Agenda item

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Panel received two deputations, one from Nazarella Scianguetta, which covered a broad range of issues relating to disability access to housing and the issues faced by impaired residents when navigating the housing system. The other deputation was received from Paul Burnham on behalf of Defend Council Housing. This deputation related to the HRA Business Plan agenda item and raised a number of questions around the use of London Affordable Rent models and why rent increases were not part of the public consultation on the next year’s budget proposals.

Ms Scianguetta introduced the first deputation. The following is a summary of the key points of the deputation:

• Ms Scianguetta asked Scrutiny to use the social model of disability when reviewing these policies. This meant looking at how the Council’s systems created barriers for disabled people, and the removal of those barriers would enable everyone to access services equally. Ms Scianguetta advised that she had nine points that would improve disability access in housing.
• Accessibility of accommodation – It was suggested that too many council homes remained inaccessible and that minor adaptations were not enough. What was required was purpose built homes, built around a particular person’s needs.
• Reforming the process of how somebody accesses services. It was posited that the current process was a mess, with confusing forms, inaccessible online portals, and very long waiting times. It was suggested that the process needed to be simplified, so that people were not left behind simply because of bureaucratic inaccessibility.
• Support services and communication – The need for advice and support services to be accessible to all. Information should be written in plain english and available in a format that everyone could access. It was put forward that staff should be trained to understand disability and that those with complex needs should have a single point of contact.
• Anti-deformation and stigma reduction. The Panel heard that discrimination and negative attitudes persisted in Haringey. There was a need for public education and an easy to engage with complaints process, in order to stamp out bias. Every resident deserved to be afforded respect and dignity.
• Co-production and design – Policies for those with disabilities that were made without their direct input were doomed to failure. It was suggested that disabled residents most be involved in the co-design, delivery and reviewing of housing services. Their lived experience was a valuable resource.
• Investment in accessible housing supply – Without proper funding, accessible homes were not possible. This was true both in terms of building new homes and adapting existing ones in order to meet current accessibility standards.
• Improving standards of temporary accommodation. When housing people in temporary accommodation, it was crucial that the housing was suitable and that people were not being put in homes that didn’t meet their needs.
• The need for transparency and accountability- It was commented that residents needed to know how long they would have to wait and be informed of how decisions were made. The Council should publish waiting times and explain allocation criteria, as well as the need to regularly consult with disabled people to ensure that policy reflected real needs.
• Mandatory staff training. It was stated that everyone who was involved with housing should receive disability and equality training, trauma-informed approaches and deaf awareness training. This was crucial to ensure respectful treatment for all. Disability was about overcoming barriers.

The following arose in discussion of the deputation:

a.    The Panel commented that a lot of people probably felt frustrated by the process of applying for housing, given the delays and the checks that a person had to go through. It was also commented that every single planning scheme that was submitted to the Council had to include a certain percentage of properties for disabled people and adequate parking provision for people with blue badges. The Panel also noted that that there was a Haringey disability forum with a front door in Wood Green shopping centre, that was independent of the Council.

b.    The Chair sought clarification around whether the deputation believed that making the online portal easier to access or having a dedicated single point of access would make the biggest impact. In response, Ms Scianguetta commented that there was no one simple approach, given that the range of need across impaired residents was extensive and varied widely. Instead, the Council needed to improve a range of different areas, such as accessible ways of contacting the Council, providing updates on where a person was in the waiting list and being allocated a dedicated officer.

c.     The Panel sought clarification about the extent to which the deputee had links with Disability Action Haringey. In response, Ms Scianguetta advised that she did not consider Disability Action to be entirely independent, on account of the fact that they were commissioned by Haringey Council and were reliant on the Council for funding. It was also commented that they did not fully represent the whole of the disabled community.

d.    The Panel queried how long the deputee had to wait for a response when contacting housing. In response, the Panel was advised that Ms Scianguetta had been in temporary accommodation for eight years and that in that time she had always been the one to instigate contact with the Council. It was commented that at no point had she been given an update on her position on the list and that council staff regularly failed to check the medical assessment on her file leading to her having her disability questioned. It was commented that impaired residents found it very difficult to access the system online, and that being neurodiverse meant that she found it difficult to deal with a lot of different people about her case.

e.    The Chair thanked Ms Scianguetta for her deputation.

Mr Burnham introduced the second deputation. The following is a summary of the key points of the deputation:

·       Mr Burnham set out that neither the proposed nor existing council rents were being reported honestly in the HRA Business Plan. It was suggested that the table at page 109 of the agenda pack conflated two completely different rent regimes i.e. social rents and London Affordable Rent (LAR). Mr Burnham advised that a report from Shelter branded affordable rents as being unaffordable for lower income working households in London.

·       It was suggested that the confusion between the two rent regimes was something that the Council had done repeatedly. Following an FOI request Defend Council Housing had ascertained that LAR was £83 or 62% a week higher for an average two bedroom property compared to social rent. Increases in service charges were on top of this.

·       Mr Burnham recommended that the Council should stop using LAR in favour of social rents in all cases.

·       In relation to service charges, it was commented that Haringey’s policy was that leaseholders and tenants should pay an equal share per household of the serviceable costs. Mr Burnham disputed that this was what was happening. It was contended that in April this year there was a 21% increase for tenants for the cleaning of communal areas of blocks and 29% increase for cleaning street properties. In contrast, leaseholders were being charged 3%. It was evident, therefore, that tenants were being overcharged. Mr Burnham recommended that the Panel ask Cabinet to set the current service charges for cleaning to 3% above the current year.

·       The Panel were advised that rent convergence would result in further rent increases above the annual uplift of CPI +1% of up to £4 extra per week, attacking the living standards of some of the poorest residents. It was commented that that the valuations used to set these rates would not stand up to independent scrutiny. Mr Burnham recommended that the Council should oppose rent convergence and instead seek additional funding through debt write-off, higher grant rates for new builds, match funding for acquisitions, and adequate building safety grants.

·       Mr Burnham recommended that the Panel strongly object to the exclusion of the Housing Revenue Account and rent increases from the public consultation on next year’s budget.

The following arose in discussion of the deputation:

a.    The Chair sought clarification about whether, in relation to London Affordable Rent, the deputee was recommending that the Council should not engage in any grant funding that required the Council to use LAR. In response, Mr Burnham disputed that the Council had no choice. Instead, it was suggested that the Council had the option to either use LAR or social rents, and that even when the government prohibited use of social rents, providers were still building properties at social rents.

b.    In relation to rent convergence, the panel suggested that the increase was more like one or two pounds per week. The Panel commented that a 1% reduction in rents over a four year period, had resulted in a situation where people were paying different rents for living in the same type of accommodation. The Panel asked the extent to which Mr Burnham agreed that this seemed fair to all tenants. Mr Burnham responded that the single biggest factor which determined differing rent costs was the use of affordable rents versus social rents. The cost of rents could be brought down by use of social rents. Mr Burnham suggested that it was claimed that rent convergence was all about fairness, but disputed this when it involved increasing rents for some of the poorest residents.

c.     The Panel sought clarification about whether the deputee would like to see a rebalancing of a discrepancy in the relative charges between leaseholders and tenants, or whether he would like to see the Council find other means of funding to subsidise the cost of service charges for tenants. In response, the Panel was advised that there was a false incentive built into service charges and that often they were used to generate additional income. In general, he believed that service charges were a negative thing for consumers. Mr Burnham commented that the rationale for his recommendation on service charges was to address an unfairness in the respective service charge rates in the current budget. He commented to the Panel that he intended to take the issue to a lower tier tribunal if needed.

d.    The Chair thanked Mr Burnham for his deputation