Agenda item

NBeresford reminded the members that a number of questions had arisen out of policy discussions in the previous meeting relating to the Housing Allocations Policy and framework. She explained that the Housing Allocations Policy in current use had been adopted in October 2021 and fully implemented in July 2022. She clarified that this would relate to DBC's own retained housing stock, new-build stock, 100% of nominations for local accommodation providers in Dacorum, and 75% of re-lets for registered providers.

The paper was taken as read and questions were invited from members.

Cllr Pringle raised concerns regarding the flexibility available for situations where a child was shared between 2 parents, potentially with only an informal agreement in place. She referenced a case where a mother was forced to move after her primary-aged child elected to live with the other parent. NBeresford noted that it was not common practice for a local authority to force a tenant to move as a result of a child moving from their home, but there could be circumstances where it became unaffordable due to the Bedroom Tax or loss of benefits. She noted that households would be supported to access advice and each situation assessed on its individual merits.

Cllr Pringle queried how soon the Bedroom Tax became applicable in situations where a child changed residence, given the possibility of the child changing their mind. She questioned whether there should be an inquiry held before any permanent decisions. NBeresford explained that the housing needs team would work to ensure advice and assistance were provided, but it was ultimately the household's responsibility to act on it. She stated that the process was not necessarily that quick and officers would alert relevant organisations if concerned about situations that arose during a case. PHunt further noted a need to sometimes liaise with both parents and also the child's school to gain a better understanding, and referenced cases with one parent living outside of the borough where the primary residence might be determined to be with that parent. Cllr Pringle noted the necessity for hard choices that might not be made if a parent was fully funded and represented in family court. NBeresford agreed and emphasised the importance of working with partners and other services rather than taking decisions in isolation.

Cllr Weston asked about whether decisions made to update the policy could come back for scrutiny by the committee again and again. NBeresford clarified that this was not a decision-making process but an information paper, and would not be going forward to Cabinet for any decisions.

Cllr Weston asked for clarification of a reference on page 6 to the housing needs team receiving 600 retained homes annually for re-letting. NBeresford explained that these were not new homes, but empty homes coming back for re-letting after the end of a tenancy.

Cllr Weston referred to item 3.3 on page 6, regarding the Localism Act allowing the council to manage unrealistic expectations of applicants with little prospect of being allocated a property. She asked how this was being managed. NBeresford explained the team engaged daily with applicants to discuss their prospects, and provided advice and support to those who had means to purchase a home or privately rent instead. She noted that cases of households contriving circumstances to gain access were thankfully rare but it was important to be alert to this and engage proactively with corporate anti-fraud teams. PHunt also raised the use of sharing points to give typically younger, single applicants still living with parents greater opportunity to access accommodation via extra points for sharing a bathroom and kitchen facilities.

Cllr Weston asked about a statement in the report that applicants had to have lived in Dacorum for 10 years to be able to go on the housing register. PHunt explained that 10 years has been the criteria for the last 6 to 8 years and had been something the previous administration favoured. NBeresford noted that legislation around localism did not give specific rules as to how local authorities should define local connection. She highlighted that the Homeless Legislation Framework had a lower threshold, requiring a demonstrated residence for 6 out of the last 13 months or 3 of the last 5 years, and that permanent employment of at least 12 months also went towards proving local connection. She stated that there was no hard and fast ruling and they did have flexibility to identify exceptions where necessary.

Cllr Weston asked whether the figures regarding applicants' income given on page 7, item 2.3, had been adjusted for cost-of-living increases in the last 6 months. PHunt confirmed that Assistant Director David Barrett had arranged an affordability assessment through the housing development team and an extra 10% had been added on top. NBeresford explained they had worked with an external consultancy to support their assessment of the market, incorporating private sector information as well as social and affordable rents, and that the team were able to put each applicant's data into a tool to determine affordability. She stated that it would be possible to demonstrate this for councillors in future if desired.

Cllr Weston queried how the numbers of points allocated for different factors were determined. NBeresford noted that this was something that would probably require an additional session to cover in depth. She explained that some particularly high levels of points were due to extremely high medical need or serious urgency to move.

Cllr Stevens asked for clarification that the points measure allowed someone in higher need to qualify ahead of others bidding on the same property. NBeresford confirmed that this was the case.

Cllr Stevens noted the need for applicants to research before bidding as turning the property down would see them removed from the list for a while, and asked how they got back on the list. PHunt explained that they would be suspended for 6 months but would then be eligible to bid again afterwards. He further noted that there was flexibility to avoid suspending applicants if there was an underlying reason why the property was genuinely unsuitable.

Cllr Pesch stated her unhappiness with the 10-year requirement, and queried whether this was a general thing throughout the country. NBeresford clarified that it was a local policy, and that this was one of the elements of the policy that could be revisited in the future if members had strong feelings about it.

Cllr Pesch asked whether parents owning their own home affected the eligibility of their children to go on the housing list. NBeresford explained that as long as the applicant had an identified housing need, parental accommodation status was irrelevant.

Cllr Pesch asked whether applicants were able to go in and view properties before bidding. NBeresford explained that the home was advertised with as much information as possible, typically including internal pictures, but it was not possible to view the property at this stage as it might still be occupied or subject to empty homes work. PHunt explained that once an allocation was completed and the property ready, the applicant would be given the opportunity to view it and decide whether it was suitable. He confirmed that the use of virtual viewings during COVID had now been reverted and visits to properties resumed. Cllr Banks commended the thoroughness of the information provided to the prospective tenants on viewings she had accompanied.

Cllr Pringle raised a concern about requirements to put certain things in writing being exclusionary towards those who had difficulties with written English. NBeresford confirmed that it was common for officers to undertake home visits to support applicants through the process and to use local interpreting services where needed.

Cllr Pringle raised the loss of housing stock due to right to buy, and queried whether there was any way of mitigating the policy. NBeresford clarified that since this was a central government policy, the Allocations Policy did not have flexibility over this except in cases where the homes were being developed by a development company rather than the landlord service directly.

Cllr Weston queried the situation covered on page 32 regarding living accommodation for former members of the armed forces. NBeresford confirmed that those who ceased to be entitled to accommodation through the Ministry of Defence due to a change in circumstances would be prioritised for housing. PHunt noted that the council was signed up to the Armed Forced Covenant, and that members of the armed forces within 5 years of discharge were exempted from local connection criteria.

Cllr Weston queried a reference to applicants being awarded points by a housing panel in cases where they were underusing occupation and Dacorum required the property back. PHunt gave the example of someone who had been living in their parents' 2- or 3-bedroom property their whole life being supported to move into a 1-bedroom property after both parents had died. NBeresford noted that these were fairly unusual cases that generally arose after the succession rights had already passed. Cllr Weston explained the wording had caused her concern about people being thrown out or made homeless, and PHunt clarified that it was just about housing the family with the right level of bedrooms required and supporting that person in moving.

ACTION: To take to the Membership Development Steering Group the need for a session on the whole points system.