Brent Council has no record of impact of action against landlords on displaced tenants

None of us are in favour of rogue landlords, over-crowded or dangerous accommodation but when the local and regional press publish celebratory press releases from Brent Council I often wonder about the fate of those displaced by action against such landlords. A possible unintended consequence of the  Council's action.

Do the displaced tenants add to the homelessness figures, are they officially accepted as unintentionally homeless, are children involved,  do some of the displaced end up joining rough sleepers?

I made the following FoI request to Brent Council to try and find out:

Please provide details of tenants displaced as a consequence of action
taken against landlords (overcrowding, unlicensed etc) under the Landlord
Licensing Scheme for the year commencing January 1st 2016.

1. The total number of displacements including children.
2. The status of tenants - single men, single women, couples, children.
3. The nationality/ethnicity of these tenants.
4. The destination/outcomes for these tenants as a result of displacement
eg hostel. temporary accommodation, bed and breakfast hotel, social
housing, referral to homeless charity
5. The total number accepted as homeless by the Council.

The Council replied that they had searched electronic and paper records and they did not hold the information requested.

As it is not tenants, but landlords, who are the guilty party in such cases, I think the lack of any record of impact on people displaced by Council action is a failure of duty of care.

How the reduced Overall Benefit Cap will impact on Brent residents

A report going to Brent Council Scrutiny Committee tomorrow demonstrates how the lowering of the Overall Benefit Cap (OBC) to £23,000 will impact on residents, with a particularly severe impact on single parents and single people.

According to the report the impact  of the cap so far

...in Brent has been lower than initially anticipated, although it has still had significant impacts. Among these, the relocation of families outside of Brent has been high profile, but affects only a minority of OBC cases (22 in 2015/16); there are generally broader factors including the wider welfare reforms (especially Local Housing Allowance caps) and the lack of affordable accommodation in Brent which have impacted on homelessness and the need to rehouse families outside the borough; OBC itself has played a relatively small part in this and the majority of resolved cases have been through employment.

  Lone parents represented over half (53%) of the cases capped and households with dependants accounted for over 77% of all cases. Single claimants were less likely to be capped as they were likely to be living in smaller properties and so entitled to less benefit. In terms of ethnicity, claimants from the black ethnic group were disproportionately impacted by the OBC, relative to their proportion of the overall Housing Benefit  caseload.

  The council currently has just under 3,000 households living in temporary accommodation, the fourth highest in the country, and including over 5,000 children. This includes the use of expensive and unsuitable Bed & Breakfast accommodation, hostel accommodation with shared facilities, and other nightly paid accommodation which is not fully covered by Housing Benefit and is subsidised by the Council at an unsustainable cost.

  Efforts to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation are made more difficult by the lack of social housing lets and the difficulty and expense of securing affordable private rented sector accommodation at LHA level rents.

  The effect of austerity and public sector cuts generally means that the Council is now less able to take an interventionist approach with affected claimants and the new Welfare Reform Strategy reflects a greater need to work together with partners, with the Council fulfilling more of a strategic and co-ordinating role, though there will still be intervention on a targeted basis towards the most vulnerable claimants; however, there will be a greater expectation on non- vulnerable claimants to take responsibility for their own outcomes (with appropriate signposting). [my emphasis] Finally the Council’s limited discretionary funding will have to stretch further and therefore provide less of a safety net for residents in future

The reduced cap will exacerbate an already difficult situation:

However, the planned lowering of the Cap from Autumn 2016 will present greater challenges to a larger number of claimants; in particular single people will be impacted who will generally not be statutorily homeless if they present to the Council, so there is potential for increased sofa-surfing, street sleeping, mental health and related social issues. The lowering of the cap elsewhere in the country will even make relocating out of London a less viable option. 


A comparison of the two charts below demonstrates the impact:

Click on charts to enlarge

 The table below shows the new limits per week.  Greater London rates apply in Brent.

The table below shows the Council's Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) in 2015-16

 

The Council's DHP budget has been reduced from £4.8m in 2013-14 in 2013-14 to £2.6m in 2015-16 .

The full report can be found HERE

Greens among supporters of 'Dine in the Dark' fundraiser for Centrepoint

On Wednesday, 9 March 2016, Dans le Noir? the celebrated dining in the dark restaurant staffed by blind people, and the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, will be collaborating to host a gastronomic dinner.

The dinner will be held for Centrepoint’s vulnerable 16-25 year-olds to celebrate Dans le Noir?’s 10^th Anniversary and decade of successful charitable ventures.

