The report of the Assistant Director, Place (Document “D”) sets out the activities undertaken by Bradford Council (with partners) to prevent and relieve homelessness and highlights opportunities and challenges in carrying out these duties.

 

Recommended -

 

1.            That Members support the range of actions being taken to prevent and tackle homelessness in the District.

 

2.            That Members note the challenges set out in the report including the pressures the service will face caused by the lifting of the evictions ban and the ending of the ‘Everyone In’ Scheme.

 

 

 

(Yusuf Karolia - 07816 082868)

The Homelessness and Rough Sleeping strategy was agreed by Bradford Council’s Executive in January 2020 and operated in partnership with a number of organisations and agencies in delivering on the homelessness objectives.  The Council was not solely responsible for delivery of all actions contained within the strategy and relied on the co-operation of its’ partners to deliver and implement successfully.

 

There were five key themes for the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy:

 

·         Early Intervention and prevention of homelessness

·         Delivery of support in the right way at the right time to people who were homeless

·         Tackle rough sleeping

·         Improve access to housing for people who are homeless

·         Work better together

 

In addition, there were five general principles which would be incorporated across each of the themes.  Co-production, person-centred, recovery-focused, equality and diversity and safeguarding vulnerable people.

 

The identified targets for activity were:

 

·         Increase the rates of successful prevention of homelessness

·         Reduce the number of placements into temporary accommodation

·         Reduce the length of stays in bed and breakfast accommodation

·         Reduce the incidence of rough sleeping significantly

 

The report presented provided a breakdown of activity and contact made with historical statistics included for comparison. Officers explained the steady rates of contact with Housing Options and hi-lighted the increase in casework since the introduction of the Homeless Reduction Act in 2018.

 

 

The report indicated the top 5 reasons for homelessness and how it was being tackled and prevented by the Council.  The measures introduced during COVID also contributed to a reduction in rough sleeping and homelessness but success rates were negatively impacted due to the static nature of housing during this period.  The Council had also entered into a contract with Concept Housing whose obligation meant that they took every referral made and customers were due to be housed within twenty four hours.  Most people wanted social housing but some were referred to private landlords.

 

The new measures of Prevention and Relief which came in under the 2017 Homelessness Act were explained and statistics for both were included.  These were both measured over a six month period before a successful outcome could be counted in.  Comparison tables were also made available in the report to show how Bradford performed against its’ neighbours.

 

Officers confirmed that the service had worked hard to comply with the Government’s ‘Everyone In’ initiative and stated that they had an exit plan for when the scheme ended in October 2021.  There were forty seven people who still needed support and a plan was already in place to do this.  Fairmount Lodge – this had proven to be very successful with no issues arising despite the profile of some of the residents.

 

The challenges and opportunities were also presented to Members with specific attention drawn to the continued decline in mental health support over the last ten years.  A review of Housing Related Support provision would be taking place to ensure that delivery was effective with the available budgets.  The existing gaps in provision would need an estimated additional £600,000 to address multiple needs/high risk customers.  There was also a high proportion of young people and those who identified as LGBTQ+ who presented as homeless along with a shortage of adapted homes and larger homes for larger families.

 

The lifting of the eviction moratorium would likely produce a surge of applicants who faced eviction as a result of rent arrears, arising out of loss of income (whether it be furlough, income support or job loss).

 

Budget cuts were a concern as it would cause issues in long term planning.

 

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions or make comments.  The details of these and the responses given are as below:

 

·         How many units did Concept housing have available?

·           Concept were taking every referral and accommodating people and were not using B&B –crisis accommodation was provided for 14 days

 

·         How many private, permanent lets made?

·           258 last year which dropped to 162

 

·         Was the reduction in lets due to restrictions on evictions?

·           The process of triage was explained to Members as a response to this question:

-Customer Contact team – 6 trained homelessness officers, who apply scripts and go through options.

-Access – Housing Options Assessment

-Call back and assessment arranged

-Primarily telephone based and liaison taking place with immigration and the prison service

-The plan was to go back to Outreach based assessments

 

·         How were customers triaged through Britannia House?

·           If roofless, customers were escorted to an interview and assessed by back office staff or staff working from home. – restrictions arose out of ensuring safety of officers and customers.

 

·         When would the service return to more ‘hands on’? – The Chair commented on the disappointment that officers were not physically back in Britannia House.  There was no evidence to suggest it was unsafe for Housing Officers in Britannia House.  Customers were vulnerable and desperate but there were no front line staff available.

