Agenda item

This report is a follow up to that presented to Committee on 22 February 2012 which analysed the potential impact of the Government’s Housing Benefit Caps on households residing in the private rented sector and which reported progress on the Council’s HB Assist Project. 

Mr Mike England presented the update report, which covered two distinct cohorts. The first cohort was those households which the Council had placed in temporary accommodation. HB Assist had been set up in December 2010 to deal with the impact of the introduction of Local Housing Allowance (LHA) on those properties already being used as temporary accommodation. There had been an initial 546 tenancies where existing rents exceeded LHA rates, of which eight were currently still to be resolved.

The second cohort was households in the private rented sector who had no relationship with the Council and were affected by the HB Caps.

Mr England stated that there had been no significant change in the quantum of households and numbers of dependent children. However, the information gathered between 30 January 2012 and 30 September 2012 indicated that:

·         The total number of households in the private rented sector affected by the Caps had decreased from 540 to 307.

·         The potential impact of an additional £20 per week contributed by either the household or other party had decreased from 338 to 163 households.

·         The impact of the HB Caps on Child dependents in the private sector had decreased from 949 to 386 children.

Members queried the impact on large households. Mr England responded that, of the 98 households of 4 bedrooms and over, 66 households remained in the same home. The other 32 households had not been moved out.  but might have moved to a different part of the borough

Mr England stated that, whilst there was no clear pattern, there were a number of likely reasons: a combination of people moving out of the borough and those moving in not being affected by HB Caps; and housing issues being resolved by other means, such as the landlord agreeing to reduce the rent, the household moving to another part of the borough, the household being able to meet the increased rent and the receipt of a discretionary housing payment or contribution from the Council. In addition, some tenants might seek assistance from the Council by declaring themselves homeless.

Mr England responded to a member’s query that he was unable to quantify the number of households with children who had moved out of the borough, and that some of these would have had no contact with the Council.

Mr England informed that the number of tenancies still to be resolved by the HB Assist Team were currently eight, and there were  a variety of circumstances to explain why accommodation had not been found. for example some households were waiting to move from temporary to permanent accommodation. When tenants moved from one private landlord to another, the Council aimed to take account of schools or other connections with the borough. However, there was likely to be relationship with landlords of temporary accommodation who had agreed to reduce their rents, which might not be typical of other private landlords.

Mr England responded to a member’s query that he believed there were in the region of 20,000 people in the borough in receipt of housing benefit.

Councillor Cowan referred to the potential changes in legislation, and queried the measures to be put in place to manage the wider impact and how these compared with other London boroughs. Mr England gave examples of two key areas where measures had already been introduced:

·         the changes to the way in which the Government subsidises temporary accommodation could again affect the first cohort of households; the Cabinet, at its November meeting, had approved the establishment of an expanded HB  Assist project team; and

·         social housing under occupancy proposals in respect of reduced housing benefits; the Council had written to households which it believed would be affected and offered assistance if they wanted to downsize.

Mr England confirmed that the Council had started to plan for the wider totality of the changes, and would be benchmarking against actions taken by other London Boroughs, including their interpretation of the rules.

In respect of ‘resettled in a neighbouring borough’, Mr England clarified that this referred to a contiguous boundary with Hammersmith & Fulham.  A written answer would be provided in respect of the difference of 30 in the breakdown of those households which had been ‘resolved by HB Assist’.

Action: Director, Housing Options, Skills and Economic Development

Mr England responded to queries in respect of the procurement of housing that accommodation had been provided outside the borough, but only on limited occassions outside the Greater London boundary. Slough/Staines was the most likely area. It was forecast that over 300 additional units of private sector accommodation would be required in the next 12/15 months. It was believed that some 400/500 families were housed outside the borough, and this would be confirmed in writing.

Action: Director, Housing Options, Skills and Economic Development

The Chairman queried whether people in difficulties because of the forthcoming legislation would be known to the Council. Mr England responded that many of the households affected by the changes were already known to the Council. In respect of households with some level of disability, the Council would pro-actively approach these households and prioritise work to gain an understanding of their needs.

RESOLVED THAT:

1.                  The strategy for the forthcoming legislative changes be brought to the February meeting.

2.                  The Committee noted the report.