Agenda item

Yvonne Fox, Assistant Director of Housing:

 

·         Presented a report which provided the Performance Scrutiny Committee with information relating to the provision of homelessness services following the enactment of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 on 3 April 2019.

 

·         Explained that the definition of homeless or threatened with homelessness had also been changed, with the Act extending the number of days before a person became threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days. This change had been introduced to enable people to apply for help and advice at an earlier stage and to give the local authority time to prevent homelessness or give advice to enable the applicant to secure alternative accommodation.

 

·         Reported that a significant amount of work was required by local authorities in preparation for the new duties, which came into effect in April 2019. The Housing Solutions Team at the City Council had received specialist training and had worked very hard over the last year to ensure that the authority was statutorily compliant with the new Act.

 

·         Reported that a review was currently underway into the processes and procedures that were being used within the service to look at the best way to deliver the service in the future. This was in response to the increase in the number of people approaching the Council for advice and an increase in the number of people the authority had accepted a duty for following implementation of the Act.

 

·         Highlighted that the city had a shortfall of adequate temporary accommodation, with provisions that were in place not being sufficient for the current demand in terms of the number of units that people needed, the variety of needs required and the level of support available once a person or family were placed into that type of accommodation.

 

·         Updated the Committee on the successful bid from the Rough Sleeper Initiative to reduce and prevent rough sleeping in the city centre. A Rough Sleeper Project Team had commenced in October 2018 which encompassed multi-agency professionals and included accommodation at the Corner House, a complex needs unit owned and managed by the Framework Housing Association. An extension to the opening hours at the Nomad Night Shelter had also been introduced to include a day centre run by the YMCA, offering day services to those who were street homeless. In addition, the team had access to five bedsit type units provided by the YMCA to both relieve and prevent rough sleeping for those with limited options.

 

·         Reported that additional funding secured in December 2018 would see the opening of a ‘Somewhere Safe To Stay Hub’ with appropriate support workers. This would allow up to eight service users at any time to access the Hub, for a period of 72 hours. Whilst on site the service users would be assessed for all needs and started on not only their housing pathway but also facilitating access to health, substance misuse and other support services.

 

·         Invited members’ comments and questions.

 

Question: How many people had the Council dealt with or helped in 2018/19?

 

Response: Based on figures for April to December 2018, this was confirmed as 538.

 

Question: How many preventions had the Council completed?

 

Response: Based on figures for April to December 2018, this was confirmed as 161.

 

Question: How many people was the Council currently in the process of helping?

 

Response: This was confirmed as 101.

 

Question: How many people were homeless on the streets currently? How many were there at the beginning of the process?

 

Response: As at the end of May 2019 there were 31 people classified as homeless on the streets of Lincoln. The official count took place in the Autumn or early Winter each year. In November 2017 the number of homeless people was 28 and in November 2018 it was 26. It was acknowledged that there were trends associated with homelessness and more people tended to live on the streets during summer months. Of the 31 people currently classified as homeless, seven had no access to assistance as they were from outside of the United Kingdom and had no recourse to public funds. A reconnection service to their country of origin would be offered, however.

 

Question: What happened if someone was homeless and had children? Were they classed as a priority?

 

Response: The team encouraged people to discuss their circumstances early in order that it could provide preventative advice. Unfortunately the Council was unable to stop the process of eviction, which was why early intervention was so important. If a person with children approached the Council and were still in accommodation, the team would explore temporary solutions such as any friends or family in the area in the interim and they would also be given priority status on the Council’s waiting list for housing. However, there were circumstances whereby temporary accommodation was required relatively urgently, with cases of domestic violence highlighted as a common example. The Council had a duty to provide somewhere safe for families to reside should they be at risk of homelessness and sometimes the only option available was to provide accommodation at bed and breakfasts within the city. Families with children located in bed and breakfasts were only placed there in emergencies when no other provision was available and would be moved out to other accommodation as soon as possible. It was reported that a review would be undertaken of the Council’s temporary accommodation provision in due course, acknowledging that there were currently limitations in respect of larger families in particular. It was noted that the authority was sometimes able to make use of empty Council properties and there would also be opportunities to work with private landlords in the city. The average length of a stay in temporary accommodation across the board, not solely relating to those people with children, was 3.6 weeks.

 

Question: How much was temporary accommodation costing in bed and breakfasts compared to the original budget?

 

Response: Additional bed and breakfast costs for 2018/19 were £101,000 overspent against budget, however, these costs had been met by the Council via homelessness and new burdens grant funding from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

 

Comment: An area like Lincoln would attract people likely to be homeless with it being the only city in the county and having associated services and facilities available.

