Agenda item

To receive an update on temporary accommodation, supported exempt accommodation and homelessness prevention, including the financial position and partnership working.

Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) was invited to introduce the Temporary Accommodation, Supported Exempt Accommodation and Homelessness Prevention Report. In presenting, it was stated that the report had been presented against the backdrop of a severe housing crisis. Members were advised that the Council had experienced a 21% increase in homelessness presentations, with cases expected to reach just under 9,000 by the end of the 2025 to 2026 financial year. It was further reported that the number of households placed in temporary accommodation had risen. It was emphasised that a significant amount of work was being undertaken in this area.

In continuing the presentation to the Committee, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) added that the direction of travel within this important area of work was focused on reducing reliance on nightly paid placements, which were the most expensive form of temporary accommodation, and securing more stable accommodation for residents. It was stated that efforts were also directed towards strengthening quality assurance processes. It was highlighted that the Council was required to balance its statutory duties, the wellbeing of residents and the financial sustainability of the local authority.

The Chair thanked Councillor Donnelly-Jackson and Tom Cattermole for their presentation to the Committee and then moved on to invite members to ask questions in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

·       Representatives of the Brent Youth Parliament began by questioning whether more specific data was available on the age profile of those placed in temporary accommodation. The representatives noted that the age range of 0 to 17 years was broad, encompassing a wide range of different needs and issues, and asked whether a more granular breakdown existed. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) indicated that a full breakdown of age groups was available and that officers were able to break down the age range in any form required.

·       As a further issue highlighted, the Brent Youth Parliament representatives further stated that young people were particularly vulnerable, as referenced in paragraph 9.3 of the committee report and expressed concern that the report lacked clear actions regarding how young people could be safeguarded while living in temporary accommodation. It was noted that family wellbeing centres and Brent Hubs had been referenced as sources of support for families with young children. However, the representatives highlighted that a significant proportion of households were being placed outside the borough or beyond the M25, raising concerns about whether comparable support was available for those placed at a distance from Brent. In response, Komal Samra (Head of Accommodation Services) highlighted that officers were working closely with colleagues across multiple service areas. An example was provided relating to public health, noting that regular visits were being arranged to temporary accommodation sites such as Anansi House and Knowles House. These visits were intended to ensure that young applicants received wraparound support and were signposted to relevant health services. The importance of face-to-face contact to avoid residents having to rely solely on email or contact centre channels to access holistic support was also emphasised.

·       Following on from the previous question, the Brent Youth Parliament representatives queried what measures were in place to ensure that households placed at considerable distances, including locations such as Hartlepool, received equivalent support. The representatives highlighted that families placed far from Brent often faced barriers to education and that parents who did not speak English as a first language were likely to face additional difficulties accessing support services. In response, Tom Cattermole (Corporate Director Residents and Housing Services) highlighted that any resident, regardless of whether they lived within the borough, was able to access Brent Community Hubs. It was confirmed that residents placed outside the borough could contact the hub support service by telephone and access the full range of assistance provided by the hubs.

Komal Samra (Head of Accommodation Services) further added that when the Council placed a young person outside the borough, it had a duty to notify the receiving local authority. This ensured that the receiving authority was aware of the placement and that any relevant vulnerabilities could be addressed through appropriate service links. It was stated that significant work was underway to identify individuals who should not have been placed out of the borough and to prioritise moving them back into the borough or into more suitable locations.

·       Representatives of the Brent Youth Parliament were also keen to seek details on whether the Council intended to incorporate examinations and key educational milestones into its placement framework. In response, Komal Samra (Head of Accommodation Services) noted that the Council’s temporary accommodation placements policy, which was published online, required the Council to avoid placing young people sitting examinations at a considerable distance from the borough and ensured that placements remained within an acceptable travel distance. It was acknowledged that there were occasions when families remained in out of borough placements for longer than intended. In such cases, the Council maintained a priority list to facilitate moves back into the borough or into closer locations. It was stated that the forthcoming supply of new leased temporary accommodation would assist in reducing these pressures.

