Written evidence submitted by Zetetick Housing [EXA 013]
Zetetick Housing (ZHC) was founded as a Registered Charity in 2007, providing specialist supported housing within London and the Southeast, for people with a Learning Disability, Autism, Mental Health and people that Challenge. We have operated within the ‘exempt accommodation’ sector from the outset and current support over 160 highly vulnerable adults to live in their communities. ZHC core model of housing provision is the sourcing of accommodation from the private sector and facilitating fair access to private housing for these protected groups. Our lease model is well Governed, with terms ranging from 1 year to 10 years. These leases reflect the needs of our tenants, but importantly do not place any undue financial liability pressures, with breaks and excellent Governance scrutiny.
Without the specialist support of ZHC, these tenants would not be able to afford their homes and the only alternative would be (in most cases) hospitals and semi-secure units – both expensive, thus demonstrating our value for money service for these protected groups.
Quality is subjective without defining standards to which it is measured. At ZHC we set a high standard from the beginning, above that of the Decent Homes Standards. For our tenants it is the maintenance of quality homes, with all tenants lacking ability and capacity to maintain their homes. Environmental behaviours, for example from a person that challenges, is significant and will lead to extensive physical damage to the property. If remedial and ongoing maintenance isn’t provided to the tenant and on their behalf, then the quality of the home would deteriorate rapidly. However, the provision of exempt housing funding via Housing Benefit (HB) that enable ZHC to achieve full cost recovery, means the quality of the home is maintained and reduces the likely need to re-admit the tenant to a hospital setting. This represents excellent value for money to the Government.
Exempt Housing provision is financially viable as it meets the needs of these protected groups, enables them to live within their communities and the cost of any alternative is significantly higher than a supported living service – see VFM comments above. The current HB rules for exempt housing enables providers of social housing to recover their full costs and treats both Registered Providers and Non-Registered Providers equally. However, the rules are open to subjective interpretation and permit ‘less honourable’ providers to exploit these exempt rules for profit via questionable management arrangements. The majority of these providers are Registered with the Regulatory of Social Housing (RSH), therefore it is important for the inquiry NOT to presume that regulated organisations are automatically deemed to be a quality provider, offering VFM services. The 2015 spending review considered creating a ‘them and us’ funding provision – Registered Providers (RP) and everyone else, indicating the government’s view that RP’s offer better outcomes in terms of quality and VFM than a Charity. This is not the case and subsequently was abandoned in 2018.
Yes. It appears that areas with high concentration of low-income households have seen an explosion of exempt accommodation demand in recent times i.e Birmingham. This has led to regional variations in Local Authorities (LA) approach to ‘manage’ this increase in demand on their budgets. This includes stating the eligibility for exempt funding is based on the organisation being a RP, which is fundamentally a breach of the HB Regulations and not grounds for refusing to recognise all those organisations that provide exempt accommodation. In my opinion, I also believe this is driven by the two-tier approach to the DWP subsidy to LA’s for exempt accommodation – RP’s receive 100% and attract little LA scrutiny, whereas all other providers (Charities and not-for-profit organisations) only attract a 60%. This unfair bias presumes RP’s provide better outcomes and greater VFM, when in reality it is merely a cost saving decision.
I am unable to comment factually on proportion, but anodically I believe RP would provide the greater number of claims for exempt accommodation, by default of their scale of overall property portfolios. However, this data can be misleading. Large does not mean better, given the recent ITV press over the poor standards provided by LA’s and the lack of action/acceptance of responsibility by RP’s post Grenfell. Then collect provision of non-registered providers is a valuable contribution to the unmet need and to assume RP’s can take-up and absorb this provision would be a serious misjudgement. If the balance was struck between all providers with the current DWP subsidy (or an alternative funding model) then you could see a better ‘balance being struck’ across the whole sector.
Again, unable to comment factually on proportionately. However, an interesting point to note is the difference between a Unitary Authority and non-Unitary, where HB is administrated at a District level. There will be a greater percentage of commissioned services within a Unitary Authority as they have common grounds and budgets, whereas in non-unitary there is little joined-up working, in fact there is clear ‘resistance’ from Districts to work with or commission exempt accommodation. Given this view, I believe an appropriate balance is not being achieved, whilst budgetary separation remains.
I don’t believe that being one or the other seriously impacts on quality – refer to point 1 above. It will be the criteria set for the provision of exempt accommodation that will determine quality outcomes, not the organisations status. Aligning and/or setting quality standards will level the service delivery to all protective groups.
Exempt accommodation must continue to be recognised as a ‘different’ provision to protected groups that cannot and should not be treated the same as general needs housing. It is also essential that the Regulations do not permit LA’s to determine how money is allocated or indeed any form of ‘ring-fenced’ funding that always eventually get absorbed into general budgets and lost to their intended beneficiaries. Exempt accommodation rules, in principle, work for the majority of people in need. However, certain ‘loop-holes’ or elements of the Regulation need amended and tightening up to stop misuse of this valuable and much needed funding stream. All not-for-profit organisations (primary criteria), however defined, must be recognised equally and RP’s should not be treated more favourably. This is a dis-service to many excellent providers and a major concern that these providers will no longer exist of funding rule exclude them. Improving quality and VFM should not be achieved by simply excluding certain groups of providers, as this never solves the issue. The second current criteria for eligibility (more than minimal support provided by Landlord or on their behalf) needs amendment as it creates unnecessary reasons to exclude a provider. The support needs eligibility needs to be defined in a way that reflects the actual likelihood that accommodation services will need to be higher than general needs, possibly linked to a new criterion where the housing provision must be ‘commissioned’ by a LA through an appropriate Nominations Agreement or other agreement. This grants LA’s greater control over which qualifying providers (as determined by Regulation, not LA) operate and receive exempt funding.
In terms of cost, full cost recovery should be the primary purpose of exempt accommodation, providing services to protected groups. One methodology ZHC currently operate is an agreed formulate in relation to Local Housing Allowances (LHA). This is a practical way of pre-determining rent maximums that reflect geographical variations. For example, exempt accommodation funding per tenant is capped under an eligibility matrix, where a tenant’s entitlement would be LHA, plus an exempt percentage (37%) in addition. The actual percentage could be formulated through effective and targeted consultation and looking at real examples of actual costs to provide exempt accommodation. This would generate a reasonable basis of the relationship between exempt and general needs accommodation. As the formula is based on LHA +, this allows for regional variations where rent costs variations can be significant.
This should be at a local level, via LA. Assuming the services are commissioned by LA then the duty to ensure quality provision, VFM and compliance with Regulation must remain with them. This would also address the current inadequacies and/or remit of the RSH ability to oversee every RP, large or small.
If the Regulations are clear/explicit in terms of criteria of entitlement and the expected provision of service quality, including how measured, then enforcement is straight forward. Local inspections can deem compliance and where compliance is short, due process and time to allow for remedial actions can be put in place. Failure to comply will lead to their status as an exempt provider in that scheme would be withdrawn. Loss of revenue for high-cost services tends to concentrate people minds on ensuring compliance.
No. I have been the CEO of ZHC for 15 years and a deep knowledge of exempt accommodation and the rules pertaining to HB Regulation. The move to Universal Credit has, by default, meant that resources and expertise in HB departments has been eroded significantly, to the point that housing providers like ZHC are informing HB departments on Regulation and how it should be applied. Simplifying the whole exempt accommodation sector, without losing providers, will enable clear and concise information and application of the rules for all benefit officers in LA.
January 2022