Homeless young people will experience heightened flavours by enjoying a gastro dinner in the dark. The menu at Dans le Noir? has evolved over the past 10 years and in November 2015, Michelin star chef, Julien Machet, was hired to consult and help John Houel, the London Head Chef, create the four eclectic menus. Chef Julien will be present to assist with the creation of this spectacular dinner.

Dans le Noir? and Centrepoint support those furthest from the jobline to help them get into work. The two companies are joining forces to maximise awareness of the difficulties that blind, and homeless young people, face when trying to get into employment.

Dining in the dark challenges people’s preconceptions of other people. Mind-blowing Gov.uk statistics estimate that 16% of working age adults are disabled. Recent statistics show that only 46.3% of disabled people are in employment compared to 76.4% of non-disabled people, making it a significant social issue. Additionally, disabled people are significantly more likely to experience unfair treatment in work.

Caroline Pidgeon, Lib Dem London Mayoral Candidate 2016, says: "Given that the level of homelessness in London has - sadly - grown over the past 4 years, it’s fantastic to see initiatives like this from Dans le Noir? aimed at helping young homeless people. I would encourage other employers across London to explore if they could help develop schemes like this which offer a route to support people in furthering their skills through training and employment and a way in to permanent housing."

Shahrar Ali, No 3 on the Green Party London Assembly, says: "One of the remarkable things about Dans le Noir? is that it turns the tables on the sighted, who are rendered virtually helpless by the blackout conditions and are entirely dependent on blind people to guide them. It’s a great experience for diners but by creating these rare conditions where blind people are better off, it also brings home just how hard it can be to find work if you have any kind of disadvantage. That’s something that young homeless people also know all about, and this is a fantastic joint initiative by Dans le Noir? and Centrepoint to draw attention to those difficulties. It’s my privilege to be a part of it and to find out what practical things I can do to help if I’m elected to City Hall in May."

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, Green Party, says: “I commend the work of Dans le Noir? and the way they have helped blind people to gain employment; and with so many homeless people on the streets it would be wonderful if more companies could support those who are furthest from the job-line to help them to get back into employment.”

Edouard de Broglie, who founded Dans le Noir? in Paris in 2004, says “50% of our staff have a high disability, yet we still operate an efficient and profitable company. We have an incredibly low staff turnover which shows the dedication of our long standing team. We want to show big companies that those with disabilities shouldn’t be limited to performing only menial jobs. Our guides are incredibly skilled and challenge the perception that blind or visually impaired can serve in a restaurant. Who could have said that 10 years ago?”.

Sadie Odeogberin, Head of Skills and Employment, at Centrepoint, says: “The number of young people rough sleeping in London has more than doubled in the last four years, but providing a safe place to stay isn’t enough to solve the youth homelessness crisis. That’s why Centrepoint supports each young person staying with us to find a job or a route into education or training. Like Dans Le Noir?, we’re committed to helping those furthest from the world of work achieve their ambitions. It’s not an easy journey for a homeless young person to make and thanks to the generosity of Dans Le Noir?, we can reward them an experience they will never have had before. Homeless young people are every bit as talented as their peers and with the right support and hard work they can fulfil their potential.”

Brent's housing crisis in figures

Shelter has issued the latest figures on housing need which are for the third quarter of 2013. Full data is available HERE

I have made a table for the main figures for Brent below:

London Borough of Brent	Quarter 3 2013	Quarter 2 2013
Families with children accepted as homeless	72	40
Households accepted as homeless	155	113
Households found to be homeless but not in priority need	63	33
Households found to be ‘intentionally homeless’	12	18
Households in temporary accommodation	3,410	3,484
Number of children in temporary accommodation	5,729	5,837
Households with dependent children in temporary accommodation	2,640	2,692
Possession claims issued by landlords	655	535
Possession claims by mortgage lenders	83	59

Does this report REALLY tackle Brent's housing crisis?

Click on image to enlarge

A report going before the Brent Executive on Monday July 15th lays bare the extent of Brent's housing extent and how it has been exacerbated by the Coalition's changes to benefits.

The graph shows that Brent has been much more affected by landlords ending tenancies than our neighbouring boroughs. 47%of homeless acceptances in 2012-13 were homeless due to the ending of a private letting in the wake of the changes in the Local Housing Allowance. The private rented sector itself continues to grow with 31,784 households living in private rented accommodation in the 2011 Census, compared with 17,043 in 2001. The sector accounted for 28.8% of Brent households.

Unmet demand for housing assistance stands at 10,366 households. This excludes those on Band D who are assessed by the Council Allocations Scheme as having no housing need.