·       Members cited paragraph 4.1.5 of the committee report, which stated that the Council wished to undertake further work with institutional investors to secure long term low cost leased accommodation and requested an update on progress, the reasons for delays and what more could be done to accelerate this work. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) noted that a report would be presented to Cabinet in April 2026 and advised that the Council had identified four or five providers with a pipeline totalling approximately 360 suitable units for potential inclusion in long term leases of ten years or more. It was explained that progress had been slow because of the risks involved. Providers typically sought leases of over forty years and required index linked rent increases. The Council’s income, however, was tied to the Local Housing Allowance, which did not rise annually and could remain frozen for several years. The Corporate Director Finance and Resources had therefore been clear that the Council could not enter into forty-year leases or index linked arrangements, as these would create long term financial pressures. It was reported that there had been a recent shift in the market. The Council had engaged Greenlight Commercial and Consulting to provide expertise in evaluating proposals, identifying credible providers and developing a shortlist to be presented to Cabinet in April 2026.

·       Members referred to recent media reports involving a private landlord who had evicted tenants in order to relet the properties to a council as temporary accommodation. Assurance was sought that Brent Council would not enter into arrangements with such providers. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) assured the Committee that the Council would not knowingly enter into any arrangement with providers engaging in such practices. It was stated that many institutional investors were large pension funds seeking stable returns and that their business models were based on responsible investment. An example was provided in relation to Civic Nest, which worked constructively with Ealing Council to support residents to move on from temporary accommodation. It was further stated that Greenlight had extensive knowledge of the sector and was able to identify reputable providers and exclude those seeking to exploit the housing crisis.

·       Members reported concerns that residents had raised regarding being in temporary accommodation for extended periods, including cases of households remaining in such accommodation for 20 years. It was stated that some families were living in unsuitable conditions, including shared facilities, and children faced difficulties travelling to school when placed outside the borough. Questions were raised on how the Council addressed such cases. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) emphasised that the Council no longer had families living in shared accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation. It was reported that during the summer the Council had approximately 20 households living in shared accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation, but that this number had now reduced to 1, with the remaining family having accepted an offer of social housing pending resolution of a minor issue. It was stated that the new supply of leased accommodation, expected to begin arriving from September 2026, would assist significantly. The duty to notify receiving authorities when placements were made outside the borough was reiterated and it was stated that the Council continued intensive work to identify families who should be moved back into Brent or into more suitable locations. The risks associated with families remaining in leased accommodation for many years and not bidding on Locata properties because they were waiting for an ideal property which rarely became available were highlighted. It was emphasised that the Council encouraged all households in temporary accommodation to bid proactively.

·       Members queried why empty void properties could not be used as temporary accommodation. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) explained that void properties could not be used because they required extensive repairs and would take many months to bring up to a habitable standard.

·       Supplementary queries were raised regarding what mechanisms were in place to ensure that temporary accommodation was suitable and appropriate for residents. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) noted that approximately 60% of families were in nightly paid temporary accommodation, with the remainder in longer term leased accommodation. It was further noted that long term leased accommodation tended to be of higher quality. Where disrepair arose in leased accommodation, the Council’s officers or housing providers, depending on the lease scheme in question, were responsible for resolution. It was stated that the most significant challenges were within nightly paid accommodation. Brent participated in the Setting the Standard pan London inspection regime, under which London council officers inspected and graded properties. It was added that the Council retained the ability to decant residents and refuse further use of particular providers until issues were addressed.

·       Views were sought on how confident officers were that the Council was not applying a one size fits all approach to applicants. In response, Laurence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support) expressed that the Council operated within the statutory framework, which required accommodation offers to be suitable. It was stated that no two families were the same and that officers considered each household’s circumstances, including support needs, vulnerabilities and mobility requirements. Affordability was also a significant factor.

·       Councillor Donnelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) additionally noted that legislation required the Council to produce a personalised housing plan for each homeless applicant. It was reported that the Council had commissioned Bridges Outcomes Partnerships to examine temporary accommodation suitability for neurodiverse children. It was stated that suitability continued to be challenged and scrutinised and that the ongoing work to improve outcomes for vulnerable households was welcomed.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of the Temporary Accommodation, Supported Exempt Accommodation and Homelessness Prevention Report. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following information request was identified and AGREED:

INFORMATION REQUESTS

·      That further data be provided to the Committee and Brent Youth Parliament setting out a more detailed breakdown of temporary accommodation figures by age group, as members of the Brent Youth Parliament noted that the current category encompassing all individuals aged 0 to 17 years was too broad and did not sufficiently distinguish between the differing needs and issues affecting children and young people within that wide age range.