Agenda item

To receive an update on community engagement for the homeless families service.

Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform) introduced the report, which highlighted how the homelessness team wanted to develop services tailored around individuals, using a philosophy that no two homeless families were the same. The focus was on prevention, as it was believed that services that stopped someone becoming homeless in the first place were infinitely more valuable. The report included key statistics for the service and detailed how the service reached out so that people knew what they offered. Councillor Southwood highlighted the importance of gathering data on what people thought about the service and how it could adapt on an ongoing basis to respond to feedback. The Council were eager to be involved in the Customer Service Pilot, which would allow video link up in the Civic Centre.

The Chair thanked Councillor Southwood for her introduction and invited comments and questions from those present, with the following issues raised:

The Committee queried what targeted approaches were in place to tackle different demographic challenges when it came to homelessness, to reassure residents it was not a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Councillor Southwood advised that one of the most important ways the service could outreach was through voluntary and community organisations. She was aware some communities and individuals were hesitant to contact the Council as they believed the Council would not help them in good faith. People were reluctant to speak with the Home Office due to the perceived hostile environment for people with pending immigration status. Going out to the community groups those people were a part of in order to reach out was an important way to raise awareness of services. Laurence Coaker (Head of Housing Need, Brent Council) added that the Council took a proactive approach. There was a team set up to review applications made during Covid-19 lockdowns for the support grants available for people in financial difficulty, and make contact where it was felt those people might be threatened with homelessness, instead of waiting for them to reach a crisis point. Home visits were not currently taking place but this was being looked at for the Council’s housing subsidiary Company, i4B, contacting tenants in arrears at risk of losing their home.

Another way of reaching out was through the homelessness forum which met bi-monthly, where all the voluntary and community groups represented at that forum were informed of the service and upcoming projects. The forum included larger organisation such as Crisis, as well as organisations with specialist skills such as those working with migrants at risk of homelessness or women fleeing domestic abuse. Through those regular meetings the Council ensured organisations were clear exactly what the homelessness service was and what they needed to do to help the people they worked with get services as quickly as possible. The Council also worked with people on an individual basis via email and telephone when they were identified as at risk. For example, those who had made applications for universal credit were offered the resident support fund.

The Chair invited Brent Youth Parliament to contribute to the discussion. Representatives of Brent Youth Parliament highlighted that the report and statistics relating to youth homelessness for ages 18-25 lacked data. They highlighted the grey area for that age group which was technically adulthood but still very young, and wanted to know where the community outreach for those age groups was happening, including how homelessness in those age groups could be reduced. In addition, the Brent Youth Parliament’s ‘Make your Mark’ ballot results showed that the biggest concern amongst young people was homelessness and opportunities. They also asked what Brent Youth Parliament could do to promote different services and youth engagement in those services. Councillor Southwood highlighted that young people were experiencing multiple challenges including difficulty with affording their own homes, economic recovery from Covid-19, less secure jobs and starts to their careers, and less financial security. This was where links with Brent Starts were really important, so that when young people known to the Council were struggling the Council could work closely with employment and skills colleagues to see what could be offered. Supported Housing Schemes targeted this cohort of younger people to support their independent living. There were other targeted services for younger people, such as wraparound services, including mental health services, to sustain tenancies for young people who may not have previously experienced debt, controlling finances and paying bills. Awareness of services was raised through local radio stations in Harlesden.

In relation to the 3.9 of the report which detailed the free tenancy sustainment solicitor, the Committee queried how someone could access that service. Laurence Coaker advised that the tenant could self-refer to that service, or the Council could refer them on their behalf if they had knowledge of the issues being experienced.

There were approximately 250 people in emergency (i.e. nightly paid) accommodation. How long they stayed depended on their individual circumstances, but the most entrenched larger families, or families needing specially adapted accommodation, might have been in nightly paid accommodation for over 12 months. All emergency accommodation was self-contained.

The Committee asked how the Council dealt with the issue of people being made intentionally homeless, or where a family refused a suitable offer and therefore the Council ended their duty. This was where the Council had accepted the main homelessness duty and made an offer of accommodation to end the duty, but the family refused the offer and therefore ended their duty. The Council worked hard to ensure that did not happen, as the family were then still homeless but their duty had ended under Housing law. The Council made it clear what the law stated, and encouraged people to accept the offer. It was highlighted that this was an offer of accommodation judged suitable, not necessarily the ideal offer. Families were advised that they would have a statutory review of their accommodation to check it was still suitable, and that a family had the option for an independent County Court Appeal if they felt it unsuitable.

The Committee queried how the homelessness service used Brent’s key strategies, such as the poverty commission and Black Community Action Plan, in its learning and moving forward. One of the big focuses in the poverty commission had been overcrowding in homes, and Laurence Coaker reiterated that if a property was not suitable then that person was considered homeless, and a place that was overcrowded was not considered suitable. This was being addressed through the maximisation of stock to move people into larger properties. In relation to the Council’s strategy on the Black Community Action Plan, Councillor McLennan (Deputy Leader) advised that the Youth Advisory Group had 50 young people advising on priorities and objectives who were a very useful source of how homelessness had impacted them. One of their main priorities going forward over the action plan was housing and homelessness. She also highlighted the customer service promise, advising the Committee that customer services had now took on some housing queries so that staff were aware at the point of source where a caller could be sent on to. The Civic Centre had also became a Hub so that the most complex cases could be seen straight away. Councillor Southwood added that the more the homelessness service knew about the experiences of different groups within the community, the better it could tailor services.

The Committee asked how people with complex needs living in unsuitable accommodation were catered for within the structure. For example, a person living with mental health issues. Phil Porter (Strategic Director Community Wellbeing, Brent Council) advised that a project on mental health and homelessness had been running for 5 months in the Housing Department working closely with Asher Place and Crisis. This was an outcome based review methodology based on the experience of homeless people with mental health issues. The project was due to report at the end of March 2022, and the Committee could be informed on the outcomes.

In relation to the Private Rented Sector, the Committee queried what incentives the Council could provide to landlords to continue to house tenants rather than evict, including non-financial incentives such as ratings and accreditation schemes. Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director Housing, Brent Council) highlighted that Brent had a very vibrant landlord forum, and the private housing service worked closely with landlords to understand the issues they had and how the Council could intervene with support, advice, training and financial support. For example, the Council could pay for adaptations to properties for disabled residents. Brent utilised all options available to support a household to continue where they were. Housing officers had complete flexibility to tailor what that took, such as if a garden was not maintained properly, buying the tenant a lawnmower. In addition, the Council kept a list of what they considered ‘accredited’ good landlords in the private sector.

The Chair thanked housing colleagues for their responses, and drew the item to a close. He invited members of the Committee to make recommendations, with the following RESOLVED:

To recommend the following key areas for improvement:

i)              For the Council to consider expanding the Housing Needs Service mental health, homelessness and housing project to other vulnerabilities such as old age, physical or learning disability, or those at risk of extra-familial harm.

An information request had also been made during the course of the discussion, recorded as follows:

i)              To receive a breakdown of the number of people in temporary accommodation as a proportion of the population, including comparative data with other London boroughs.