Current demand on the Housing Register, including the homeless in temporary accommodation and those on the Transfer list is just over 19,000 households. In contrast the Council expect to make just 844 lettings of permanent social housing tenancies by the end of 2013-14.


These are allocated thus:

Looking ahead the Report notes the pressures that will be experienced:

1. Local Housing Allowance changes will continue to impact and make it harder for the Council to procure private rented accommodation as landlords will be unwilling to 'engage with tenants in recipet of benefits'.
2. The changes in LHA payable to single people under 35, which limits payment to a single room in a shared house, will mean they will find it increasingly difficult to find accommodation in the private rented sector.
3. From 12th August 2013, over a five week period, the Overall Benefit Cap will limit the total amount of benefit payable to a non-working couple or a single parent to £500 per week, and £350 per week for a non-working single person. The OBC was expected to impact on 2,700 Brent households, but some have taken measures so as to be exempted and the DWP assesses the total as 2,267 now. The bulk of these are in temporary accommodation or the private rented sector.
4. The Bedroom Tax will reduce benefit for rent  for social housing tenants by 14% (average £17.50 pw) with one 'spare room; and 25% (average £32.66 pw) for those with two 'spare rooms'.
5. Many households will be making a minimum contribution of Council Tax for the first time when they are also faced with  financial pressure from other welfare reforms.
6. The DWP is predicting that approximately 40% of claimants currently receiving Disability Living Allowance will not qualify to receive the replacement Personal Independence Allowances. The report notes: 'these claimants will be a high priority for receiving support from the council to cope with changes in circumstances' as receipt of DLA by a member of a household previously exempted them from  the Overall Benefit Cap and Council Tax charge.

The consequences of all this, the report says, is that families are likely to live in over-crowded and poor quality accommodation in the borough rather than move out to cheaper and better quality accommodation outside Brent. 'Unscrupulous' landlords may take advantage of families affected by Welfare Reform by refusing to deal with disrepair issues, knowing that the families will be reluctant to report them for fear of losing their accommodation. Brent Council has therefore drafted a Private Housing Action Plan to deal with these issues.

The report confirms actions already approved by the council including:

1. The introduction of fixed term tenancies by the council with partner housing providers determining their own policies as long as they are 'broadly consistent with the council's priorities'.
2 To use Flexible Tenancies (fixed term tenancies at either social or affordable rent) on the same basis as approved for other social landlords.
3. Introductory or starter tenancies of 12 months will be used for all new tenants in concert with fixed-term tenancies as relevant, 'Five years normally but with shorter and/or longer periods for specified groups/circumstances'.
4. Changes in the Allocation Scheme which means the residence qualification is established through living in Brent at the time of application and continually throughout the last five years. (NB this is a tightening of the previous proposal of living in Brent for three of the last five years).
5. The definition of 'living in unsuitable accommodation', which gives priority under the Alllocation Scheme will be tightened so that 'households with only minor disrepair issues are not being given priority for rehousing'.
6. Households who are over crowded by 'just one room' should not automatically be given priority in the new scheme - each case will be considered 'on its individual merits;.

The Mutual Exchange scheme, originally aimed at providing an incentive to 'under-occupiers' to downsize as as a result of the bedroom tax, will be extended to cover for example those over retirement age who are not affected by the current benefit changes.

The maximum payment for someone wishing to downsize would be £1,000 plus assistance wit removal costs and access to a handyman service. Full payment would be made for a 'perfect fit' exchange and pro rata for others.

It does seem to me that while the Private Housing Action Plan to protect private rented tenants is welcome much of the report is really fiddling while Rome burns. Changing definitions and tenancy arrangements is not dealing with the underlying issue which is a shortage of social housing and the failure (cf Quintain Wembley Regeneration, Willesden Green Library development, Queensbury development, and the Bridge Park/Unisys development) to build truly affordable housing.

The full report can be found HERE

Brent Housing Action launched to campaign on housing emergency

After a successful strategy meeting last night Brent Housing Action has been formed and a website and Facebook group have been set up.

The website states:

Brent Housing Action was formed by a group of residents, campaigners and community organisations in Brent in April 2013.

We want to support our friends, our neighbours and one another to fight against cuts to vital benefits and to the threat to our homes an communities. We want our council to support us in challenging changes which might mean the difference between home and homelessness for over 600 Brent families. And we need your support.

