Housing Register and Housing Allocations Policy: Report of the Portfolio Holder for Housing

AGENDA ITEM 13

BOROUGH OF POOLE

CABINET

3 APRIL 2007

HOUSING REGISTER AND HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY: REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR HOUSING

1.PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1To consider the recommendations of the Community Support Overview Group from its meeting on 20 March 2007 on the results of a recent Review of the Housing Register and Allocations Policy following Counsel’s Opinion and the provision of a new draft Code of Guidance for Choice Based Lettings.

2.DECISIONS REQUIRED

2.1That Cabinet approves the following recommendations in order that the Housing Register and Allocations Policy is amended to accurately reflect eligibility criteria and reasonable preference groups as required by the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homeless Act 2002):-

(i)the current clause within the Policy which excludes applicants or members of their family as a result of abuse and threats to staff be removed (as outlined in 4.1 and 4.2 of the attached Report);

(ii)the current Policy relating to unacceptable behaviour (as outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the attached Report) be amended as recommended at paragraph 4.6 of the Report;

(iii)the Policy relating to owner occupiers with equity in their home be removed (as outlined at 4.7 of the attached Report);

(iv)time credits are adopted in order to award reasonable preference (as outlined at 5.3 of the attached Report);

(v)time credits are adopted in order to award cumulative reasonable preference (as outlined in 5.4 of the attached Report);

(vi)a further reasonable preference category is added to reflect situations where homelessness has been prevented (as outlined in 5.7 of the attached Report);

(vii)additional preference is recognised, as it is now, by awarding priority, but that only applicants meeting the reasonable preference criteria who have an urgent need can be considered for that priority (as outlined at 5.10 of the attached Report);

(viii)homelessness applicants are awarded priority 12 months after the date of the acceptance of their homeless application (as outlined at 5.9 of the attached Report).

3.BACKGROUND

3.1The Housing Register and Allocations Policy was reviewed in 2003 following the implementation of the Homelessness Act 2002, which made amendments to the Housing Act 1996. At that time, the Council also implemented Home Choice, a system of Choice Based Lettings in line with the target to do so by 2010.

3.2At the time of the review, a draft Allocations Code of Guidance had been issued to Local Authorities for consultation purposes. No finalised version has ever been issued. However, a new consultation document has recently been released which gives guidance on choice based lettings schemes and links to the legislation. The document is called Allocation of Accommodation : Choice Based Lettings and is effectively a revised Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.

3.3In December 2006, Housing and Community Services sought counsel’s opinion on its Housing Register and Allocations Policy in preparation for the forthcoming Best Value Fundamental Service Review of Homelessness and the Housing Register.

3.4The new Code of Guidance and the counsel’s opinion have been fully considered and have resulted in the recommendations made in this report.

3.5It is important that these changes are implemented as soon as possible as failure to do so may leave the Council open to legal challenge.

3.6Poole Housing Partnership and stock holding Registered Social Landlords in Poole will be consulted on the changes proposed following the meeting.

4.IMPLICATIONS AND IMPACT

4.1 The overall impact of these changes is a positive one. The risk of legal challenge is reduced and a more robust policy is adopted having taken a pro active approach.

4.2 With regard to eligibility specifically, the changes relating to threats to staff will require safety and security measures to be reviewed. In reality however, the incidents of this nature which have led to applicants being excluded from the housing register are very minimal, therefore the risk is minimal and will be addressed accordingly.

4.3 The changes in respect of unreasonable behaviour are very positive. The change will require each case to be considered individually, and the test will ensure that where issues are identified, it will be necessary to consider the wider implications of decisions to be made.

4.4 The removal of the equity policy will, in the main, affect elderly applicants for sheltered housing. With a lack of demand for some schemes of Council and Housing Association sheltered accommodation generally, this will open up this accommodation to a wider group. Housing officers will take a pro active approach to working with any such applicants by assisting to secure alternatives as appropriate.

4.5 Reasonable preference brings about the biggest change to the policy. It requires officers to make an assessment of need based not just on an immediate need to move, but on a need which can be linked to an applicants housing circumstances. It therefore introduces a second tier of prioritisation. This is likely to impact on the number of cases applying for priority status, and the result will be fewer applicants with priority, allowing for more opportunity for those on the date order list. It also positively impacts on the ability to fine tune need without overcomplicating the system.

4.6 The reasonable preference groups relating to homelessness bring about credits to homeless people meeting a far broader criteria than presently adopted. In addition to those accepted as homeless, we must now include;

Intentionally Homeless
Non Priority
Threatened with Homelessness

4.7 The implications of this are simply an enhanced housing register position for these people. In the majority of cases, this could assist with prevention work and will be a tool for housing staff. In the case of intentionally homeless families, they will of course, be assessed under eligibility and it may be the case that some of these cases are excluded from the register before they are to be considered for any preference in any case.

