Written evidence submitted by GreenSquareAccord [EXA 005]
This response is provided by GreenSquareAccord. We are a large Housing Association (Registered Provider), providing general needs housing, supported housing and a wide range of health and social care services. In respect of our supported housing portfolio, we provide short-term accommodation with support (up to 2 years) for a range of vulnerable groups, including ex-offenders, domestic abuse victims, care leavers and young people, as well as longer-term supported housing for those with mental ill health and/or learning disabilities, who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in the West Midlands and South-West. All of the supported housing we provide is commissioned by local authorities.
We are delighted that the matter of non-commissioned exempt accommodation has come to the notice of the Select Committee and we hope to add value to the committee’s work through our response. This focus of the Select Committee is an excellent opportunity to shine a light on unscrupulous landlords and define a positive future for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
The quality will vary considerably, depending on the motivations of landlords. At one end of the spectrum, good landlords will utilise their enhanced rents to invest in their stock and the housing management services they seek to provide. However, we are aware of a significant number of landlords who view exempt accommodation as a way of making money and are failing to invest in good quality housing, whilst providing little housing management support for their tenants. Our services have been contacted on numerous occasions by tenants in non-commissioned services to ask if we have vacancies and could they move to one of our properties. Overwhelmingly, this has been as a result of either (or both) feeling unsafe in their current property (fabric of the building, or concerns over the behaviours and lifestyles of other tenants in a shared house), or through a lack of support from the provider where they are currently housed.
Where services are commissioned by the local authority, separately to the payment of Housing Benefit (for payments of rent and housing management activities), it has been evidenced in a number of national reports that supported housing provides excellent value for money. Commissioned providers will invest in good quality housing and utilise the support funding to deliver quality support. All aspects of support are overseen by local authorities in their quality and contract management processes. Similarly, local authorities have the ability to manage quality of housing stock, alongside any regulation through the Regulator for Social Housing.
However, where support is not commissioned by the local authority (and, it is important to note, Housing Benefit regulations prohibit the funding of personalised support from rental income over and above housing management support), it is difficult to see how the levels of support envisaged or needed by referring agencies for their clients can be met within the financial envelope available, unless providers have access to alternative funds – such as charitable grants or donations. Unless such other form of funding is obtained by the provider, it is likely that tenants will not receive the level of support they require, standards of housing are likely to be lower, and there is a significant risk that tenants will become trapped in their accommodation as there is no incentive to move on or access employment opportunities.
As a commissioned provider of exempt accommodation, we ensure our rents are set within the parameters of the Regulator’s Rent Standard, and that our service charges are reflective of the costs of providing the services associated with the accommodation. It is important that providers are able to recover the actual costs of the service, but that the services to be provided are actually delivered (i.e. transparency).
Supported housing, in most cases (excepting longer-term accommodation for those with mental health issues or learning disabilities), is expected to form part of a pathway to independent living and is often short-term in nature (generally up to 2 years). In commissioned services, local authorities will stipulate the length of stay and there is incentive for the providers to encourage move-on so that it does not create a new dependence for the vulnerable tenant. However, in non-commissioned services, there is no requirement for the tenant to move-on in a defined period and, often, the high levels of rent (generally funded by Housing Benefit) can trap the tenant in their accommodation with little or no support.
We are aware that areas with low land/property values and low Local Housing Allowance (LHA) levels are more susceptible to increases in non-commissioned exempt accommodation being made available, as there is potential for a greater return.
We know that, within the West Midlands, Birmingham is a key ‘hotspot’. I have also read that other West Midland local authority areas are seeing increases and there is a strong likelihood that as one local authority seeks to clamp down on this type of provision, surrounding areas will be targeted by unscrupulous landlords.
Some areas have a severe shortage of commissioned supported housing provision to address local need and this again can give rise to exploitation of the situation.
I do not have the data to respond to this question. However, it is fair to assume that it will vary from area to area.
