Written evidence submitted by Central Bedfordshire Council [IOC 278]

Central Bedfordshire Council is a unitary authority with an estimated population of 283,600 there is a strong housing market as the area has good links to London. The Council retains its own housing stock of approx. 5500 properties. The Council have been invited by the Committee to provide written evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on homelessness, rough sleeping, and the private rented sector, as well as any other connected issues. In particular, the Committee is interested in three key areas, which are set out as sub-headings below:

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?

Central Bedfordshire’s response;

Overall, the support provided by MHCLG has been highly effective to address the anticipated impacts. Our response breaks this down into two key areas where support has been evident and provided;

Advice & Assistance

Weekly telephone calls between Homelessness and Rough Sleeping advisors have assisted with front line operational practices. Advisors have shared good practice and ideas to assist with some of the challenges housing a more complex cohort of individuals has presented. It was an effective sense-check during the initial period in which changes were being made.

Guidance documents

Measures to prevent evictions in the private rented sector were introduced quickly and were effective.

Unfortunately, non-statutory guidance for registered providers of social housing was slower in coming (28th April) and in our experience most Registered Providers (RPs) had stopped letting properties at the start of lockdown. The impact of this has been significant.

The impact on lettings/assisting with moves for vulnerable households at Central Bedfordshire Council in the first month of lockdown (23rd March – 24th April) is shown below;

Properties made available by RP’s since lockdown on 23rd March, total 35 compared with the typical monthly average before lockdown of 65. Grand Union Housing Group (LSVT company) in our experience have been the only RP to have continued to let steadily.

The telling figure to see the impact of lockdown is to compare “other RP” (not Grand Union) where the comparison of 4 is to a monthly average of 42 other RP properties into the system.

The total number of accommodation placements in CBC owned/controlled accommodation (including TA) since lock-down 23.3.20 is = 117

	Grand Union	Other RP	Total
Sept 2019	16	39	55
Oct 2019	37	35	72
Nov 2019	16	54	70
Dec 2019	27	44	71
Jan 2020	15	41	56
Feb 2020	26	34	60
March 2020 to 23.3.20	19	51	70

SINCE LOCKDOWN

RP	Total number of properties offered
Grand Union	22
Sage (private RP)	9
Stonewater	1
Catalyst	1
Paradigm	1
BPHA	1

Compared to number of RP properties available in previous months: average per month = 65 per month

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

Central Bedfordshire’s response;

Group

Current Concern

Private Rented Sector (PRS)

The scope to move people in the PRS as well as to sustain tenancies and resolve tensions/difficulties is constrained.

There is a lack of available accommodation to facilitate moves for those households living in unsuitable housing. There is a significant financial impact on landlords who are not receiving rental income. This will be a problem in the months ahead.

Households who are in eviction processes but have received a stay are not able to source alternative housing during lockdown. The impact of this on household’s health and wellbeing is evident in the calls for advice and assistance being received.

We are concerned about properties falling into disrepair as private landlords struggle to get essential repair works completed. Central Bedfordshire Council is using its own repair contractors to cover this type of work and recharging private landlords/homeowners.

Rough Sleepers

Government sought an accommodation offer to all verified rough sleepers. In Central Bedfordshire, an offer was made to every rough sleeper, though some declined. Our current concern is continued growth in this cohort i.e. there is an average of 2 people identified each week who are new to rough sleeping. The impact of COVID means people are losing jobs and losing the goodwill of friends and family that may have accommodated them previously. Individuals are not able to find their own accommodation solutions. Relationship breakdown is the key factor.

Outreach provision is in place for those who continue to rough sleep and additional accommodation has been secured for those accepting offer of support. But not everyone has accepted an offer or is willing to engage. Concern of ‘what next’ if those refusing assistance start showing symptoms and yet they still refuse to self-isolate.

Behaviours of those accommodated is a concern. The individuals have a higher than average dual diagnosis and drug and alcohol dependencies that are hard to manage or to ensure the control of social distancing.

There have been some social distancing issues with some homeless individuals/rough sleepers, perhaps due to mental health issues, which is where the approach needs further development.

A Rough Sleeper cell has been established to provide a multi-agency approach around local issues and to monitor those rough sleeping and those at risk of becoming rough sleepers. Work is in progress with Mental Health services to improve engagement with those requiring support. This is a key area where we can be more effective and improve practice. It remains the primary area of concern. That is, getting the right support from the relevant agencies to vulnerable people, whose behaviours can be chaotic, has proved more difficult than it should have been. Working closely with Mental Health and Drug/alcohol services to provide dual diagnosis support plans has been a challenge, whilst the actual support that can assist with longer term accommodation and tenancy sustainment, has been difficult for a number of reasons, in particular the reaction to lock-down in terms of a sea change shift away from face-to-face contact, to telephone contact only. There were ways to achieve the appropriate level of support whilst operating within social distancing norms.

Food provision has been sourced from a variety of agencies. Additional supply has been purchased by the Council whilst individuals are being supported to apply for welfare benefits. There are still issues with those receiving money immediately spending it on substances/alcohol rather than essentials such as food.