4.8 It is anticipated that the new measures in respect of homeless applicants will have a positive affect in terms of the prevention of homelessness and meeting Best Value Performance Indicators.

4.9 The changes are expected to be positively received by applicants on the housing register.

4.10 There is an impact in terms of resources given the additional work these changes bring. The Housing Needs and Resources teams within Housing and Community Services have recently been restructured, and a new Housing Needs Assessment Officer post has been created. This post will be able to administer the housing register generally and will be responsible for the decisions required. It is further expected that the quality of the service will be improved as a result of this new resource and of course, through the Best Value review currently being undertaken.

5.ELIGIBILITY AND REASONABLE PREFERENCE

5.1The Community Support Overview Group, at its Meeting on 20 March 2007, considered the specific Policy changes which are referred to in the Report of the Head of Housing and Community Services, which is attached for information.

6.I would therefore ask Cabinet to support the above recommendations which were UNANIMOUSLY supported by the Community Support Overview Group.

Councillor White

Portfolio Holder for Housing

CABINET – 3RD APRIL 2007 – FOR INFORMATION

AGENDA ITEM 13

BOROUGH OF POOLE

COMMUNITY SUPPORT OVERVIEW GROUP

20th March 2007.

REPORT OF HEAD OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

HOUSING REGISTER AND ALLOCATIONS POLICY

Purpose of the Report

1.1To inform Members of the results of a recent review of the Housing Register and Allocations Policy following counsel’s opinion and the provision of a new draft code of guidance for Choice Based Lettings.

1.2To make recommendations for changes to the policy.

Recommendations

2.1Members of Community Support Overview Group are asked to consider the following policy changes in order that the Housing register and Allocations Policy is amended to accurately reflect eligibility criteria and reasonable preference groups as required by Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) and refer their deliberations to Cabinet;

2.1.1That the current clause within the policy which excludes applicants or members of their family as a result of abuse and threats to staff is removed as outlined in 4.1 and 4.2 of the report.

2.1.2That the current policy relating to unacceptable behaviour as outlined in 4.3 of the report, is amended as recommended at 4.6.

2.1.3That the policy relating to owner occupiers with equity in their home is removed as outlined at 4.7 of the report.

2.1.4That time credits are adopted in order to award reasonable preference as outlined at 5.3 of the report.

2.1.5That time credits are adopted in order to award cumulative reasonable preference as outlined in 5.4 of the report.

2.1.6That a further reasonable preference category is added to reflect situations where homelessness has been prevented as outlined in 5.7 of the report.

2.1.7That additional preference is recognised, as it is now, by awarding priority, but that only applicants meeting the reasonable preference criteria who have an urgent need can be considered for that priority as outlined at 5.10 of the report.

2.1.8That homeless applicants are awarded priority 12 months after the date of the acceptance of their homeless application as outlined at 5.9 of the report.

Background

3.4The new Code of Guidance and the counsel’s opinion have been fully considered and have resulted in the recommendations made in this report.

3.5It is important that these changes are implemented as soon as possible as failure to do so may leave the Council open to legal challenge.

3.6Poole Housing Partnership and stock holding Registered Social Landlords in Poole will be consulted on the changes proposed following the meeting.

Eligibility

4.1The policy currently excludes people from the housing register who fall within the following criteria;

‘The Council has decided that persons or members of their family who use abusive language or threatening behaviour to a member of the Housing

Services staff are also Non Qualifying Persons.’

4.2The advice given is clear that only the legislation can set the criteria for Non Qualifying Persons, that being those subject to Immigration Control or those considered to be ineligible due to Unacceptable Behaviour. Unacceptable Behaviour is outlined at 4.3. The above criteria is therefore unlawful and must be removed from the policy.

4.3Unacceptable Behaviour is defined within the current policy as follows;

‘Persons who are considered ineligible for an allocation in accordance with s.160 of the Act. Each case will be considered in accordance with Section 160A of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) and the prevailing Code of Guidance, which states that the Council must be satisfied that the applicant is guilty of behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant. Examples of behaviour considered to be unacceptable are as follows;

Applicants who have a history of rent arrears with any landlord, of over £1000
Applicants who have a history of behaviour which has caused nuisance and annoyance
Applicants who have been convicted for using a dwelling for immoral or illegal purposes, or committing an arrestable offence in the locality
Applicants who have committed domestic violence causing a partner or other family member to become homeless
Applicants who have caused a property to deteriorate due to waste, neglect or default
Applicants who have gained a tenancy through false statement or information given on application
Applicants who have paid or received premium in connection with a mutual exchange’

4.4Our advice is that it is unlawful to set a specific criteria which will be considered, ie £1000 rent arrears. Each case much be considered individually and a clear test applied. That test is; that if the applicant were a tenant of the Local Authority at the time of the unacceptable behaviour, would the authority have been entitled to a possession order.

