Presented by the ADH, the report gave an update of the Homelessness Reduction Act. This would come into force in April 2018 and created a legal framework for people that were homeless; at risk of homelessness; or threatened with homelessness. The Council had done what was mandatory under the Act so far. Earlier on the day of the Committee meeting, the new Code of Guidance had been published which would give different timeframes for the homelessness procedure from April. The service department was going through the guide to ensure they were in line with what was set up in their report. Government had also given an update on the New Burdens Funding, which had increased so that each borough would receive £240,000 for a total of three years which ensured local authorities would have a significant fund to follow through on the Act. Over the next three years, the assumption is that practises and policies would be updated to address homelessness issues and ensure the best practice was put in place.

The Chair was sceptical about the level of efficiency in the homelessness department and asked if this would burden the service department further. The ADH replied that the pilot in the report would help them for a while but they were looking at different service models. The department was also going through a culture change.

Councillor Pothecary sought clarification on those who were threatened with homelessness as some tenants who were handed a section 21 (notice of eviction) did not take it seriously until it expired as advised by the Council. She went on to say she was pleased with the increase of the New Burdens Funding and queried whether the £240,000 was limited to what it could be spent on. The fund may be spent on a bespoke IT service to help manage the service department better but the fund was not limited. The ADH anticipated that most of the funding would be spent on hiring extra staff that specialised in certain case types to create a better infrastructure. The ADH stated that section 21 notices should be taken seriously but it does raise questions on when to accept someone could become homeless. Each applicant had a prevention duty to fulfil in which there was an expectation for them to take reasonable steps to prevent their own homelessness.

The Vice-Chair queried on the definition of single homeless people if it included single status; single with mental health; and people kicked out of their homes by family. The ADH confirmed the definition included all single people and the structure encouraged actions involving vulnerable people. There was a wide range and the service department worked with specialist single teams to identify what housing options single homeless people would need in terms of circumstance and age. Reasonable steps would be taken to find housing for single people and every person was entitled to a personalised housing plan which would include actions the Council would take and actions the individual would take. Currently, the highest cause for single homelessness was section 21 notices; exclusion from family home as the second highest cause; and domestic violence as the third highest cause.

Councillor Redsell commented that there were not enough properties to house single people and queried the plan for this. The service department was looking into the procurement of more properties but new rights did not create new homes. Attempts were made to rescue tenancies or the Council would make discretionary payments but as part of the relief duty as a council, there were reasonable steps to take to relieve homelessness. The service department could refer individuals to other boroughs if they felt the borough suited their needs better, such as lower rents.

The Chair welcomed the legislation and was pleased that provisions for homelessness for single people would be improved. He expressed concern on single people with mental health problems as he felt they were not considered a priority and thought this should be considered. The ADH replied that those with mental health problems were assessed by medical professionals that gave medical recommendations. The service department did not always follow these recommendations and would still consider these people for housing. Mental health was difficult to diagnose compared to physical health and the new legislation was designed to move away from requiring people to prove homelessness vulnerability.

The HTR questioned what would happen to the homeless that were currently on the streets. Referring to 4.8 of the report, the ADH said that other public services would now have a duty to refer them to the local authority. There was an eligibility requirement that people had to pass in order to receive housing options. Those that did not pass the eligibility threshold could be referred to the homeless services.

The Chair queried the role the service department took on with partner agencies for homelessness. There were expectations of the service department but partner agencies would still have the crucial role of assessing housing. The Local Authority would still be responsible for finding housing in the long term but they expected the prevention ratio to increase.

Councillor Allen asked whether the Council was responsible for providing temporary accommodation to the homeless and if so, what the costs were. The ADH answered the costs were not high and the amount requiring temporary accommodation was small. The bill was in the low £100,000s in terms of cost of hotels per annum. Councillor Allen went on to ask whether temporary accommodation would be provided to single people. The service department would need to maximise what they could attain and it was difficult to acquire private properties. Traditionally, councils provided self-contained studios or one bed flat which was something the service department would look into. Councillor Allen also mentioned he had seen containers used in London as homes and asked whether this would be considered in the Borough. The service department would look into modular options and consider offering these. The ADH was aware of a company that used timber structures that could build homes quickly.

Councillor Redsell questioned whether the service department was in touch with the homeless that were sleeping rough in the Borough. She commented that Family Mosaic did not do as much in Thurrock as they used to. The ADH agreed and stated that it would be good to develop a partnership with independent or charity organisations such as Family Mosaic but the service did not have the budget to set this up as they had done in the past. Family Mosaic had withdrawn from temporary accommodation due to personal reasons. At the last statutory count, there had been five or six homeless rough sleepers the service department was aware of but the number of single homeless people was on the increase as opposed to rough sleepers.

The Vice-Chair suggested the Council could look at quick builds on plots of council land, even through Gloriana. There were 8000 people on the Housing Register at the last head count which was increasing daily. The ADH replied that the figure of 8000 was misleading as it included 4000 people who were deemed to be adequately housed. The statistics for single homeless people were also included in the 8000 but was a relatively low number. He agreed that Gloriana was useful but did not think it was close to the modular housing option and a lot of the land in the HRA and General Fund was already accounted. Providers of modular homes were aware of the need in Thurrock and the government was looking into standardised accommodation options. The Council was committed to delivering more homes but the figures were challenging and needed to be looked at.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Committee comments on the information provided on a) the introduction of the Act and b) the progress of the Housing Solutions Service in preparing for implementation.