Agenda item

Verbal update.

The Partnership received a verbal update on rehoming households in urgent circumstances from Simon Eversley, Interim Head of ALMO Client. The key points of the update were noted as:

1. The Partnership noted that there may be situations where individuals or their families needed to be urgently re-housed elsewhere from their home due to violence. This applied to all tenures and not just Council tenants. Any requirement for emergency accommodation to keep a household safe would be immediately investigated and a decision made, which could involve re-housing the member of the household who was at risk of violence or the entire household, as appropriate.
2. Officers advised that regular contact would be maintained with external and internal agencies to manage risk and to assess any changing requirements.  In relation to Council tenants, arrangements would be made for such cases to be considered by Homes for Haringey’s (HfH) Housing Decisions Panel (HDP). The tenant(s) would be advised as well as when necessary, any external agencies including the IGU, of the outcome of the HDP’s decision within one working day of this being made. HfH will facilitate the direct offer of suitable alternative social accommodation within six weeks of the HDP’s decision. Officers acknowledged that this would be based on the availability of suitable stock.
3. In instances where the person/s could no longer remain in the Borough, there were a number of alternative arrangements such as: Pan London Housing Reciprocal, the GLA’s Housing Moves scheme and the not for profit scheme Homefinder UK.
4. A number of Housing Associations have the ability to utilise their own stock for internal management transfers. However, Housing Associations have no statutory duty to move a tenant(s) on management grounds.
5. In relation to those residing in Temporary Accommodation, the Housing Management Officer or Move-On Officer would consider the case and assess the risk to determine whether a move was required. A transfer request form would be submitted to the Move-On Team Manager within Homes for Haringey, detailing the reasons for the request. This would normally be within one working day of receiving a request for alternative accommodation. If the request for alternative accommodation was approved, the family would be added to the TA transfer list with a suitable priority. Where there were issues of Domestic Abuse, safeguarding issues or a request for management transfer, the highest priority (Band A) would be applied.
6. In relation to households in the private rented sector, HfH liaised with the landlord to ascertain whether the risk at the current accommodation could be mitigated by additional security measures to avoid the need for a move. If the property could not be made safe, HfH staff would explore whether they had any alternative accommodation that could be offered to the tenant. Failing this, the option of another private rented sector property would be explored, either in or out of the borough.
7. For homeless households with nowhere to go, staff would seek to relieve the homelessness duty by considering a range of options and pursue the most appropriate option such as offering a private rented sector property, if there was suitable and affordable accommodation available. Again, this could either be in or out of the borough. Alternatively, a request for emergency accommodation would be made. If after 56 days, homelessness could not be relieved and a main housing duty was accepted, the applicant would be allocated a Move-On Officer.
8. Homeowners who were unable to remain in their property would be classed as homeless under homelessness legislation and would be treated in line with other homeless households, with additional regard given to their available financial resources.

The following arose from the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Partnership sought clarification about what support was available for those coming out of prison and perhaps had Covid or were vulnerable and how this would be managed. In response, officers advised that there was nothing in the proposals on this at present, but that these were valid considerations to take away and given some further thought to.
2. The Partnership questioned what would happen to families that had to move urgently and who would then have their utilities and other services disconnected. Of particular concern was digital access, not having access to the internet and the impact that would have on those children being able to access education remotely. Partners were keen to understand how these issues could be mitigated in future, particularly given inequalities considerations. Officers acknowledged these points and agreed to give some further consideration but cautioned that it may be difficult to guarantee given the possible urgency of such a situation. 
3. The Partnership asked whether there was any further information around the numbers of people being re-housed, the reasons for this and the pack of support offered. The Chair noted that there was an evidence base that existed about young people returning to the borough to access their family and support networks and queried whether the risk of being relocated put people off from coming forward for the help they needed. In response, officers advised that proposals were still at an early stage and they did not have the information to hand but would look into the issues raised and provide a further update to the CSP.
4. In reference to the earlier point around digital exclusion, HfH suggested that this could potentially be included as part of the existing letting standards. This could be incorporated as part of the standard checks such as whether there was a gas safety certificate. As part of this, HfH would check to see how quickly digital access could be set up on a particular property. HfH also acknowledged that further consideration could be given on how support could be given to those moving out of borough and the issues that the partnership raised in this respect.
5. The Partnership emphasised the importance of widening out the learning from Covid to help ensure wider support needs. It was suggested that part of this was ensuring that every contact counted.
6. Officers agreed to come back to the CSP with an updated paper at the next meeting in June. (Action: Simon Eversley).

RESOLVED

1. That the update on rehoming households in urgent circumstances was noted.
2. That a further update be brought back to the next meeting of the CSP.