Agenda item

The Panel received a report which informed members about the changes to housing legislation which support the Council’s use of the private rented sector as a housing option for households who were facing homelessness or living in temporary accommodation. The paper set out the legislative context and provided details on the Council’s approach to sourcing private sector lets to meet housing need. The report was introduced by Denise Gandy, Assistant Director of Housing Demand as set out in the agenda pack at pages 27 to 35. Cllr Carlin, the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning was also present. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

1. The Chair raised concerns that what was called temporary accommodation was often much longer term than a placement in the private rented sector and that if that person/s were then made homeless then the fact that they were placed in the private sector may prevent them from getting help from the Council in the future. General concern was also raised about putting vulnerable people into a poorly regulated marketplace. The Panel queried whether length of tenancy was considered when making an offer to place someone in the private sector, particularly given that the average stay in temporary accommodation was nine years and no private sector tenancy lasted that long. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that in an ideal world, the Council would not place anyone in the private rented sector, but the problem was a shortage of housing stock and there was 2600 families living in temporary accommodation. Because Haringey had less housing sock than some other boroughs, it just did not have the social housing stock to offer to those in Temporary Accommodation. The Right to Buy scheme exacerbated this problem further.   
2. The Cabinet Member also cautioned that the Council’s housing grant was not secure and the government could theoretically take this away. The Council could not afford to keep everyone in temporary accommodation indefinitely. Without using the private rented sector, the Council would have to make very difficult decisions at the front end of the process, which would likely be to turn away every TA application from people without children, regardless of their circumstances. The Panel noted that the average cost to the Council when a family accessed or remained in temporary accommodation was £4425 per year, whereas the incentive payment through sourcing schemes was £3853.
3. The Panel questioned what incentives there were to prevent landlords evicting those placed by the Council and whether there was a minimum term for such a tenancy. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the minimum in legislation was two years. The Cabinet Member set out that the person or family in question would have a needs assessment carried out which would last for two years, if the tenancy broke down within two years the Council had a responsibility to pick up and use the existing needs assessment. After two years, a new needs assessment would be carried out, and this could conceivably be adversely affected by their being housed in the private rented sector.
4. The Panel raised concerns about the cost of private sector rented accommodation, market conditions effecting the supply of properties in the private sector, and the fact that a private sector tenancy was unaffordable to most people in temporary accommodation.  In response, the Cabinet Member, reiterated that there were 2600 families in temporary accommodation, and advised that around 500 of those had been on the list before the Localism Act, which meant that they were entitled to social housing. Those who applied for temporary accommodation after the Localism Act came into force, would likely be placed in the private rented sector. The Cabinet Member advised that an assessment was carried out on a family by family basis, which included an assessment around affordability. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that families who were affected by the benefit cap would not be able to afford the private rented sector.
5. The Panel queried whether any discussions had taken place with the relevant Shadow Cabinet Minister to set out the issues in this area and to develop a national policy position for a future Labour government. The Cabinet Member advised that she had spoken to other lead members across London and the position that Haringey was in was not unique, however it was also the case that Haringey had always been a borough with more difficult circumstances vis-a-vis housing and homelessness, due to a relative shortage of social housing stock. The Cabinet Member also set out that, going forwards,  getting rid of no fault evictions and the introduction of some form of rent controls would improve the situation significantly.
6. In relation to a question about Local Housing Allowance (LHA), the Panel was advised that this was a way of working out Housing Benefit for those in private sector accommodation the rate was based on the cost of private rents in that local area and that it was not necessarily the case that residents in inner London boroughs received more. The Cabinet Member acknowledged concerns that HLA effectively subsidised private landlords, but also emphasised the fact that Haringey need private sector landlords to help it meet its duties to house people. The Cabinet Member noted that the Council needed good private sector landlords for the local housing market to work. Especially as 40% of Haringey residents rented in the private sector.
7. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member advised that LBH had traditionally had a strong relationship with housing associations and it was clarified that the Council had 100% nomination rights for new build housing association stock and 75% nomination rights for reallocated stock.

RESOLVED

That the report was noted.