Written evidence submitted by Porchlight [IOC 177]

Introduction:

Porchlight has been working with people experiencing homelessness since 1974. We are Kent’s largest provider of homelessness services and jointly provide Kent Homeless Connect (KHC) services with Look Ahead and Riverside. KHC is commissioned by Kent County Council (KCC) and has a specific remit to work with people who are at risk of homelessness or have become homeless and have additional support needs such as mental ill-health or substance use.

Porchlight also provide specialist outreach and navigator services for 10 out of the 13 district and borough councils in Kent. These services are funded through Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government initiatives.

Additionally, Porchlight provides mental health, LGBT+, employment and young people’s support services in Kent, Medway and Bexley. Our countywide helpline helps to coordinate referrals into our own and other organisations homelessness services.

Summary:

The initial response to get people rough sleeping in Kent into appropriate accommodation was really successful with good support being provided by KCC and some councils such as Canterbury City Council. However, as we progress, there are problems developing that need urgent guidance from central government.

Areas for concern include:

• How local authorities are assessing priority need during the pandemic.
• The use and supply of PPE for supported accommodation workers.
• The eviction of vulnerable people from emergency accommodation.
• Increased gatekeeping and complicated verification processes for people that are becoming homeless.
• Potential for outbreaks within supported accommodation and no guidance on how to handle this properly.
• The large increase in people facing eviction and becoming homeless once the ban on evictions is lifted.
• Private firms capitalising on the coronavirus through offering relocation deals that move vulnerable people from Kent to the North East.

1. How effective has the support provided by MHCLG and other Government departments in addressing the impact of COVID-19 on those in the private rented sector, rough sleepers, and the homeless?

The £3.2 million emergency fund had a dramatic initial impact upon the number of people in Kent who were sleeping rough in the county. Porchlight worked really closely with the majority of district and borough councils to help ensure people were placed in accommodation that would enable them to self-isolate.

Across Kent, over 150 people were successfully placed and supported within temporary, mainly hotel-based accommodation. Unfortunately 11 people across the county refused accommodation offers. This is probably the lowest level of rough sleeping that Kent has ever experienced.

Within this process we have found that there have been inconsistent approaches from districts and boroughs with some councils putting in minimal effort and others responding really well to what is often a complex and vulnerable group of people. Canterbury City Council (CCC) should be commended for their work in managing to safely house 49 people and lead on coordinating 24 hour support and three meals a day for all people that have been temporarily housed.

Emergency legislation to suspend new evictions from social or private rented accommodation has reduced the number of referrals to our helpline and homelessness services over the past month. However, we are still seeing people being evicted from accommodation in the private rented sector (PRS) and are also working with people who have been asked to leave their accommodation due to relationship breakdown, overcrowding or loss of employment related accommodation such as hospitality.

We have been meeting (virtually) with advisors from the MHCLG and have found this to be supportive in enabling us to feedback concerns and improve our service provision as the pandemic progresses through different phases.

We have encountered some issues of gatekeeping (such as online applications only) that makes claims harder for people that have recently become homeless and cannot use publicly accessible computers because of lockdown restrictions.

There is also confusion around how new rough sleepers are verified, with different approaches being used by districts and boroughs. This has in some cases led to delays and more seriously in other cases a refusal to take the verification of our outreach workers.

Areas of concern:

• Initial guidance issued on the 16th March and updated on the 25th March has not been updated since and now guidance cannot be accessed online (30th April).
• Guidance is minimal and doesn’t take into account issues such as supporting people with substance use problems and/or mental health problems within a hotel environment.
• How local authorities assess priority need and accept responsibility during the pandemic should be made clearer to avoid highly vulnerable people with complex needs being evicted from hotels and having to return to sleeping rough.
• Guidance on the use and distribution of PPE needs to be clearer especially in relation to situations where social distancing cannot be followed such as working with an opiate overdose in supported/emergency accommodation.
• Clearer guidance on eviction from emergency accommodation given the high level of vulnerability amongst the client group.
• Clear guidance to local authorities needs to be provided around the verification process for rough sleeping as a matter of urgency.

2. What problems remain a current and immediate concern for these groups?

The initial housing of people sleeping rough was very successful in Kent. However, as we have progressed in supporting people who had been rough sleeping, there have been a range of growing concerns.

