraught?
6. Firstly the forms are very lengthy – running to tens of pages. Secondly DWP
want people to fill them in online. Even experienced advisers find the process;
setting up accounts, locating and scanning in all the documents which DWP
require to ‘verify’ a UC claim, often takes many hours, not counting
verification visits to DWP offices.
7. DWP’s own research found barely half could complete the
process without help. One in 4 claimants were not able to claim at all without
help. Many have found applying for UC more difficult than applying for Tax
Credits.
The UC application process is most intimidating and unsuitable for those with
poor language, writing or IT skills.
The process especially frightens those with mental health problems eg anxiety,
as DWP’s own research shows.
8. Thirdly the risks, if things go wrong, have been
largely put on to the applicant. Imposing on applicants financial penalties
arising from the complex UC application process, is unreasonable given the
widely known problems people have faced in completing UC applications to DWP’s
satisfaction. Government November 2018 changes have reduced, but not removed,
risks imposed on people when those on Tax Credits are forced to apply for UC.
9. If people do not successfully apply within 1 month of a
DWP deadline they risk losing ‘Transitional Protection’ which protects, for a
while, their money if UC pays less than they get with Tax Credits. Further DWP
only allow UC claims to be backdated by one month – less than the 3 months
allowed for backdating of some benefit claims.
Do Tax Credit Recipients lose Money?
10. First of all, UC claimants face gaps in payment imposed by DWP in two
stages. The UC system builds in a gap in payments, reduced in the 2018 Budget
to a minimum of 3 weeks, after applying for UC. On top of that gap 1 in 5
claimants have faced on average a 4 week delay by DWP (ie on top of the 3 week
gap) in receiving some or all of their money. DWP do not expect the % facing
additional delays in some UC payment to be reduced during 2018.
11. Indeed there may well a big rise in the current UC
claim processing delays by DWP under the strain of a six-fold increase in the
rate of new UC claims planned by DWP for 2020 plus the more complicated
circumstances of future UC claims with working income and child care costs,
(unlike the mainly simpler unemployed cases so far).
12. Secondly amounts paid under UC differ from what
working families get on Tax Credits. Some would get more money under UC. But
overall working families face a net loss on average of about £250 a year on UC,
after the 2018 Budget measures notably the higher work allowances. The Budget
reduced, but did not end the losses.
13. UC losses are bigger for (mainly female) single
parents, and disabled people loss of Severe Disability Premium.
UC hits women more. The combined impact of tax and benefit changes hits women 7
times as severely as men.
14. UC’s Minimum Income Floor has adverse impacts for many
self-employed people eg taxi drivers, often BME.
15. Tax and benefit measures in the 2018 Budget only
partially offset the overall losses since Summer 2015 from for instance the
benefit freeze. Overall tax and benefit changes reduce income just for the
lower income groups.
Does UC Contribute to a More Hostile Environment for
Workers?
16. As well as financial losses, UC can intrude into peoples’ lives. Under the
UC regime, workers can be pressed by DWP to job search to increase hours or
earnings. This is worse for some eg single parents with child care duties.
17. For the first time workers are now at risk of
‘sanctions’ – loss of benefit. UK has the 2nd most demanding set of
‘benefit conditionality’ terms out of 39 countries. Under UC sanctions are 4
times more frequent than pre-UC.
18. Insisting everyone has to apply for UC online is not
user friendly, especially for those nervous of computers.
Is Universal Credit Actually Simpler?
19. One advantage claimed for UC is ‘simplification’ with 6 benefits rolled up
into 1. The comparison is misleading: no one person ever receives all 6
benefits simultaneously. It is also partial: UC does not include some benefits.
The difficulty of making UC claims shows that any ‘simplification’ is not
usually to the advantage of applicants.
20. Other aspects of ‘simplification’ may not help people.
Paying UC as one payment may be convenient for DWP, but it means women will
lose out when all money goes to one person, the higher earner, usually male. At
the moment Child Tax Credit and the childcare element of Working Tax Credit
typically go to the woman in a family.
Women with no direct access to money find it more difficult to leave when
facing domestic abuse or violence.
Are there Other Benefits of UC?
21. DWP has claimed UC increases work incentives. That is so, but to a very
limited extent. For the (1 in 3) people in work facing the highest effective
tax rates they are cut from slightly over 90% to 85% with UC. The evidence is
such incentives have little effect. Using sanctions implicitly admits that the
work incentives are not effective.