4.5For the sake of completeness, there are also some additional instances of unacceptable behaviour which can be considered, and whilst these instances do not occur regularly, it is proposed that these are added to the policy.

4.6 It is recommended that the policy is amended as follows;

Each case will be considered in accordance with Section 160A of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) and the prevailing Code of Guidance, which states that the Council must be satisfied that the applicant is guilty of behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant. Examples of behaviour considered to be unacceptable are as follows;

Applicants who have a history of rent arrears
Applicants who have a history of behaviour which has caused nuisance and annoyance
Applicants who have been convicted for using a dwelling for immoral or illegal purposes, or committing an arrestable offence in the locality
Applicants who have committed domestic violence causing a partner or other family member to become homeless
Applicants who have caused a property to deteriorate due to waste, neglect or default
Applicants who have gained a tenancy through false statement or information given on application
Applicants who have paid or received premium in connection with a mutual exchange
Applicants who have been evicted from a dwelling within the curtilage of a building held for non-housing purposes due to conduct such that given the nature of the building it would not be right for occupation to continue

Each case will be considered individually by the Housing Needs Assessment Officer, and their circumstances will be considered in line with Section 160A and the Code of Guidance. In each case, the following will be considered;

Is the applicant (or a member of their household) guilty of behaviour under one of the above grounds such that the court would have considered it reasonable to grant a possession order has they been a secure tenant of the housing authority at the time?
Was the behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant?
In the circumstances at the time of application, is he then unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority because of that same behaviour?

4.7In view of the advice received, that only applicants falling within the non qualifying groups may be excluded, it is also necessary to remove the following clause from the policy;

‘If is deemed that the applicant has more than 75% of the cost of purchasing a suitable private property the application will be suspended. No offer of accommodation will be made unless their circumstances change. The period of time which lapses whilst the applicant is suspended on these grounds, will not apply to the overall amount of time on the housing register. Instead, advice on alternative solutions such as Shared Ownership will be available. Applications will be reviewed on an annual basis in relation to this criteria.’

4.8Applicants who own their own home will receive advice and assistance and will work with them to secure a suitable alternative to accommodation via the housing register if this is appropriate.

5Reasonable Preference

5.1The current policy allows for priority status to be awarded to the following groups;

Applicants with an immediate need for re-housing on medical grounds
Applicants with an immediate need for re-housing on social grounds
Applicants accepted as Homeless (see Section 7)
Applicants who are under-occupying Council or Housing Association accommodation
Applicants who are transferring from a one bedroom general needs property to a one bedroom sheltered housing property
Applicants who are statutorily overcrowded in their accommodation
Applicants who are occupying accommodation which has a category one hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System

5.2The guidance and the advice is clear that there is a requirement to give reasonable preference to applicants falling within the following categories;

Applicants with a need to move on medical grounds
Applicants with a need to move on welfare grounds
Applicants who are homeless within the definition of the Act
Applicants who are owed a duty by any housing authority under section 190(2), 193(2), 195(2) of the1996 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 section 192(3)
Applicants who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded accommodation
Applicants who need to move to a particular locality to avoid hardship

5.3 Reasonable Preference is defined as a ‘reasonable head start’ or an accelerated position on the housing register. In order to award reasonable preference, it is not necessary to guarantee an allocation, or move the applicant to the top of the list. It is therefore recommended that applicants falling within the reasonable preference categories remain on the date order list and are not automatically awarded priority. Instead, the policy will award time credits to these applicants on the following basis;

Applicants with a need to move on medical grounds

2 years credit

Applicants with a need to move on welfare grounds

2 years credit

Applicants who are homeless within the definition of the Act

1 years credit

Applicants who are owed a duty by any housing authority under section 190(2), 193(2), 195(2) of the1996 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 section 192(3)

1 years credit

Applicants who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded accommodation

2 years credit

Applicants who need to move to a particular locality to avoid hardship

2 years credit

5.4Applicants who fall into more that one reasonable preference group will be awarded cumulative preference in order that their needs are recognised. For example, if an applicant falls within the homelessness and medical groups, they will be awarded a total of 3 years time credit.