The report, which can be found on pages 29 – 40 of the Agenda, was presented by Carol Hinvest and Ben Tovey.

The Chair questioned what the rent arrears were for the current year and how these compared to last year’s. Carol Hinvest explained that the rent arrears for the current year was a lot higher compared to last year’s and that the current year was the highest it had ever been. She went on to say that it was uncertain how future rent arrears would look particularly when the Government’s furlough scheme ended. The service was currently part of Housemark, a benchmarking organisation and there was a predicted rise in rent arrears from October after the Government’s furlough scheme ended. The Rents and Welfare Team were working hard to identify cases and referring people for support where needed.

Referring to the nine households that had moved from temporary accommodation without the Council support in the homelessness section of the report, the Chair questioned whether the service was still in contact or providing services to those households. Ben Tovey answered that some of those had been released from prison and had come to the Council for support but three of those cases had reoffended and was sent back to prison. One had reunited with family and two had found their own accommodation. One case had moved into Southwark and was being housed by Southwark Council and supported by St Mungos and Thurrock Council continued to support that person. There were two people who rejected the offer of temporary accommodation but one came back for support and the service was unaware of the other’s whereabouts. The service was still in contact with three of those cases to ensure there were support plans in place to prevent them from becoming homeless.

With housing rough sleepers, the Chair felt that there had not been enough engagement between the Council and private landlords on this issue. There were not enough housing associations to house those who were homeless and 50% of the homeless in Thurrock had been placed out of the Borough. He asked what plans were in place to ensure better engagement between the Council and private landlords to house the homeless and where they would be housed. Carol Hinvest answered that the service continued to build and develop relationships with private landlords and housing associations and that there had been a Housing Association Forum before where housing associations had met with the service. Keith Andrews added that the service worked hard to engage with housing associations and that in housing association developments, there were issues of sales values and the prices of house values that were constructed within the Borough which were much lower than London. As a result, housing associations were not as active in Thurrock although they provided support in general needs, the provision of supported housing was tougher. Carol Hinvest also said that the service was currently developing a joint housing project between Children’s Services and Adults Social Care to try to commission more supported housing services to meet specific needs. Adding on, Ben Tovey said that in regards to the rough sleeper cohort, 50 of those had to be housed outside of Thurrock due to emergency accommodation on what had been available that day following legal obligations. The service had a good relationship established with the support agencies in the Boroughs that rough sleepers had been placed in but there was difficulty in placing them in Thurrock. However, Thurrock was competing with neighbouring authorities with London authorities and where the service was able to provide an incentive to private landlords through the access of additional fund, there was better success in housing rough sleepers.

In regards to repairs, Councillor Abbas felt there were some issues to be looked at as there were incidences where residents were being charged too much for a repair. He was concerned of how contractors liaised with residents and sought reassurance that residents were being treated fairly and with respect by contractors. He noted that most of the repairs had been completed or were due for completion and he questioned how certain was the service that the repairs would be completed on time and to the highest standards. In regards to homelessness, Councillor Abbas mentioned that two people had previously had visa issues so had no access to public funds and sought a further update. He raised concerns on people being evicted where there were financial difficulties. Referring to page 36 of the Agenda, Councillor Abbas commented that the term ‘customers’ should be referred to as ‘residents’ because residents should be treated as residents and that the Council was not a business so the term ‘customers’ was not suitable.

Regarding the repairs service, Carol Hinvest explained that the service had a contract with Mears and that a corporate meeting with them took place every month to go through performance indicators, residents’ satisfaction rates and upheld complaints were looked at. She went on to say that specific complaints were picked up and that the repairs service usually had the most complaints as it had the highest volume of service undertaken. For certain complaints, the operational team provided learning outcomes from those complaints to improve the services offered. There were also follow up calls to those residents to get their feedback to identify where things had gone wrong and was used as part of the learning outcome to improve communications. During the pandemic, Mears had some repair issues where staff had been furloughed so there had been a staff shortage or staff had been unable to get into people’s homes who were shielded. There had also been a national shortage of certain materials so these issues could have also contributed to the complaints in repairs. It was expected that most of the repairs would be completed by the end of the month with the exception of one that did not have an appointment yet.

In regards to the use of the word ‘customers’, Carol Hinvest said that future reports would use the word ‘residents’. Referring to Councillor Abbas’ eviction concerns, she said that nobody could be evicted until the courts started hearing cases again and that those who received an eviction notice would need to have a six month period after a notice was served before a court hearing. The service had hardly served any notices since the national lockdown and had been advised by Government that the service should be focussing on residents who had long outstanding rent arrears from before lockdown which had been outstanding for over a year and on the most serious cases of anti social behaviour and domestic abuse. There were guidelines around supporting those who had fallen into rent arrears because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In regards to the two people who had visa issues previously, Ben Tovey said that one person now had a passport so was able to access public funds. Referring to housing rough sleepers, he explained that the service had a restructure in its team that were specific to the rough sleeper cohort and some roles looked at early intervention and prevention solutions if an individual or family was identified to be at risk of homelessness. There was an officer that managed the placements of homeless people and an officer that provided employment and support. Carol Hinvest added that a person with no recourse to public funds would not have employment opportunities or be able to get a tenancy agreement as it was illegal. The service was able to provide temporary accommodation and as the one person now had a passport, they would be able to seek employment and housing.