The next meeting with be on Tuesday 23rd April 7pm at Mencap High Road Willesden,
 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/brenthousingaction/

http://brenthousingaction.wordpress.com/

Getting social housing in Brent to become harder under new proposals

The Housing Allocations Policy that Brent Council is currently consulting on LINK will have major repercussions for residents wishing to go on the register for social housing in the borough. There will particular impact on extended families, people without leave to stay in the UK, young adults living with their parents, those at a specific income threshold, families in rent arrears in the social housing sector or in homeless temporary accommodation.

The Council will no longer have an 'open' waiting list and in addition to having a housing need residents will need to establish a local connection through residence or work. The 'reasonable preference' criteria will include households in employment in addition those below:

· Homeless people as defined by Part VII of the 1996 Housing Act, including people who are intentionally homeless and those who are not in priority need

· People who are owed a duty under section 190(2), 193(2) or 195(2) of the 1996 Act (or under section 65(2) or 68(2) of the Housing Act 1985) or who are occupying accommodation secured by any housing authority under s192(3)

· People occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions

· People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability

· People who need to move to a particular locality in the housing authority area, where failure to meet that need would cause hardship (to themselves or others)

The Council state that legislation forbids it to give assistance to individuals subject to immigration control:

A restricted person is a person subject to immigration control who is not eligible for homelessness assistance because he or she does not have leave to enter or remain in the UK or has leave which is subject to a ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition (s.184(7) of the 1996 Act).

The Council seeks views for when the individual subject to immigration is a member of a wider household:

Note that it is not mandatory to exclude a person subject to immigration control from a household, although a household cannot be regarded as having reasonable preference solely on the basis of the needs of a person subject to immigration control as noted above. The council is minded to adopt this exclusion but views on the point would be welcome.

 The Council its definition of what constitutes a 'household' for the purposes of allocation of accommodation. It excludes the  extended families sharing accommodation that are common amongst some ethnic groups in Brent:

Considered as households:

-A single person without dependents
- A married couple
-An unmarried couple, who can prove that they have been resident together for at least 12 months at time of application and at time of offer.   
-A lone parent and their dependent children   
-A married or unmarried couple with dependent children   
-A civil partnership with or without dependent children

 The following would not usually be considered to be part of a household when considering qualification and priority for housing:

· Anyone subject to immigration control

· non-dependent adult children over the age of 21

· other adult relatives

· non-relatives and lodgers

· Extended family members such as cousins, nephews, aunts and uncles

The scheme excludes the following:

-A young person aged 21 or over and therefore not treated as a child would not normally be considered as part of a household and will usually be disregarded when considering applications for rehousing.

- If there are children aged 21 or over who are living at home, advice will be provided on housing options but they will not count towards any calculation of overcrowding. They will be able to apply for housing in their own right but may be disqualified if they do not fall within any of the priority groups defined in this scheme.

- Given the severe shortage of housing and in particular of larger homes, the Council will consider whether people living in a household could move into smaller homes of their own, thereby creating a separate household. If a household member has already made a separate housing application they will not be included in any new or subsequent applications.

 The proposals introduce income thresholds that will try and shift those in need of housing into the private renting sector (which has grown enormously in Brent according to the most recent census and which Muhammed Butt has pledged to improve in terms of quality) or shared ownership.

The ranges which will be reviewed regularly are set at:

· 1 bed - £35,000 a year

· 2 bed - £45,000 a year

· 3 bed - £ 55, 000 a year

· 4 bed - £70,000 a year

 The Council states that in assessing the number of bedrooms required by a household, the following criteria will apply: 

· One double bedroom for a cohabiting couple

· One double bedroom for two additional persons/children of the same sex and generation.

· One double bedroom for two children of the opposite sex, where both children are under 7 years.

· One double bedroom for two children of the same sex unless one is over 10 years of age and there is an age gap of more than 5 years.

· One double bedroom for two dependents of the same sex over 18 years of age.

· One single bedroom for each person who the Council's Medical Officer considers should have their own bedroom on health grounds.

· One single bedroom for any other person included as part of the household.

· Single people will normally be considered for Bedsit accommodation.

· A couple or single parent with a child under two years of age can be

 offered a one bedroom property.

In addition the Council propose that the following categories will normally not qualify:

· Anyone guilty of serious anti-social behaviour where a possession order is being sought or has been obtained

· Anyone who has assaulted a member of staff where an injunction has been sought or obtained

· Anyone who knowingly gives false or misleading information or withholds information that has been reasonably requested.

· Applicants with an income above the limits set out above

The following will apply to housing transfers:

-Tenants with rent arrears of six weeks or more will be suspended from receiving the offer of accommodation. Consideration will be given to varying this rule in some circumstances including;

-Tenants with urgent management or medical priority in band B or A may be transferred at the discretion of the Rehousing Manager.