Homeless

There has been an increase of domestic abuse approaches. In addition, family evictions continue with a lack of 1 bed accommodation options. TA residents are growing weary of social distancing measures. A particular challenge has been around working closely and collaboratively with Mental Health and Drug/alcohol services to provide support to vulnerable persons. When systems are tested, we see how robust they really are. In general terms, we have an opportunity post COVID19 to examine how we can improve and work together more effectively.

Some households are in accommodation where it is difficult to self-isolate, such as hostels with some shared facilities. Immediate action was taken to move those identified as shielded and vulnerable into self-contained accommodation, but this was not possible with every household within TA.

Mental health services engagement and support was withdrawn to only emergency issues and generally non-face-to-face contact. Even with guidance issued for mental health services there has not been a noticeable increase in support. This is more evident with persons whose lifestyles and behaviours are more chaotic. This is an issue in TA currently due to their escalating behaviours and there being very little sanction or deterrent.

There were already local community concerns about setting up homeless hostels and supported accommodation in their local neighbourhoods. The impact of some of the behaviours during lockdown has not helped this issue and it is hoped that we can recover and rebuild that trust.

For some local households there has been anxiety with regard to people breaking the social distancing rules and norms. For example, parties held in the sunshine, including at sheltered housing schemes. For other people, there has been a degree of social isolation. Their anxiety levels and also their desire to leave TA leaves them with no hope, especially as the supply of alternative accommodation options is very thin at this time.

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

Central Bedfordshire’s response;

Private Rented Sector

There is a potential for increased unlawful evictions/ harassment where landlords would find it more difficult to evict than normal. We have already seen evidence of this. This is a concern if the process is not managed at a rate that is sustainable for the Council to respond to. Not only those evictions which have been ‘stayed’ due to the pandemic but those households whose financial situation has been impacted to the point that they have been unable to pay their rent. The legal processes post COVID19 are likely to take time to re-establish.

It would be helpful if the existing guidance was maintained for a further period and for Government to engage with all landlords about this.

It is also likely that there will be an increase in property sales where landlords have themselves fallen into hardship through lost rental income and not being able to meet their own mortgage payments. This will further reduce supply. Many private landlords have approached the council asking CBC to directly manage their properties for them. This was unexpected and could be the start of a new trend, or this recent trend may end as quickly as it started.

There is also the possibility that Landlord’s will be less incentivised to work with local authorities to assist with re-housing people in the PRS who have more complex needs. What would be helpful is an attractive PRS package i.e. access to repairs scheme, vetted tenants, a thorough support package for tenants. More thought in this area would be helpful.

Rough Sleepers

The most obvious and immediate concern is the longer-term sustainability of measures put in place for rough sleepers/homeless that were relatively short term. Not just the funding of accommodation but the intensive support and resources needed from Mental Health services, Drug & Alcohol, CCG, and Police. For far too long, rough-sleeping has been seen narrowly and in quite limited terms as an accommodation/housing issue. The COVID19 crisis has tested the existing response. It is clear that a large cohort of rough sleepers require a great deal more than an accommodation offer.

A number of measures/assistances are going to be needed post lockdown, to ensure the response is effective and sustained;

Hotels/B&B’s wanting to quickly return to business as usual, impacting on ability to move-on successfully – A longer term plan is needed with partner agencies.
The ability for Rough sleepers (mostly) to sustain a tenancy post-lockdown. Our concern is that a high proportion may return to the streets. Therefore, a wraparound support package is needed, which should not be housing-led. In many cases, clinical support is required.
The commitment to Rough Sleeper Cells needs to continue. We are concerned that the commitment from statutory agencies to resolve the issues around rough sleepers may wane, once the immediate public health risk has passed.
Discretionary placements will need to continue whilst longer term accommodation is sought ie. planned move-ons with likelihood of sustainability –Guidance would be welcome to ensure Mental Health and drug and alcohol services understand the role they must play.

Homeless

Family/parental eviction are a current concern. However, they are anticipated to be even more of a significant issue once the lockdown restrictions are eased. The relationship between households/people within homes is strained/breaking down in some instances. However, we also recognise there are cases where people are trying to take advantage of the current situation and seeing it as a route into social housing accommodation.

Some cases show young adults refusing to adhere to social isolation, going out and meeting friends. Many have found lock-down difficult. Support to local authorities to take a firm response, where appropriate to do so, would be especially welcomed. Currently, 143 cases in TA in Central Bedfordshire due to friend and family evictions. In Central Bedfordshire, this is around 60% of all households accommodated due to homelessness.

There will be a peak in demand due to family/relationship breakdown. It will increase beyond normal levels due to lockdown measures being lifted and the impact on staffing and resources will be significant. Guidance on taking a firmer stance with parental evictions and on provision of mandatory mediation services for these types of cases would be welcomed

Finally, our response highlights our concern over households where domestic violence may be occurring. The Council are still able to provide accommodation where required and are working with the refuge providers but as yet the full impact of this lockdown on these vulnerable households has not been seen or felt and agencies need to be ready to respond and support. We expect domestic abuse to increase substantially.

May 2020