Minutes:
Daren Turner, Strategic Director of Housing and Investment:
a) presented a verbal report to provide Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee with an update on Tenancy Agreements
b) stated that reviewing the tenancy agreement was very important which took time to redraft in order that legislative changes since it was last reviewed were considered
c) added that an internal consultation process would begin over the coming weeks and once completed, an extensive consultation with tenants would be commenced
d) highlighted that once the consultations had been completed, the final draft would be presented to Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee in order that it be scrutinised and comments and appropriate change be received. Once the process had been completed, the final draft would be progressed through to Executive for formal approval
e) welcomed comments and questions from Members of the Committee
Members discussed the content of the verbal report in further detail. The following questions and comments emerged:
Comment: A request for an update on tenancy agreements to be added to the Work Programme for the new municipal year.
Comment: Best practice had been considered elsewhere and a summary of key points on the front page of a tenancy agreement was best moving forward in order that a new tenant be prevented from the requirement to read a 30/40-page document. Many individuals were so relieved to have been given a Council property that they did not want to read a long document. Tenants still needed to be made aware of the key points in any instance.
Question: Could a probationary period be included in new tenancies?
Response: A probationary period of one year was included.
Supplementary Question: Could the period be amended to six months and then yearly afterwards? Was there anywhere for Council tenants that abused staff?
Supplementary Response: There was a section within the tenancy agreement with regard to treating people fairly and with dignity and respect. Abuse towards staff had sadly become more prevalent. Lifetime tenancies, at times, made behaviour and upkeep of properties difficult. If a tenancy was to be reviewed every 5 years to consider how a tenant treated their Council property and neighbours, notwithstanding rent arrears, there may be more of an incentive. Lifetime tenancies were problematic.
Question: Could individuals be vetted prior to being granted a tenancy?
Response: In the case of regular moves, references would be requested. However, there were individuals with chaotic lifestyles that needed a lot of help and extra support. The Council was a landlord, not a provider of social care however staff always went further than required.
Comment: When an individual caused issues, sometimes it became a big issue. The Council had a duty to find a property which included for those not on the housing waiting list but had become homeless and therefore, a priority. However, there was also a duty to good tenants to ensure that they weren’t placed in a vulnerable position.
Response: The Council worked hard to place people in the right areas in the right circumstances, both for them and existing tenants however the Council only had so many properties available.
Comment: LTP had been involved with the agreement and agreed with the safety of staff and the use of less complicated wording. The right house needed to go to the right person/people. Arguably the probationary period should be extended, perhaps to 18 months. If individuals experienced problems, they needed to talk to officers. It would be interesting for the new copy to be compared to the old copy in order that the volume of work carried out could be seen.
Question: Would staff receive training on the new signing in order that key areas of the agreement were highlighted to new tenants?
Response: The handover process would be adapted for an abridged and shortened version. All staff needed to understand what the new tenancy agreement contained and the implications. There was no reason that all staff couldn’t be included in the training regime.
Comment: It would be positive for homeless and rough sleeps to be provided a copy of the agreement ahead of being given a property in order that they could read ahead. Many homeless and rough sleeping individuals had a mobile phone.
Question: How could the suggestion be put forward to change tenancies from lifetime tenancies to 5 years?
Response: The issue of tenancy length was a matter for members to dictate. Lifetime tenancies gave limited recourse in order that people were encouraged to behave correctly. There were considerable legal connotations, and existing tenancies could not be altered, only the granting of new tenancies. It was possible for probation periods to be extended. Identification of needs and support could be offered for individuals that had not held a tenancy before. There was a range of measures available such as more frequent inspections or fortnightly visits.
Comment: Many tenants were unaware of the housing officer that covered their estate.
Response: There were a high number of individuals that were aware of the housing officer relevant to their property. Similarly, the authenticity of an individual’s claims not to have known their housing officer, could not be proved.
Comment: Concentration should be given on the approximately 4-5% of properties within an area that were a problem.
Question: The housing list was a large problem. It was necessary for older people and younger people to be integrated. When looking at housing, was consideration given to people already in the surrounding houses?
Response: Yes. Sensitivity was given to the makeup of an existing street and people were placed appropriately. However, there was only a certain number of properties available, and the Council had a legal obligation to house people. It was very expensive for individuals to be kept in B&B properties and statutorily, it could only be done for a certain period, especially for families. If officers were concerned about an individual, intense wrap around support would be offered in order that good behaviour and positive integration be ensured. However, it was sometimes the case that people, on the face of their application and process, appeared to be fine upstanding citizens. It could be a different scenario once they were in a property.
Supplementary Response: It was not possible to always judge an individual on their past behaviours as behaviours could change.
Comment: Only so much information could be obtained by the Council. If the incoming tenant did not provide all the information, it was difficult.
Comment: The Council did not always receive all information from partner organisations.
RESOLVED that the content of the verbal update be noted with thanks.