-Offers of accommodation may be made despite rent arrears to tenants who need to move because of statutory overcrowding or because of an overriding priority awarded by the Allocations Panel or where a permanent decant is essential

-Tenants moving under the Incentive Scheme subject to the above guidelines may be made an offer with the incentive payment being set of against the arrears

Families in temporary accommodation may also face problems

· Homeless households in temporary accommodation may be advised that, if they fall into rent arrears, their housing register application may be suspended. Applications may be suspended when an applicant either

a) refuses to pay the rent

b) fails to make a commitment to repay arrears or

c) fails to provide supporting information for a Housing Benefit claim.

d) accrues an excessive level of arrears

e) is in arrears such that the landlord is taking action to end the tenancy

· If an applicant falls into arrears, their application may be suspended. The application will remain suspended until the arrears are cleared or an agreement has been reached to clear the arrears and this agreement has been kept to for an agreed period. Depending on the amount of the arrears and the nature of the agreement, discretion may be exercised to review cases and lift suspensions. Exceptions may be agreed to this policy, in particular for those cases in bands 1 or 2.

The Council recognises that private sector tenants on the register may be in difficulty because of the welfare reforms:

The council is not minded to introduce any blanket restriction on cases involving rent arrears, in particular since recent and proposed reforms to the welfare system increase the risk that some households may not be able to cover their full rent and because there are cases in which a move may assist in tackling rent arrears, for example where a household moves to a cheaper home

 There are additional detailed proposals regarding carers and military personnel that can be found in the main document.

The Consultation specifically asks for views on:

• The period that should be required to establish a local connection
• How that should be demonstrated through employment (inc part-time and self-employed)?
• What othjer factors could be taken into account to establish a local connection?
• In what circumstances should the Council make exceptions to the local connection requirement?
• What other groups should not qualify under the scheme?
• Should anyone subject to immigration control not be considered as part of the household?
• At what age should non-dependent adult children not be considered part of the household (18.21.25)?
• Are there other people who should normally be considered as part of an applicant;s household?
• In what circumstances should rent arrears mean that a household should not qualify or that an application should be suspended?
• The circumstances in which a transfer application can be made outside the scheme (see main document for details)
• Details regarding how long applicant should have been in employment (see main document)
• Are the proposed bands that rank applicants according to level of needs appropriate (see main document for details)
• Time limits on bidding for accommodation (see main document)
• Should the income thresholds be as set out above?
• Details setting out factors defining 'reasonable preference criteria' (see main document)

 The main consultation document can be found HERE and should be read before responding as it is not possible to cover all the issues in this posting. I hope however that this is sufficient to alert readers to the serious issues involved. The consultation closes on March 8th 2013

Brent homelessness on the rise and worse to come

The extent of Brent's housing crisis is set out in stark terms in a report going before the Council Executive on April 23rd. LINK

Brent Council is expecting to receive 440 homeless applications in the final quarter of this year, the highest since 2007-8.  The rise in demand follows government changes in the Local Housing Allowance which caps the maximum payable for different sizes of accommodation.

While some landlords have accepted a decrease in rental income as a result, others have not and are have evicted tenants; withdrawing from the market or letting to other types of households.

Total current demand on the Housing Register, including homeless households in temporary accommodation and the Transfer list is just over 18.500 households.  In contrast the Council expects only 871 lettings into permanent housing tenancies (Council and Housing Association) by the end of 2011-12. At the end of February 2012 there was a total of 3,136 households in temporary accommodation and this is expected to rise. At the same time the amount of subsidy  the Council receives from central government for self-contained temporary accommodation has been capped and the Council has to meet any shortfall.  The Council has hitherto sought to provide such accommodation within the borough but to minimise costs there has been an increase in out of borough placements, particularly for larger households. Between February 2012 and March 2012 out of borough placements rose from 104 to 120 and the figure is forecast to rise significantly in the future.

As a result of these pressures Executive members are being asked to approve letting projections based on different demand groups. (Appendix D) of the document.

The report assesses the likely impact of the Overall Benefit Cap. The Department of Work and Pensions forecast that in Brent around 3,500 households would be affected. Brent initially though that larger households in the private sector would affected but having worked through some examples they think it wlil be smaller households. For example a couple with three children living in the south of Brent in a 3 bedroomed property could have a £100 weekly shortfall in their housing benefit.

