Agenda item

To consider a report by the Director for Digital, Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 16

The Committee had a report before it, attached as item 16, which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report set out background information on the Portfolio of the Adur Cabinet Member for Adur Homes and Customer Services to enable the Committee to consider and question the Cabinet Member on issues within his portfolio and any other issues which the Cabinet Member is involved in connected with the work of the Council and the Adur communities. 

A Member asked “Given that we have overspent in Adur by 447k in 22/23 and we have only put aside 381k for overspend in the 23/24 budget, do we need to consider increasing this in the face of predictable increased demand?”

Members were informed budget setting would take account of the increasing costs, in the meantime there were things in place intended to reduce the current predicted overspend and burden on the  temporary accommodation budget:

• new supply of General Needs stock that would be realised in financial year that would increase move on from temporary accommodation and reduce the burden on the budget
• New supply of temporary accommodation through contracting as well as potential within the Southwick buy back scheme
• Homelessness Prevention work, where Household Support Fund and Homelessness Prevention fund would increase the prevention activity to reduce the flow into temporary accommodation

A Member asked “A portion of Adur's discretionary housing payments to cover shortfalls in resident's housing benefit or universal credit was sent back to the treasury. It spent 89% of its allocation. Councillors are often contacted by residents unable to afford rents so it's not like the demand isn't there. Could you tell us why all of this money wasn't allocated?”

Members were informed there was a DHP underspend since 2018 of between £10k and £30k each year in Adur. The main criteria for awarding a DHP was that the customer must show that they were in financial need, there were subsidiary considerations regarding the effectiveness of an award - that if an award was made it would enable them to make long term changes to better afford their property. Other factors such as a person’s health and household would be taken into account when making any award.

The main reason for most unsuccessful awards was that they had not demonstrated that they were in financial need - i.e. when completing the application form they had stated that their income was actually higher than their expenditure.

The next reason would be that the property was unsuitable/ unaffordable in the long term and the tenancy could not be preserved following a short term award. Not every DHP application met the criteria applied to receive a payment.

A Member asked, “I received an email from a tenant of Adur Homes as her kitchen was unusable. This tenant lives in a 2 bedroom property and has 3 children. The kitchen in the property was in a poor condition when she moved in 7 years ago, but she was told that it would be repaired, which did not happen. 2 years ago it was reported to Adur Homes as being unusable and was inspected on 3 occasions, confirming that the property required a new kitchen. On contacting Adur Homes as not informed when, the tenant was told that the work would be done by Christmas last year but since then nothing has been done. 

I contacted Adur Homes on 20th July and copied in Cabinet Member for Adur Homes and Customer Services. I sent a reminder on 3 August and received a reply on 10 August saying that they were liaising with the repairs team. I sent a further reminder on 27 August, as did the Cabinet Member for Adur Homes and Customer Services. I have since heard nothing. The question I wish to ask is , is it now Policy that a tenant with three children living in an Adur Homes property has no facilities to cook meals for their family and is it even legal?” 

Members were informed that without specifics, the response was that it was certainly not the Adur Homes policy to allow a home to be let without a gas or electrical point for a cooker to be installed. If repairs were needed or the kitchen needed replacing then this was now completed during the void period but in occupied properties then repairs should be reported through the correct channels and an operative would visit to repair. If the question was about the suitability or size of the kitchen then this was a different matter and a large scale programme of works to upgrade kitchens as per Decent Homes requirements was being developed.  These would be individually designed and installed as per the size and restrictions within the existing space of the kitchen.

If repairs were needed then these would be carried out in the interim as and when reported to the repairs service.

A Member asked, “because of the council's referral to the social housing regulator, the council cannot apply for Homes England funding. Which of our current social housing and emergency housing projects in the pipeline are impacted, and in the interim what alternative sources can the council draw on?”

Members were informed that Ashcroft and the smaller site developments had been impacted by the pause in Homes England funding for new homes. It had been proposed to use Brownfield Land Release funding to progress Ashcroft to a demolition phase. Around £1m 1-4-1 RTB receipts were available plus a projected additional £1m in year receipts to progress some of the small site projects such as the schemes at Daniel Close, Gravelly Crescent and South St. Projects which had already been awarded Homes England funding were unaffected and would continue to be funded. At present it was believed it was only delivery of the scheme at Ashcroft which would be significantly affected by the funding freeze which they were working to address. 

The council was in conversation with Homes England and the Regulator to establish what was needed to have in place for the notice to be rescinded, it was a standing agenda item for meetings and they were making continuous progress, with the regulator indicating they were happy with the progress to date. 

A Member asked, “Councillors are often contacted by private housing tenants unable to continue renting after their rent was hiked up by their landlord. They face homelessness which has terrible consequences on the individual and the family. For the council this is an extra burden. Many private tenants are already in receipt of housing benefit, but as we know housing benefit is capped at the level of the local housing allowance (LHA). In principle, LHA rates are supposed to be fixed at the 30th percentile point for rents in each size category of dwelling based on market rents paid by tenants, but there are literally no rental properties available at that rate anywhere in Adur.

With your housing strategy and housing enabling hat on, do you think the level of the local housing allowance is too low and is there anything you can do to lift it?

Members were informed that yes, there was a significant gap between LHA and private sector rents, there was criteria for being eligible to request a review of the Broad Rental Market Area which they did not believe they currently met, but this was an area being explored as there was the possibility that they may be eligible to request a review in the future.