 

Response: Lincoln, similar to cities like York and Cambridge, was attractive to people struggling with homelessness due to its Cathedral city status and amenities such as the hospital. It was reported that other authorities in the county had received funding to set up rough sleeper teams, with these being established in East Lindsey and South Kesteven.

 

Question: How were ‘foreign’ citizens defined from the perspective of those people currently classified as homeless who were outside of the United Kingdom and therefore had no recourse to public funds? How did EU nationals differ from refugees in this respect, for example?

 

Response: It was defined in legislation that refugees or people with unlimited leave to remain in the country would be entitled to apply for assistance. EU nationals entering the country to work would be entitled to apply for benefits and housing assistance, but only if they remained in employment. Unfortunately there were cases whereby EU nationals, for example, lost their employment meaning that they also lost their right to assistance. People under these circumstances represented a group of people the Council was unable to assist, other than to provide a reconnection service to their country of origin.

 

Question: Was the third sector being utilised enough in order to address the issue of homelessness in Lincoln?

 

Response: The Council was working very closely with other organisations, particularly statutory organisations and the third sector, to properly address homelessness in Lincoln.

 

Question: In response to the additional funding secured for the ‘Somewhere Safe To Stay Hub’, how much had the service cost, how much of a contribution had the Council received and what impact would it make?

 

Response:  It was not possible at this stage to confirm the exact figure as there were a number of costs associated with the Hub and it was classed as a commercially sensitive scheme, however, all associated costs had been met by the grant funding provided by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The scheme had been in operation from the end of March so beds and services were available, with the facility up and running. Several officials from the Ministry were monitoring its use however early indications were that the facility had been very successful, with some cases already resulting in referrals to accommodation either in the city or elsewhere in the country.

 

Question: Did the Council still offer guaranteed bonds?

 

Response: Yes, a reasonable amount was issued in accordance with the Bond Guarantee Scheme.

 

Question: Was the number of ‘hidden’ homeless families, such as those who frequently moved between friends and family, for example, recorded?

 

Response: The main problem with circumstances such as these was that they were hidden and so the Council was simply not aware of them. The new legislative changes had been designed to encourage people to approach local authorities for help and advice. If a local authority had reason to believe that a person may become homeless it had a duty to act and help.

 

Question: The funding in place for this year and the subsequent year would make a huge difference to the issue in Lincoln, but it was worrying what would happen when the funding came to an end. Had any consideration been given at this stage as to what the Council would do to address homelessness in the city once the funding ceased?

 

Response: The Council had received a significant amount of funding over a two year period which had assisted in the establishment of lots of new services that were working very well and helping a lot of people. The rough sleeper team, for example, had already helped over 200 people get into accommodation. It was unclear at this stage what would happen in two years but officers hoped the funding would continue, given the significant impact it had already made.

 

It was reported that there were essentially two stages to the homelessness process from the perspective of the local authority, namely prevention and relief. If the authority was unable to prevent homelessness in eight weeks the local connection and priority need rules would then apply. It would not be a case, therefore, that the City of Lincoln Council would offer anyone outside of the city a Council house, for example.

 

Question: If someone presented themselves as homeless from another part of the country, did the Council have a duty to prevent homelessness for that individual?

 

Response: The Council would solely provide that person with advice as they would not be able to demonstrate a local connection. In such circumstances it was better for the person to seek assistance from the local authority where they could demonstrate a local connection but the Council would still have a duty to provide any necessary advice.

 

Question: How long were people confirmed as being homeless waiting to be housed in a property when entitled, and what could be done to speed this up?

 

Response: This varied between property type but all statutory homeless households were directly matched to the next available property as quickly as possible.

 

Question: Were there any conditions imposed on the Council as part of the grants allocated by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government?

 

Response: The Ministry agreed a delivery action plan for all projects which it monitored the Council’s performance against. To date, the Council had met all expected requirements.

 

Question: How did the Council follow up its duty of care when people, such as rough sleepers, had been re-housed?

 

Response: Tenancy support was available through an agency known as P3 for ex-rough sleepers, which was currently funding by Adult Social Care. Supporting People contracts, managed by Lincolnshire County Council, were due to be re-commissioned in October 2019. The City Council was in the process of reviewing its practices and procedures regarding the sustainability of tenancies.

 

Question: Did the Council have a measure around working with prisons and hospitals, for example, to assist a person’s transition from prison into society in order to avoid them becoming homeless?

 

Response: The rough sleeper team worked closely with Lincoln Prison, the Probation Service and Lincoln Hospital to address this issue and provide advice and assistance where necessary.

 

It was RESOLVED that the report be noted.