The Council's revised 2011-12 budget for expenditure on temporary accommodation is £2,306,000 which includes a housing benefit subsidy budget loss of £500,000.  As a result of the pressures outlined officers are now forecasting an overspend in the current financial year of £354,000. The temporary accommodation budget for 2012-13 is £3,440,000 in order to mange cost pressures and increased demand. Although the Council expects to break even they state: 'there continue to be significant risks attached to the Council's ability to control demand led pressures..while ensuring statutory duties are met'.

Budget pressures: homelessness and school places shortage

The pressure on Brent Council's budget and particularly those regarding the shortage of schools places and the impact of the local housing allowance cap were revealed at the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee of January 11th, the Minutes of which have just been published:

Andy Donald (Director of Regeneration and Major Projects) circulated a Powerpoint presentation outlining the context in which the department's budget was set, the budget pressures and other issues facing the department and the major capital projects underway.  Andy Donald explained that because the department had only been formed in October 2010 the current year was one of transition.  The year ahead was the first chance to view the department's budget as a whole and plan for the future.  The biggest pressure on the current year's budget was the level of spend on temporary accommodation which was forecast to overspend by £928,000. 

Andy Donald explained that the main reason for the overspend was due to the Local Housing Allowance cap introduced in April 2011.  The service had in the past been managed largely as a demand led service but with a rise since 2010/11 of 38% in the number of homeless applications received and an 86% increase in the placing of families into hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation, a different approach was needed. 

Actions being taken to mitigate the overspend included the provision of advice, strategies to prevent homelessness and encouragement to take housing out of the borough.  However, Andy Donald stated that the situation was only likely to get worse as Housing Benefit and wider welfare reforms were implemented.   The committee noted that a contingency budget of £1M was being held centrally to fund any final overspend in this area for the current year.  The department's agreed savings of £3.8M remained on track with £1.2M coming from the supporting people budget, £440,000 from the staffing structure review and a collection of smaller changes to the housing service. 

      

Andy Donald drew attention to the budget issues for the future.  By 2014/15 the borough would need the equivalent of 70 additional classrooms to cater for the increased demand for school places.  A sum of £25M had been secured from the Government to help address this but a figure in the region of £60-65M was needed.  Therefore work was underway on reviewing the Council's entire portfolio of school buildings to assess how best to use the funding secured and meet the demand.  The New Homes Bonus would appear in the Council's budget for the first time in 2012/13 in the sum of £1.068M.  It had been decided that this money would be used to support the Council's capital programme.  Andy Donald reported that it was anticipated that new rules would be passed to allow Councils to recover the total cost of their planning service which would lead to an increase in income during 2012/13.  He further explained that presently planning fees were set nationally, but if the Council was allowed to recover its total cost it would generate an additional £800,000 approximately. 

  More savings were to be taken from the supporting people service and from the housing needs transformation project.  There would also be revenue savings taken from capital projects.  A big change to the Housing Revenue Account would take place on 1 April 2012 following the Government making a one-off settlement to the Council of £197M to pay off a proportion of the HRA debt and no longer provide subsidy of £8.5M in return for the Council taking responsibility for the remaining debt and retaining the rental income. 

A business plan for how the Council would in future manage, maintain and improve the housing stock was being developed but one risk already identified were the proposed changes to Housing Benefit which would result in benefit being paid direct to the tenant rather than to the Council with consequences for rent collection levels.  It was pointed out that the national rent convergence scheme would continue and so rent levels would still be determined by the Government.

Andy Donald outlined the major capital projects included in the Council's programme, including South Kilburn, the new Civic Centre, the Willesden Green redevelopment and the schools programme. 

In answer to questions asked by members of the committee concerning housing and homelessness, Andy Donald explained that when someone first presented themselves as in need of housing the first action was to see if they could be prevented from becoming statutorily homeless but if this was not possible the Council then had a duty to house them.  If there was no permanent accommodation available then temporary accommodation was used.  The Council provided advice to people in an effort to support their housing needs before they were determined statutorily homeless.  Reference was made to the rent deposit scheme and Andy Donald stated that further details on this could be provided to members.  In answer to a question about enforcing standards, it was explained that the Council could only use housing legislation to take action against sub-standard housing if it was at least three storeys high and was only resourced to carry out its statutory role, although action could be taken using planning laws.  A review of the Council's private housing service was to be carried out.

Addressing questions around the provision of school places, Andy Donald stated that, whilst there were a number of variables that would need to be considered including land availability and building types, at best the £25M would only meet between one third and half the anticipated increased demand for primary school places. 

