Agenda item

C Thomas presented the Tenancy Strategy report to Committee and invited questions.

The Chairman asked about flexible tenancies for new tenants and advised she had heard they hadn’t been successful and that she understood we are moving away from these.  Cllr Griffiths highlighted that we would be reviewing these later this year.

The Chairman mentioned the length of demoted tenancies querying if 12 months was long enough to collate evidence.  L Warden confirmed that we are unable to select any longer due to the anti-social behaviour regulations, but we have other options available where serious ASB is taking place and having an impact on surrounding residents we may look at closure orders and outright possession.  Demoted tenancies are used where we believe that we need to give the person a chance to receive support from us or external agencies, if that’s successful they become a secure tenant but that doesn’t mean that if it commences again, we could look at mandatory possession or suspended possession order.

Cllr Barry asked what would be used to trigger a court order regarding the impact of the community area and how would it be determined.  L Warden confirmed that it was the ‘locality of’ is the official definition.  That is open to interpretation but there are ways we can look at things if there is a wider impact.  Court action for eviction is always a last resort, we will try other methods first.  We have Community Protection Warnings and Community Protection Notices and these can be served swiftly if needed.  These can resolve low level issues quickly.

Cllr Pringle queried when the behaviours are taking place in the locality rather than in the property itself, are we able to take action against the tenant.  L Warden advised it would be difficult to take action under the tenancy if it’s not in the locality of the property but there are other steps that we could take.

Cllr Pringle asked what could be done if the problem is in sheltered and the tenant at number 1 is causing problems at number 20, so they are still on the premises but not in their own property.  L Warden said that if it was in a scheme then the locality would be used.  We would also look at safeguarding, we are keen to ensure we address those types of issues quickly.

Cllr Oguchi asked if housing association properties had been historically more expensive than Council properties and what were the differences.  N Beresford confirmed that local authorities charge social rents and typically housing associations charge an affordable rent, which is 80% market rent, so slightly higher than social rent.  Feedback from residents when we are advertising properties is that the rents are too high, although they are much more in line with local housing allowance rates for some of the private sector properties.  Housing associations are regulated and their business plans are slightly different to local authorities and the way that we are financed is different.

Cllr Griffiths said that historically Dacorum had always had low rents, it’s been a priority of this administration and the Government set policies where we had to reach target rent, which we complied with but we had such a long way to go achieve target rent, that when it was abandoned we were still short of reaching it.  Then also on our new build we have decided all our housing is at the same level of rents.

Cllr Hollinghurst enquired if the anomaly with Tring regarding benefits calculation with respect to the wider area market rate is still happening, making it much higher than in Hemel Hempstead.  N Beresford confirmed that Tring comes under a different area under the local housing allowance rates.  The remainder of Dacorum comes under south-west Herts and Tring is under Aylesbury, which can mean that there is a bigger gap for residents in Tring in rental and benefit entitlement.

Cllr Griffiths mentioned this was a government restriction, not a local council.

The Chairman commented that it seems a short deadline if a nominee fails to respond within 24 hours.  N Beresford advised that we are in constant communication with people who are actively bidding, so we ensure we can turn around properties promptly and maintain void times.  We will have been talking to applicants in advance of shortlist closing if they are sitting in a favourable position.  We start to verify applications to ensure they still meet the criteria set out in the Allocations Policy and their circumstances haven’t changed.  They are advised when they are bidding for properties that they need to engage with the registered provided and respond to contact.  Typically applicants do respond as they are on the housing register due to their need for housing.  Applicants who are actively bidding may be in touch up to four times a day. 

Cllr England asked if there was a continuing or any difficulty with any renters with the term affordable rent.  N Beresford said that we do get questions around the differences and officers are able to explain, we do have literature available that we can share, some of the bigger challenges are trying to encourage increased bidding for properties with affordable rent, so when we compare the number of bids for council properties with that of affordable rent, they are considerably lower.  This could mean we repeat advertising cycles several times over for a new build property because applicants are keen to pursue a social rented property.

The Chairman confirmed that comments had been provided as per the recommendation.