Inappropriate evictions/not able to evict:

Whilst we understand that there are some situations where eviction is unavoidable, we have witnessed evictions of people from emergency hotel accommodation that are inappropriate and increase the risk to the individual. This includes people who are at a higher risk of a serious outcome of a Covid-19 infection due to ongoing health problems such as respiratory diseases and weakened immune systems in addition to diagnosis of schizophrenia, epilepsy and current suicidal ideations.

There are also complications with evicting people in circumstances where violence has been a factor. To do this needs a court injunction, but due to the impact that the coronavirus is having, this would cost over £1,000 to speed up. Improved guidance is needed in this area.

Limited support:

The level of support for people placed in hotels so they can self-isolate has varied greatly from district to district. What hasn’t been understood by some local authorities has been the need for 24 hour support for the high level of vulnerable clients being placed in one building and for the hotel staff/providers. In some areas this has led to increases in safeguarding issues and potential exploitation of vulnerable people.

Some local authorities have housed individuals in shared rooms thus increasing clinical risk in direct opposition to the scientific evidence underpinning the drive to house rough sleepers.  We have also come across some hotels that have been reluctant to let support staff into the premises which has increased safeguarding issues relating to vulnerable clients.

Where 24 hour support has been properly organised the eviction rate has been lower, safeguarding higher and the level of support more appropriate to level of need.

Specialist support also needs to be provided from Community Mental Health Teams and Substance Misuse Services especially where people are un-medicated and using illegal substances as a form of self-medication for diagnosed mental illnesses.

Covid 19 Homeless Sector Plan:

The Homeless Sector Plan written by Dr. Al Story and Prof. Andrew Hayward, recommends a range of facilities so that people can effectively isolate according to symptoms and risk status. The recommendations were as follows:

A) Establish CRISIS COVID-COMMAND

B) Implement COVID test and triage protocol through local staff

C) Establish targeted test and triage outreach teams

D) Establish COVID-CARE facilities

E) Establish COVID-PROTECT facilities

More support to local authorities needs to be provided if these guidelines are to be implemented successfully.

Rough sleeping increasing:

Whilst initial actions to get people housed were very successful, there are still people becoming homeless and having to sleep rough. In the 10 districts we are working with, there are currently:

• 14 people evicted from emergency accommodation
• 5 people that have refused accommodation
• 11 people that are new to rough sleeping
• 22 people that are not engaging with outreach or haven’t yet been found

Specialist outreach workers and navigators are now trying to support those who have been placed in hotels as well as supporting people new to rough sleeping and those with ongoing complex needs that have been evicted from emergency accommodation.

Food:

We are working with people who are in extreme poverty who are often very vulnerable. Organising regular food for people has been a challenge in some districts where drop-in services have closed and food banks are under pressure. Clearer guidance for local authorities needs to be published on this.

Substance use:

Clear guidance on supporting people who are dependent on illegal drugs and alcohol was slow to come out from drug and alcohol services and still doesn’t fully address some of the problems such as:

• Increased overdose risk from prescription drugs such as methadone being prescribed in higher amounts to cover 7 days rather than daily pick up from chemists
• Working with alcohol detox amongst rough sleepers due to reduced income from begging
• Increased dangers of overdose from erratic supplies of heroin and potentially dangerous cuts
• Hotels evicting people that are dependent upon alcohol or drugs

Limited budget:

The initial budget for housing people in emergency accommodation was very welcome, but now needs to be increased over the long term so that:

• 24 hour support is offered in hotels where complex needs clients have been housed
• More accommodation can be offered as homelessness grows exponentially over the next 6 months, especially after ‘no eviction’ legislation comes to an end
• Housing First or Housing Led support can be offered to people with complex needs who are difficult to support in a hotel setting
• Long term planning between service providers, county and district councils can occur to address the increased and ranging needs of people over the next year
• Increased support can be offered to help move stable people out of supported accommodation services to free up spaces to accommodate rough sleepers currently housed in emergency accommodation
• Supply of accommodation from districts and housing providers to enable move-on and free up beds for those leaving TA.

Coronavirus outbreak in supported accommodation:

Guidance and support needs to be increased in relation to an outbreak of coronavirus within shared accommodation. Many of the people living in our shared accommodation are on tenancy agreements where we cannot move people unless they agree. This makes it very hard to comply with NHS guidance on creating separate spaces for people that are shielding, that are symptomatic and those that are recovering from Covid 19.