22. DWP has argued that benefit take-up will rise under
UC. But the user–unfriendly nature of UC, its toxic reputation and what an
official report calls DWP’s ‘culture of indifference’, reduce the chances of
higher take-up.
23. The DWP says that UC will reduce fraud and error. The
NAO report refers to ‘a lack of evidence’ on this claim.
Conclusions
24. Government UC plans will increasingly affect people in work. Recent changes
to UC have reduced the delays and the financial costs for workers, but not
eliminated them. Reducing delays and more funding are not enough to make UC
suitable. It is very user-unfriendly and intrudes oppressively into peoples’
lives. A harsh UC regime drives people into taking unsatisfactory work, putting
downward pressure on work T&Cs – a core union concern.
25. There is a very strong case for Trade Unions to call
on political parties to back ‘Stop and Scrap UC’ and, so long as UC continues,
urging councils to minimise the impacts. Some Boroughs have set up information,
advice and advocacy services eg Tower Hamlets, and others have committed to not
evict tenants in arrears as a result of UC.
26. Pushing more people on to UC should be immediately
halted, whilst a fundamental review considers the options.
New voluntary body, Clean Air for
Brent (CAfB), formally launched at Willesden Library on the evening of
Wednesday 11 October 2017. Fiona Mulaisho of Kensal Rise chaired an
enthusiastic meeting of some 30 people who enrolled as members and elected a Steering
Group to take the organisation forward. Priorities for action were identified.
Clean Air for Brent
is a coalition of residents’ associations, community groups and individuals in
Brent focused on raising awareness, changing behaviours and lobbying for better
measures to tackle air pollution to improve public health outcomes.
Tulip Siddiq MP had
hoped to attend but was detained by Parliamentary duties. In a message to the
meeting she said:
“I believe
Sadiq Khan is saying the right things about air quality in London and it is
high time local authority action plans’ ambition matched his own. Ultimately,
however, it will be down to government to introduce the sweeping changes needed
to make local air cleaner and within legal limits… I look forward to working
closely with Clean Air for Brent in the coming months to advance their
campaigning objectives.”
Cllr Ellie Southwood, Cabinet Member for
Environmental Services, explained that Brent’s Air Quality Action Plan will go
to Council for approval in November but there are many initiatives already
underway. Recently all Brent schools had been sent an anti-idling toolkit to
promote efforts to reduce pollution from vehicles outside schools, including
from school runs.Clean Air for Brent is
ready to support any actions the Council can take to clear the air we breathe.
Clean Air for Brent reported on a range
of activities they have undertaken during their formation process. These
included monitoring air pollution in local streets as
part of a citizen science project across London, holding “The Air We Breathe” event in Brent Civic Centre in
July, attended by 80 people, setting up a website and responding in depth to
local, regional and national consultations.
A lively action planning session brought
forward numerous ideas for priority actions for Clean Air for Brent which the
Steering Group welcomed as guidance for its next steps. There are volunteering
opportunities both for experts and those with little knowledge but with
enthusiasm to tackle air pollution projects individually and together.
As Cllr Ellie Southwood said:
“We know there is an army of
people out there who are really passionate about this and can help us make a
difference.”
For Clean Air for Brent Fiona Mulaisho thanked
people for attending and said :
“We are ready to go and
looking for more volunteers.”
-->
Brent Council has reiterated
its opposition to fracking in the borough following my recent story LINK
about the PR offensive by London Local Energy seeking support for its plans to
drill for gas in Artesian Close, Harlesden.
London Local Energy LINK
claim to concentrate on the 'product not the process' and so do not mention the
word 'fracking' anywhere in their publicity. It is unlikely to be so easy to
avoid controversy.
Cllr Eleanor Southwood,
Lead Member for Environment, said today that the council is absolutely opposed
to fracking:
We made our position
clear in 2013 and this remains unchanged. Any approach by would-be-frackers is
not welcome.
In November 2013 Brent
Council announced it was seeking to make Brent a 'no-fracking' zone LINK and Cllr Butt, leader of the council, said:
While there may be
advantages to fracking in some parts of the country it would be
dangerous and reckless for companies to start drilling in Brent. I will do
everything legally within my power to address the concerns of residents and
keep Brent a frack-free zone. Councils have significant
and widespread powers which allow us to stand up for the rights of residents. I
am determined to use these powers to help reassure people
that fracking in Brent will always be a non-starter.