Regarding the New Homes Bonus, Andy Donald explained that this money was provided by the government effectively matching the Council Tax for each new property built for a period of 6 years following completion and so was based on the number of new homes provided within the borough and distributed according to a formula.  Therefore the £1.68M would continue to be received over the next five years with additional funding arising from new homes subsequently built within the borough.  He stated that more detail on this could be provided if necessary.

Andy Donald explained more fully the new arrangements for managing the HRA but pointed out that financial rules relating to the HRA remained so it would continue to be ringfenced.  Clive Heaphy (Director of Finance and Corporate Services) added that as a result of the rent convergence scheme the average rent increase in Brent for 2012/13 would be 7.2%. 

The committee had previously been informed of the new arrangements proposed for retaining business rates.  A question was therefore asked as to how competing land use would be managed with the pressure to attract new businesses into the borough to increase the level of business rates and to build new houses to benefit under the New Homes Bonus.  Andy Donald acknowledged that both would generate income but would have to be managed according to planning policy and complex modelling arrangements for different parts of the borough. 

A question was asked on whether the Council was working with any neighbouring boroughs on joint projects.  Andy Donald replied that there were some discussions taking place but that Brent was generally making the running on these.  They included the potential to share some facilities management functions, housing management services and some other service provision.   

   

Andy Donald was asked to explain more fully the demand on temporary accommodation.  He stated that for the year November to November just gone the number of households in hotels and bed and breakfast had increased from 139 to 250.  It was expected that by the end of the year 1635 new homeless applications would have been received of which 580 would have been accepted.  There was a need to understand what was driving this increase but it was already known that a significant number came from landlords evicting tenants. With regard to the supporting people budget, it stood at £10.8M but £1.2M savings had been made during the current financial year with an additional £600,000 being made next year and £900,000 the year after taking the budget to £9.3M by 2013/14.  The service worked with the most vulnerable people through a raft of support mechanisms all of which were now commissioned out.  This expenditure was no longer ring-fenced.  A review of the housing needs service would result in an additional 20-25 posts being deleted but Andy Donald was confident that an effective, efficient service would continue to be delivered.  He offered to forward members more detail on the restructuring if they wished to receive it. 

Brent 4th highest in England for eviction risk

Shelter's Eviction Risk Monitor published this month lists the London Borough of Brent as the 4th highest local authority in England for the proportion of mortgage and landlord possession claims. The three higher local authorities are all in Greater London: Barking and Dagenham, Newham and Haringey. The total between October 2010 and September 2011 in Brent is 2,435 a rate of 22.4 per 1,000 homes. These claims do not necessarily translate immediately into evictions but show how many people are struggling to meet their housing costs. The report, perhaps obviously, shows that high risk is associated with high local unemployment levels.

We already know that the number of evictions in the borough has increased prior to the housing benefit becoming operative and the Council expects an increasing number of claims for temporary housing in the new year. Temporary accommodation will have to be provided far away from Brent and 'temporary' may mean for up to 10 years.

Even without the cap, increasing unemployment, frozen wage; and higher energy and food costs, mean that people are finding it hard to pay their mortgages and rent. Shelter research suggests about one third of  families are struggling. At the same time, just when families will need it most, the Coalition government is proposing removing legal aid from debt, housing, welfare, employment and family disputes. The Legal Aid and Punishment of Offender's Bill enters its committee stage in the House of Lords today.

Nothing could show more starkly how Coalition policies are impacting on the most vulnerable. The video above gives an insight into what it will mean for families.

SHELTER REPORT

Stark impact of government 'social cleansing' housing policy in Brent

Post eviction scene?

Brent Council expects 512 families to lose their homes through being unable to afford their rent in private accommodation as a result of  the Housing Benefit cap in January 2012, a further 714 in February and 799 in March. 

The weekly loss of benefit will be:
1 bedroomed accommodation £7.69
2 bedroomed £34.40
3 bedroomed £98.74
4 bedroomed £200
5 bedroomed £282.24

Clearly the cuts will affect people with large families disproportionally.

Jacky Peacock, Executive Director of Brent Private Tenants Group, in quietly setting out the figures at today's meeting organised by Barry Gardiner at Brent Town Hall. did more to bring home the seriousness of the situation than any passionate politician's speech could have done.

She reported that in 2009 there were 22,281 privately rented homes in Brent, representing about 84,000 people. There were more children in privately rented housing than in social housing.  Tenants were young and not so young professionals often having to stay in rented accommodation into their 40s or 50s, half of all  renters were on housing benefit. There were students, migrant workers and older tenants with regulated tenancies.