We also have concerns on the lack of guidance relating to residents returning to shared accommodation from hospital who are still potentially contagious. Increased funding should be provided so that suitable sort-term accommodation can be found that enables appropriate isolation and prevents potential outbreaks within supported accommodation.

Agreements on the homelessness status of people (LAs agreeing to accept homeless applications from those in supported accommodation) for those who cannot ‘reasonably occupy’ due to risk to others should be strongly suggested to districts and boroughs.

Guidance on adequately obtaining and the use of PPE where workers are having to support a client who has or is suspected of having Covid 19 should be issued as a matter of urgency.

3. What might be the immediate post-lockdown impacts for these groups, and what action is needed to help with these?

Increased evictions:

Porchlight has been working on a series of forecasting papers that are looking into the potential impact of coronavirus measures upon the different client groups that we support. We are particularly concerned with the potential impact upon rent arrears and consequential evictions in Kent.

With legislation as it stands we estimate that:

• Around 25,000 people will fall into rent arrears in Kent;
• Of these nearly 4,000 will have eviction procedures started against them
• Resulting in a potential 1,300 evictions

Additionally there may be another 1,600 people that fall into housing problems through not being able to pay mortgage repayments.

The long term impact on the economy will also have corresponding impact upon people’s ability to pay rent or mortgage potentially resulting in an increased long term need for statutory and voluntary sector housing support that is in excess of current service provision and funding.

We would urge central government to undertake impact assessments into the long term effect of coronavirus on homelessness so that adequate and appropriate solutions can be planned for in relation to funding, staffing and available housing that can be covered by Local Housing Allowance rates.

Eviction of people currently in emergency accommodation:

Across the country, many people have been housed that have been sleeping rough for a long time. This is a real opportunity to continue to keep them housed and supported. Unfortunately, in some districts we are aware that people have already received notices to leave.

If providers and local authorities worked together, we could continue the housing and support offer and help ensure that fewer people return to sleeping rough. To achieve this there will be a need for clear guidance from central government that is coupled with additional funds.

Guidance should include areas such as:

• Local authorities supporting move-on options for people currently in supported accommodation. This will help to free up spaces for rough sleepers currently in emergency accommodation.
• The development of Housing First/Led options that can better support people with complex needs. This could be an extension of RSI funding.

Housing out of borough:

We have become aware of private organisations offering to house people out of borough from Kent to boroughs in the North and North East. These offers have been adapted to include the coronavirus pandemic and lockdown restrictions.

‘During the Covid19 period, in order to secure properties, XXXXXXX will request an advance down payment of a minimum block booking for 5 properties. For five 2-beds, excluding support costs, this would equate to £6,250.’

These firms are offering local authorities a complete rehousing and support package and state that they can offer support for the most complex needs. However, we understand that there is no due diligence on these firms and no independent evaluation of their services or the impact upon the people they helped to move from Kent to the North East.

We would urge the government to undertake an investigation into this type of practice as a matter of urgency to ensure that vulnerable people are not exploited for private profit.

Employment options:

Employment options for people who have been long-term unemployed will probably be reduced over the next few years. This will have an impact upon people’s ability to afford rents in the private sector.

Longer term strategies should take account of these potential difficulties and the impact this will have upon people being able to afford rents in the private rented sector and having the finances to be able to maintain secure accommodation.

Comorbidities:

Many of the people we work with have serious physical and mental health problems. Before the coronavirus occurred it could be difficult to get appropriate treatment, especially in relation to mental health problems. After lockdown is lifted we anticipate that a lot of health services will be inundated with a backlog of work. This may make it even harder for people who have experienced homelessness to access the treatment they need to recover, stabilise and re-engage with society.

Housing Associations:

We believe that Housing Associations can be part of the solution, but in order to do so, they need to be more open to offering permanent housing to people who have experienced homelessness and may still be struggling with physical and mental health problems.

We would urge the government to explore how housing associations can increase their partnership working with homelessness services, reduce rents in line with LHA rates and offer permanent solutions to people who are ready to move on that are currently in supported accommodation. This would free up places for people who are currently in emergency accommodation.

Second lockdown:

Finally, if there is a second lockdown, we would urge the government learn from examples of current good practice so that more detailed advice can be given to providers and local authorities to ensure the most effective future responses.

May 2020