While fracking may
not be planned for Brent yet, the rapid pace and scale of
fracking technology means that we need to act now if we are to ensure we
have the necessary examination of the powers we have to potentially prevent it
from happening in the future.
Brent Friends of the Earth have made the following statement:
Friends of the Earth has called for fracking to be banned
in the UK. In the US and in Australia fracking has contaminated drinking water. New
York State, France and a number of other countries and American States have
banned it. Scotland and Wales have also stopped all fracking while they
further examine the risks We know that any process which involves extracting
and burning more fossil fuels will make climate change worse. That is a huge
danger. So let’s not do it. The plans suggested may be better than importing
gas as we are currently doing but not better than renewables. We should be
concentrating on developing renewable energy.
Brent Council issued the
following press release yesterday on its budget proposals. I drew attention
recently to Camden's revision of its Council Tax Support Scheme in the light of
Council Tax increases. There are, as far as I can see, no proposals for a
review of Brent's scheme. LINK
BRENT COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE
Plan to protect
local services by raising income set to be discussed
14 October 2016
Protecting local services is the
top priority for Brent, the council leader has said, as a plan to get residents'
views on a draft set of budget proposals for the next two years is set to be
discussed.
Brent Council's Cabinet will meet on Monday 24 October to consider a paper
which includes a proposal to protect local services by increasing council tax
by 3.99 per cent - or 85p a week for an average Band D household.
The report sets out how councils are still in an era of austerity and are
facing further cuts in Government funding despite growing demand for local
services from an increasing and ageing population. The paper also includes some
savings proposals although these are relatively small compared to recent
council budgets.
Last year was the first year council tax had risen in Brent for six years after
successive freezes despite Government funding being slashed by £117million
since 2010.
Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:
"Imagine your household bills went up every year, but your salary kept
being cut. You would have to make some tough choices and find new ways to make
your money go further.
"That's what this council has been doing in finding new, more efficient
ways to maintain and improve the services that we all need, but it has also
meant making some very difficult decisions.
"We know how important our local services are to the people of Brent which
is why, rather than cutting back on those vital services, the option of raising
income through a small council tax increase to protect these services is being
considered.
"The choice we face in Brent is this: will we pay a bit extra each month
to keep our services available to those who need them, or will we let the
Government's cuts to our budget further limit the services we can
provide?"
In addition to the proposal on council tax, the paper includes proposals to:
·Help residents with low-level nursing
care needs to live independently, which will improve their quality of life and
save £300,000
·Negotiate a £500,000 reduction in
spending on contracts with mental health service providers
·Outsourcing the management of two day
care centres in the borough to save £300,000
·Negotiate a £900,000 saving in the
public realm contract with Veolia
·Charging for a next-day and 'pick your
day' bulky waste collection service, generating £250,000 each year
·Consult on saving £100,000 in the
Regulatory Services team through a reorganisation
·Participation in the London wide sexual
health transformation programme to achieve better services while saving
£600,000 over the next two years
·Consultation on plans for differential
parking charges to help manage pressure for spaces in high demand areas -
£1million
·Dim street lights where appropriate
which would save £100,000 and benefit the environment
Cllr Butt added:
"As a Cabinet, we will discuss the draft proposals set out in the report
at our next meeting and, if approved, will then put them to residents to have
their say in a detailed budget consultation."
The budget consultation is set to run from November to December with a series
of public meetings arranged for January. A final decision on the budget will be
taken by Full Council in February 2017.
There is little information on
any debate within the Labour Group or the Brent Labour Party as whole over
these proposals although Cllr Michael Pavey in his letter resigning from the
Cabinet LINK said,
'I think it is clear that the
Leader and myself have developed differing views regarding how Brent Council
can best serve its residents at a time of brutal Tory cuts.'
Pavey may have fought against cuts in his own brief, Stronger Communities, or perhaps he had an alternative strategy which was defeated.
As usual the devil will be in
the detail and one has to look beyond the phraseology of the bullet points to
see what they really mean. Some appear to be deliberately vague.
Taking the first proposal on
helping people with 'low-level nursing care need to live independently' , the
report acknowledges that this 'help' may not be welcome - but it delivers
'savings' through what will be a reduced service:
Proposal to move lowest need (c.20%)
of clients currently in nursing care to Supported Living which would deliver a
£0.3m saving. This is based on an analysis of nursing home placements, which
suggest there are a number of placements at the simpler end.