She said that in 2010/11 Brent Council had to find private lettings for 548 families and between April and October another 173. Anyone moving into 'temporary accommodation' as a result of losing their home could expect to be in it for 10-11 years. Many rents in the cheapest third of rental accommodation were already above the capped amounts.

Rents had already increased by 5.7% this year and landlords were expecting another 6% over the next 12 months. One third of privately rented homes fall below Decent Homes Standards and 15% have serious damp problems compared with 8% owner occupied and 10% social housing. Private tenants were four times more likely to live in a cold home with resultant health problems. May were forced to go to bed to keep room rather than  try to keep warm sitting in their room.

Jacky said we had never seen a situation like this before: families would be forced to move out of London to find affordable accommodation with the resultant dislocation of support from friends and families and disruption of children's education.

Cllr Janice Long, Brent lead member for housing, told the full hall that she had nothing but doom to convey.  She said she could see no light at the end of the tunnel. She told tenants that the worse thing they could do was to not pay the rent and get into debt - it would  be better to move, She said that if they got accepted as homeless by the Council that was not the end of the problem as there was no spare bed and breakfast accommodation - it would be provided outside of Brent. She said that making the argument that children's education would be disrupted if the family moved far away wouldn't wash - they would have to find a school elsewhere.

Looking forward to the future Janice said that 'affordable' housing wasn't the answer as the Coalition government had changed the definition of 'affordable' to 80% of the market rent - making it not affordable to Brent residents on the average Brent wage. In addition the government would cut housing benefit to those without a job whom they deemed able to work.

She said, 'The Council is not to blame. It's the government that has decided on the social cleansing of London."

Contributing from the floor Shahrar Ali admired Cllr Long's honesty but wondered if rather than merely manage the consequences of the cuts ('You sometimes sounded like a member of the Coalition') the Council should be doing more to engage in the fight against them.  We heard about landlords harassing 80 year olds to get them out of property, landlords giving tenants notice to quiet who tried to get the landlord to improve insulation through the Green deal, a 25 year teacher who could not afford to move out of her mother's home, people who had the income:price ratios to get a mortgage but not the hefty deposits now required, a woman who been forced to move six times in rapid succession losing deposits and fees with each move.

The social cost in terms of health problems, disrupted education and temporary accommodation costs would outweigh the 'savings' made by the government through their benefit cap, according to several contributors. However, as I murmured to my neighbour, most of those costs would be shifted to already hard-pressed local authorities and away from central government budgets.

In my contribution I told the meeting that my experience at Chalkhill School was that families were already being evicted as tenancies came to an end and there were already increased numbers in temporary accommodation. Families were being offered accommodation as far away as Birmingham and Milton Keynes. Sometime ago I met a Nepalese family who had moved to Milton Keynes who had to move again because of racial harassment from local youth there.Brent families, used to living in a multiracial environment, might face similar problems.

I noted that the recent consultation on the Wembley Plan stated that developers were not currently willing to build affordable housing because of low profits. Plans had been put on the back burner and they were instead investing in private student accommodation. The Council needed to negotiate with Quintain, the main developer, to ensure the housing was built. Cllr Janice Long confirmed that the Wembley Plan's definition of affordable was the old one, rather than the new 80% of affordable rent definition.

When  I asked that more be done about locating and taking over empty housing, Janice Long at first said that often such housing had a story attached to it, but later said that the present Compulsory Purchase of Empty Properties policy inherited from the last Brent administration was gummy (lacked teeth) and could do with strengthening. Jacky Peacock said that despite problems her experience was that if the local authority had a robust CPO policy on empty properties and implemented it, for every one property compulsorily purchased owners would put anothet100 on the market.  Jacky also agreed that with Sarah Cox that other empty property in Brent could be purchased and converted to housing where appropriate.

Chris Williamson, Labour MP a member of the shadow housing team, said that the previous Labour government hadn't got everything right on housing but would learn from its mistakes. The Labour Party wanted to bring the private rented sector up to standard but accepted its role in society. He stressed that the Labour Party was in 'listening mode'. He said that the supply of affordable housing needed government intervention and investment in it would provide a stimulus to the economy.

The meeting ended with a call for a big campaign on the issue and requests for people to join the Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group. LINK Navin Shah, Labour AM for Brent and Harrow, reminded the audience that they would have a chance to express their views electorally in next year's Mayoral and London Assembly election.

Find out more from  Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group 36-38 Willesden Lane, Kilburn, London NW6 7ST Tel: 020 7624 4327 info@bptrg.org   Website: www.bptrg.org