I do not have the data to respond to this question. However, commissioned services have been severely cutback since 2009 (when the ring-fence was removed from the former Supporting People programme), as local authority funding has been reduced. Non-commissioned services have grown exponentially in the intervening period and, in areas where this has been highlighted as a problem, will outnumber commissioned services many times over.
It is difficult to say whether being a registered provider automatically means that quality is better, as there are many good and not so good landlords in all sectors. However, when you consider what funding can be legitimately used for, it is more likely that commissioned services will offer a higher quality service, as their support is funded and overseen via contract management processes.
Ideally, all support would be commissioned by local authorities. Exempt supported accommodation is a valuable option for many people with support needs, as it significantly contributes to recovery and rehabilitation, and helps to prevent homelessness. During the time of Supporting People (2001-2009), local authorities (housing and social care – often in conjunction with health) and probation services strategically set the conditions for the use of support funding. However, since 2009, this strategic lead has been lost and local authorities have been unable to regulate the supported housing market to the same extent. Local authorities have also taken decisions to reduce the amounts of funding available for commissioning of supported housing as they have felt required to concentrate funds on statutory provision. These levels of cuts have varied between local authorities.
The government’s Statement of Expectations in relation to supported housing includes a consideration for local authorities to complete a supported housing needs assessment and this, if undertaken by all local authorities, should be the first step to determining the levels of supported housing required in their area. Commissioning and provision should follow this, and finally, there should be oversight through contract management arrangements. However, local authorities would need to be funded sufficiently to enable this.
In terms of costs, exempt rents and service charges can only meet the eligible housing costs. They cannot cover the cost of support (under existing regulations). Housing rents should be set in line with the Regulator’s expectations (Rent Standard) or in line with the Local Housing Allowance (depending upon if the provider is registered or otherwise). Service Charges should represent the costs of services provided in the accommodation and can be (and often are) scrutinised by Housing Benefit teams. Funding for support should be commissioned separately by the local authority and subject to standard contract monitoring processes.
Registered Providers are regulated through the Regulator of Social Housing. In addition, various umbrella bodies within the housing sector (such as Housemark) are looking at the development of KPIs and benchmarks to report separately on supported housing, but as part of existing national data returns. This, alongside contract management, should provide additional transparency to costs.
Local authorities, such as Birmingham City Council, are working alongside local agencies in developing a set of quality standards for providers of supported accommodation, and this is currently concentrating on reviewing those non-commissioned services. This could be expanded to include commissioned providers, with the standards forming part of contract management processes (local authorities would need to secure additional funding to undertake its additional contract management responsibilities).
Government should review the regulations in relation to Housing Benefit and the definition of support, and planning and licensing regulations should be reviewed to include exempt accommodation.
On the assumption that exempt non-commissioned accommodation will continue to exist (as not enough is currently commissioned), there are key roles for the following:
- DWP to ensure the regulations regarding eligibility for Housing Benefit (and/or Universal Credit) are clear in what it can be used to provide for
- Local Authority Housing Benefit Teams – to scrutinise claims submitted by both commissioned and non-commissioned providers and to undertake some form of post-checking to ensure providers are delivering what they are funded to do
- Local Authority Commissioners – to commit sufficient resources to quality check contracts
- Referring Agencies – to assure themselves of the quality of the stock they are referring into (via landlord/property checks – perhaps in conjunction with local authorities), and to be clear on the types and levels of support that their referral requires before agreeing to a placement
- Referring Agencies (such as probation and prisons) should review their (area to area) transfer policies to ensure these are being correctly followed at all times
For providers who have been found to breach the regulations, payments of Housing Benefit should be withdrawn and referring agencies should stop referring to them. This will require sharing of information between local authorities and referring agencies. We know that there are insufficient commissioned places, and referring agencies are often under pressure to source places at very short notice.
This is not so much a question of information, but rather, one of clarifying the regulations, addressing poor quality standards and the poor use of public funds.
January 2022