·           Officers explained the need to ensure that facilities were in place and were looking at the design at Britannia House but there were no timescales at the moment. 

 

·         Why were officers still working remotely?

·           Officers stated that this was a corporate decision on transition and transformation of service.  There was constant change on how first contact was delivered whether it was housing or any other service.  The service provided had been robust throughout the pandemic

 

The Chair also commented that the service was doing a fantastic job but found it unacceptable that customers could wait hours to get through to an advisor and wanted people in place who could help.  He requested that facilities should be put in place for the following Monday.

 

A Member queried the number of calls vs the number of cases and was advised that the calls were not all related to homelessness, other calls came in for other issues.

 

·         What did friends/family refusal mean? 

·           Officers advised that this was typically when someone was asked to leave, mainly by parents.

 

·         High Prevention relief – what were the reasons for failure?  If failed, did customers then fall into the Relief customer bracket, the success was quite high on relief, wouldn’t success be higher if no-one was moving around?

·           Officers advised that the reasons were complicated – if a situation was not resolved in 56 days then the customer moves up.  Relief was split between new cases or dropped down from Prevention into Relief

 

·         As the ‘Everyone In’ scheme was ending was there still capacity, would the duty pass to Concept for rough sleepers, and how long was the waiting list?

 

·           Officers advised that only customers for whom we had a statutory duty would be passed on and that when the scheme ended, they would not be identified by the Council as eligible.

 

·         How was the council working with private landlords? 

·           Officers advised that there were some units available from Horton Housing (fixed units) and that Concept would flex up and down (temporary accommodation)

 

One Member commented that face to face service needed to be resolved and was informed that video conferencing was an option for outlying areas or for those who did not wish to come to Britannia House.  Outlying council buildings could be used to facilitate a service which may reduce waiting time.

 

·         Had we analysed Relief and Prevention to see how we had improved and how had our neighbours been able to perform as they did?

·           Officers stated that access was easier when done remotely, the access in Britannia House was limited.  The service was moving to a more agile mode of engagement and into the community.  Evidence would be provided to demonstrate this at a future meeting.

 

·         The eighteen bed hostel – was this within Fairmount Lodge, was it a ‘help you and ship you on facility?’ 

·           Officers advised that the eighteen customers were the most chaotic and difficult to help.  Services and support was coming in and they were being looked after.  A three year tenancy was offered and they would move on when they were able. 

 

·         Were people slipping through the cracks with the lack of face to face contact?

·           Officers advised that calls taken were for a variety of reasons but the increased accessibility had increased activity.  Private sector evictions would put the numbers back up and the situation was very complex as a result of the implementation of the Act.  Remote access was easy to use and the service was moving towards agile delivery within community centres etc.  Localities and locations were being looked into to give people multiple ways to access at multiple access points

 

·         Were we safeguarding vulnerable visitors to Britannia House?

·           Officers advised that there were only small numbers of people presenting at Britannia House and that there was a separate waiting area that victims of Domestic Violence (DV) could use

 

Officers were asked what work had been done to help the victims of DV and responded that it was not necessary for victims to attend Britannia House.  Remote assessment in refuges or outreach locations including out of hours provision was all facilitated.  There was no need to physically attend in order to be assessed.

 

Officers were also asked how many refugees we were helping and how and advised that funding was yet to be finalised so numbers were not finalised as a result.  So far we had helped 2 families and were taking 2 more.  More information would be provided as part of a report at a future meeting

·         A Member asked how temporary accommodation was inspected and was advised that all of Concept Housing’s portfolio would be inspected.

 

·         A Member asked if the data around young people could be scrutinised and worked back so that it could possibly be prevented?

·           Officers advised that they were working with Children’s Services to review the existing joint working protocol as required by MHCLG and Ofsted.  Children’s Social Care aspired to establish a Young Person’s Hub and Housing Options would be co-located.

·            

 

Work was being done with landlords to prevent evictions.  Officers also explained how allocations for housing were made using a housing allocation software system.  When a property was advertised, the policy to allocate was followed and it would be offered to priority groups first.

 

 

Resolved –

 

1.    That Members support the range of actions being taken to prevent and tackle homelessness in the District

 

2.    That Members note the challenges set out in the report including the pressures the service faced caused by the lifting of the evictions ban and the ending of the ‘Everyone In’ scheme

 

3.    That the Housing Options Service be encouraged to re-implement face to face interactions with customers as soon as possible

 

 

Action: Strategic Director, Place