(A) SARA BOWREY, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING, LBB
(B) RACHAEL DUNLEY, HEAD OF EARLY INTERVENTION AND FAMILY SUPPORT
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed Ms Sara Bowry (Director of Housing), Mrs Rachael Dunley (Head of Early Intervention and Family Support Services), Mr Colin Smith (Welfare Reform Manager), and Ms Tracey Wilson (Head of Compliance and Strategy) to the meeting Members of the Committee explored a number of themes and issues with the witnesses.
The Chairman opened the discussion noting that there were in excess of 1600 families in temporary accommodation in the Borough. Rent level across the Borough had become unaffordable and many vulnerable families faced additional financial pressures as a result of rising costs.
The Director of Housing confirmed that many of the pressures faced by vulnerable families were a result of the cumulative impact of the changes that had been introduced as part of the roll out of Universal Credit. The Director of Housing confirmed that there were over 1600 families in temporary accommodation and this included 1815 children aged 0-16 years old. An increasing number of families were now being placed outside the Borough, with over 600 school aged children housed in temporary accommodation outside the Borough. 300 were placed in Medway and Kent. Of these, an increasing number were required to travel back into the Borough to attend school which placed additional financial pressure on the families.
One of the aims of the introduction of Universal Credit had been to encourage families to budget on a monthly basis. This was a skill that did not necessarily come instinctively to vulnerable families and many required intensive support in order to learn how to manage their monthly budget. It was critical that there was intervention at an early stage in terms of debt and housing advice if it became evident that families were not able to manage their monthly budget.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the Director of Housing provided the following data in relation to families living in temporary accommodation:
1815 school aged children (0-16 years) living in temporary accommodation
504 children attended school in Bromley
286 families were placed in Croydon
178 families were placed in Lewisham
99 families were placed in Bexley
40 families were placed in Southwark
22 families were placed in Lambeth
The bulk of the remaining families (686) were placed in Kent (e.g. Gravesham, Swale, Thanet etc) and Medway. 229 families were placed in Medway and 86 families placed in Dartford.
It was agreed that the data provided by the Director of Housing would be circulated with the minutes.
The Select Committee was also provided with three case studies based on families from Bromley. The case studies illustrated that the vulnerable families tended to struggle with debt having started in a negative position as a result of significant rent arrears arising from the 5-week delay in the benefit payment. In addition the unaffordably high rents across the Borough placed additional pressure on families. The withdrawal of the additional bedroom subsidy also caused issues and many families were forced to take in lodgers. The Head of Early Intervention and Family support Services highlighted that this raised a number of other issues (such as safeguarding) as many of these families were vulnerable and were not always good at making choices.
The Select Committee noted that within the Council’s Housing Services there was increased debt advice, floating support services, and assessments of need were undertaken. The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) was also funded to provide advice concerning Universal Credit. The Welfare Reform Manager reported that the CAB were also very good at signposting families to the other support services that were available as well as providing basic budgeting support to families. To date the take up of the CAB support had been disappointing. Universal Credit was launched in Bromley in July 2018, and since that time there had been 400 approaches to the CAB service. In response to a question, the Welfare Reform Manager confirmed that there should be no correlation between take up and levels of literacy as any claimants struggling with literacy would have needed help and support filling in the online claim form. This in turn should have highlighted that they may need ongoing help to access support and advice services. The Portfolio Holder highlighted that Housing Associations and Credit Unions also provided valuable support to families experiencing financial problems.
For the purposes of the Select Committee’s report, the Director of Education agreed to provide information concerning the number of children travelling to Bromley schools from neighbouring Boroughs, Kent and Medway. The Interim Executive Director of ECHS reported that the Education Department held generic data on children receiving SEN or Early Help in schools. If children had a CAF they would be known to the Department by name.
In response to a question, the Director of Housing confirmed that there were a number of initiatives within the Housing Strategy to address the limited supply of family properties across the Borough. The Under-Occupation Scheme aimed to facilitate a move to a smaller property for those that were over-accommodated, such as older people whose families had grown up and moved out. One of the biggest issues was that people looked to move from 3 bed properties to 2 bed properties. However there was competing demand as 2 bed properties had the highest demand from homeless families. The Housing Strategy was looking at way to increase supply but this was a longer-term solution.
The Director of Housing also highlighted that for many families living in temporary accommodation housing supplied by housing associations was becoming unaffordable.
In response to a question, the Director of Housing confirmed that the Council operated a Placement Policy which took into consideration particular support needs such as schooling and employment and gave families meeting the specific criteria priority for in-borough or placements nearer to Bromley.
A Member noted that if more families were enabled to remain in-borough the Council would require significant additional school places.
The Select-Committee noted that 40% of people approaching Housing Services for support were losing private sector accommodation due to affordability. This was a result of the failure of real incomes to keep pace with cost increases. The Committee also noted that there were few options available to enable people to move on from insecure and unstable accommodation. Members noted that there were now a number of people in full-time employment with little option but to access night shelters and temporary accommodation due to the unaffordability of housing.
The Head of Early Intervention and Family Support Services reported that often Family Workers in schools were the first to identify a family who was struggling. A referral into the Council’s Early Intervention Service could then be made and a debt plan could be agreed if necessary. There was no procedure for communicating with schools outside Bromley and the Early Intervention Service would continue to provide support to a family who had move to a different area until the new host authority confirmed that the family had been picked up.
The Select Committee considered the issue of families who owned their home and had a mortgage. It was noted that 9 Universal Credit payments would have to be made before mortgage support could be claimed. In addition to this there was a 4-5 week delay in the payment of the first month’s Universal Credit. This meant that a significant amount of mortgage arrears had built up and if families had already utilised their “mortgage holiday” during an earlier period of unemployment they were at significant risk of losing their property. The Director of Housing reported that in 2011 there had been an influx of homeowners losing their accommodation as a result of mortgage arrears. The numbers had now fallen although it was acknowledged that the small number known to the Local Authority may be masked by larger numbers who have sought help from family and friends before approaching the Council.
The Select Committee also expressed concerns surrounding the impact of overcrowding on school aged children. Members suggested that consideration should be given to expanding the provision of study facilities available to children living in overcrowded accommodation. The Director of Housing confirmed that overcrowding and space to study was one of the criteria in the Placement Policy. It was however acknowledged that there was more work to be done around this issue.
The Director of Housing reported that the Council was working with Housing Associations to address the issue of increased rents resulting from ‘home swaps’. It was not an easy issue to address and the Council was looking at re-profiling. Some issues may be resolved as reassessments of rent took place and the Council was working with Clarion and other Housing Associations to identify a sustainable solution.
The Chairman thanked the witnesses for attending the meeting and assisting Members with their review.
The Select Committee requested that in future information be sent to Members as part of the agenda pack, although the Chairman noted that in this instance it had been hard to identify all the relevant evidence.