Referring to the homelessness section of the report, Councillor Worrall noted that 50 individuals had been provided with accommodation but in a Cabinet report for 16 September 2020, the report gave a figure of 32 individuals that had been accommodated. She questioned the difference in the figures on both reports. Carol Hinvest confirmed that the current report before the Committee was correct with the figure of 50 individuals accommodated. Councillor Worrall went on to ask if there was a financial impact to accommodating these individuals and whether there had been funds from Government or if the funds had come from the service’s budgets. Carol Hinvest answered that the costs would be covered in the next finance report that was due at Cabinet on 16 September 2020. There were some funds from Government to cover the costs and the finance report would show the service’s costs overall as part of the costs of the Covid-19 pandemic. Councillor Worrall pointed out that page 179 of the Cabinet Agenda for 16 September 2020 highlighted the figure of 32 individuals that had been accommodated and that the report outlined the impact of costs to the Housing service. Carol Hinvest answered that the finance report may also include costs to the private housing sector and enforcement issues. She would look into the report.

Councillor Worrall questioned the impact of Covid-19 on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and on the Housing’s General Fund. Carol Hinvest said that the impact of Covid-19 to the HRA had been managed well as rent had continued to be collected so the Council was above August’s target for rent collection. However, rent arrears were also higher than it had ever been in the past so as mentioned earlier, it was uncertain how rent arrears would look in the future. The service continued to work with residents and through housing newsletters, advised residents to inform the service of any immediate changes such as a change in income to ensure the Council could offer support where needed. She went on to say that 68% of the rent arrears were from those on universal credit which was consistent across all housing organisations during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Rents and Welfare Team continued to work hard with residents to prevent them from falling into rent arrears where possible as once in that situation, it could be hard for people to get out of easily. She went on to say that the HRA was a statutory ring fenced account and could not be used to cover the General Fund or any other budget gaps as the HRA consisted of rents and service charges and was dedicated to services to tenants and leaseholders.

Referring to sheltered accommodation, Councillor Worrall commented that residents were not able to access the communal halls in their accommodation which were currently closed due to the guidelines of Covid-19 and continued to be with the new ‘Rule of Six’ law that would be in effect from 14 September 2020 from Government. However, residents continued to pay the service charges for the services of the communal halls which they were not able to use and raised concerns of mental health issues in the elderly residents residing in sheltered accommodation. Carol Hinvest said that the Sheltered Housing Team had been preparing the communal halls for reopening in line with the social distancing guidelines and had been looking into a booking system for the halls. However, with the Government’s new ‘Rule of Six’, the risk assessment that had been undertaken for the communal halls would now need to be reviewed and reassessed to meet the new rules.

Referring to Councillor Worrall’s concerns on the mental health of residents in sheltered accommodation, Carol Hinvest confirmed that the service continued to call those residents where the calls had been asked for, throughout lockdown and continued to do so. In regards to the residents’ service charges, she explained that the charges were for the whole sheltered housing service and that the communal halls were a small fraction of that service. The bulk of the charges were for the services from the Sheltered Housing Officers that supported the residents and continued to do so.

Councillor Worrall questioned if CCTV was paid out of the HRA. Carol Hinvest confirmed that the bulk of CCTV was paid from the HRA as most the CCTV services were provided on HRA land and buildings.

Councillor Redsell praised the Housing service and said that the service had performed well despite the current Covid-19 pandemic. She questioned if the service was still in contact with the housing organisation, Family Mosiac. She also asked if there were any ex-servicemen who were still homeless and if there were other areas in the Borough that CCTV could be installed. Keith Andrews answered that Family Mosiac was now a part of Peabody and the Housing service still had contact with Peabody from a housing development aspect. However, Peabody was more focussed on developing in central London Boroughs rather than Thurrock. Regarding ex-servicemen, Ben Tovey said that the service was currently assessing eight rough sleepers in Thurrock and the Committee would be updated when that assessment was finished. On the CCTV point, Carol Hinvest said that the service was bidding for more CCTV in different areas with one of the bids being for the Grays Town Centre so it was possible to expand the network provided that there was capacity to do so.

The Committee further commented on the good work that the Sheltered Housing Team had undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic.

RESOLVED:

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee were asked to note and comment on the contents of this report which sets out the continued response of the Housing service in relation to the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.