How would this affect users of this service?
Clients would need to agree to the move and some may find moving traumatic.
Families and carers may also be averse to disrupting stable placements. Some
users may prefer a less institutional environment and regain independence and
skills lost through being in nursing care.
Brent's poor provision of mental
health services came under sharp criticism at the recent 'Extremism' debate so
the £0.5m cut in spending on contracts will need close scrutiny:
£0.5m ('savings') achieved through:
enabling a more effective recovery pathway – better access to housing and
employment will accelerate step
down to general needs housing
Supported by ongoing negotiations with providers to manage costs and focus
on the right support.
How would this affect users of this service?
This would support the delivery of the current objectives of the service,
supporting people to move towards independence, and further efficiencies would
be achieved through negotiations, which would not mean a change in
service.
The key here is 'negotiation
with providers' which often means reducing the payment to providers affecting
the pay and working conditions of those working for them and perhaps
contradicting the Council's commitment to the London living wage.
Despite Jeremy Corbyn's remarks on Council 'in-sourcing' LINK, Brent may decide to
outsource the management of the John Billam and New Millennium day care
centres. There is little detail in the proposals but they expect to generate
income by opening up the use of the buildings to outside groups.
The report notes:
Key consultations
Extensive consultation required
with users and carers in both day centres would be required however the service
developed, and with Unions, staff and with potential providers
Key risks and mitigations
Risk that users and carers will oppose the changes to the service – mitigated
through extensive and ongoing communication and engagement
If the first risk becomes an issue, significant risk of adverse publicity and
public protest – mitigated through extensive and ongoing communication and
engagement Risk that the council cannot generate the additional income and
efficiencies – mitigated through financial modelling and change management
Risk that we will need to consider outsourcing as the way to drive the change.
The almost £1m efficiency
savings over two years on the Public Realm contract with Veolia which covers
street cleaning, waste collection, waste recycling, parks maintenance and much
more are in a proposal so vague as to be virtually meaningless:
This proposal generates £900k
from operational efficiencies within the Public Realm Contract. These will
rationalise operational arrangements so they better manage and properly resolve
hot spots and other persistent problems.
How would this affect users of this service?
Service users may see revised working practices and operational schedules.
This is coupled with a proposal
to raise £0.25m by charging for bulky waste collections. Whether to
charfe for bulky waste collections has been an ongoing debate between
Labour and the Lib Dems. The introduction of a charge for next day or pick your
day collections follows widespread complaints about the length of time it takes
Veolia to pick up bulky waste under the present free system LINK. It is unlikely that
residents expected charges to be introduced as a result of their complaints and a two tier system may well result in longer delays for the free service and
increased fly-tipping.
Participation in the London wide sexual health programme and consequent savings
of £0.6m are based on moving away from face-to-face consultations with health
professionals to a web-based service:
Analysis of activity in current
sexual health services and a waiting room survey indicates that not all current
attendances at GUM clinics need that specialist service. Brent is participating
in a London wide procurement of a new ‘front door’ to sexual health services.
The front door into services will be web based, a single platform providing
patients with information about sexual health, on line triage, signposting to
the most appropriate service for their needs and the ability to order
self-sampling tests.
Tellingly one of the risk
factors identified for this saving is:
a failure to
change patient and / or clinician behaviour and so not achieve the
diversion of activity on which savings are based
Given the nature of the
Opposition on Brent Council the proposal on parking charges is likely to be the
most controversial, but again it is pretty vague:
This is an exercise to account
for the parking pressures that are expected to arise from an increase in the
borough’s population. Regeneration and increased development may result in
additional cars and increased parking pressures. This creates the need to
provide parking restrictions that meet current and future demand, with the
revenue paying for the service and any additional revenue being reinvested in
the service. This exercise will consider residential parking permits and some
car parking tariffs but will not include a review of visitor parking charges.
With the exception of some
fairly minor proposals on Regeneration which is Cllr Mashari's remit, all the
above proposals either come under Cllr Hirani (Adult Social Care) or Cllr
Southwood (Environment). There are none under Cllr
Pavey's Stronger Communities remit. Perhaps he was not so keen to see services
reduced.
Now that Cllr Butt has taken over that brief, pending a 'review' LINK, is there a possibilty that further
proposals will be tabled?
