Written evidence submitted by Changing Lives [EXA 040]
1.1. Changing Lives welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Levelling Up Housing and Communities Committee’s inquiry into Exempt Accommodation.
1.2. Changing Lives is a national charity, helping thousands of people change their lives for the better each year. We have around 100 projects in England, supporting people in the most challenging of circumstances including homelessness, addiction, contact with the criminal justice system, sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, long-term unemployment and more.
1.3. We deliver exempt accommodation and community-based homelessness services across England.
1.3.1. Our accommodation offer includes emergency access accommodation; supported accommodation; specialist support for veterans, young people, people with experience of domestic abuse and women in recovery; and Housing First initiatives.
1.3.2. Our community-based services include tenancy sustainment, rough sleeper outreach services, modern day slavery services, domestic abuse and veterans’ community outreach services.
1.4. Key points:
1.4.1. We are concerned about instances of non-regulated providers offering accommodation that is unsuitable and unsafe without knowledge of the local area.
1.4.2. We would like to see more commissioning of services to ensure accommodation for those often excluded from mainstream service, but welcome the flexibility offered by exempt accommodation status in the meantime.
1.4.3. We would like to see more powers given to local authorities to ensure that exempt accommodation is suitable and meets the needs of the local area.
1.4.4. People who gain employment whilst living in exempt accommodation become liable to pay the higher rent, which is often unaffordable.
2.1. As a charity with many years of experience providing accommodation and an established reputation for supporting people experiencing multiple disadvantage, we are deeply concerned by instances of non-regulated providers coming into areas with no understanding of local need to deliver provision that is unsuitable and unsafe. Not only is this harmful to the people who live in the accommodation, but it also risks forcing smaller reputable providers out of business.
2.2. While our concerns are not universally applicable, as there are many providers of exempt accommodation who offer an excellent service, the basic requirement to provide ‘more than minimal’ support and the lack of regulation across the sector means that unscrupulous or misguided providers are able to operate unimpeded.
2.3. To give an example of poor quality housing provision, in 2020 we were alerted to concerns about the significant growth in large housing providers establishing ‘supported accommodation’ in the North East aimed at women and children who have experienced domestic abuse and other forms of violence. Our specific concerns included:
2.3.1. The providers lacked background or expertise in providing services to women who have experienced domestic abuse, violence or multiple disadvantage.
2.3.2. The providers also lacked knowledge of the local area, including the current demand for services and needs profiles amongst local residents, levels of deprivation and risks of anti-social behaviour and criminal exploitation.
2.3.3. The providers were not aware of or compliant with well-established quality standards within the domestic abuse and violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector.
2.3.4. The scale of the accommodation was inappropriate and unsafe. Examples include a 60 bed ‘refuge’ for women in Sunderland City Centre and a total of over 300 supported accommodation units for vulnerable women proposed across Wearside.
2.3.5. A 40 bed ‘refuge’ in Middlesbrough proved unsafe to the extent that all specialist providers agreed not to refer on safety grounds.
2.4. Commonly the provision we are seeing is too large to be effective and provides inadequate support. Even with the best support, a building with too many residents is not a trauma-informed or safe environment for people who are vulnerable. However the more people who can be housed together, the greater the profit for the providers.
2.5. When exempt accommodation is primarily provided in large blocks, it also creates additional barriers to people accessing them. For example, many services require tenants to be abstinent from drugs and alcohol, because it is impossible to provide a safe environment for that number of people if they are under the influence. However, the requirement to achieve abstinence before being offered accommodation is simply not an option for many people experiencing addiction, who may use drugs and/or alcohol to cope with historic or current trauma. They first need a home and an opportunity to address the underlying trauma before they will be ready to give up their coping mechanism. Their safety and needs are much better managed in smaller, or ideally self-contained, units with appropriate levels of staffing to manage risk for both staff and residents.
2.6. We recommend greater regulation of providers of exempt accommodation. This could include bringing non-commissioned exempt accommodation within scope of the remit of the Regulator of Social Housing.
3.1. Many of the exempt accommodation providers that we are concerned about provide non-commissioned services, and whilst commissioning of services does provide a degree of oversight which is lacking in the non-commissioned and unregulated services, we do also have concerns around the commissioning of accommodation.
3.2. The competitive bidding process for many public services, including but not exclusive to housing services, is creating a ‘race to the bottom’. Providers must offer services for at ever decreasing cost, creating pressures on both quality of service and staff pay. This increases the risk of unscrupulous providers winning contracts by undercutting other providers and promising things they cannot realistically deliver, or reputable providers feeling pressured to make sacrifices on what they know works in order to stay in the market.
3.3. While providing quality housing support to people who are vulnerable or experiencing multiple disadvantage is costly, there are many direct benefits to doing so, not least because it enables people to move more quickly out of homelessness and towards a flourishing life. For example, while it may appear to be more cost-effective to provide mixed sex hostels, it creates an unsafe and traumatic environment to women and traps people in a homelessness system which requires them to prove themselves ‘housing ready’ whilst failing to create the environment in which they can do so.
3.4. In an ideal world, we would not need non-commissioned exempt accommodation because commissioned services would meet the needs of all who require it. Unfortunately we are nowhere near that reality yet, so there does need to be flexibility for organisations registered with the Regulator of Social Housing to deliver non-commissioned services where there is a gap in provision and the provider has specialist experience.
3.5. For example, Changing Lives delivers a model called Sanctum in the North East which offers dispersed exempt accommodation to survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence who are unable to access or are seen as ‘too complex’ for mainstream refuge provision. These include:
3.5.1. People who identify as LGBTQ, non-binary and/or gender fluid
3.5.2. Men who have experienced abuse and exploitation
3.5.3. People with pets
3.5.4. People with teenage sons
3.5.5. People with multiple disadvantage
3.5.6. People with a history of offending
3.5.7. People with complex mental or physical health needs
3.5.8. People with substance misuse issues
3.5.9. People who prefer to be in dispersed accommodation due to cultural or religious practices
3.5.10. People evicted from supported accommodation
3.6. Sanctum was developed to complement existing domestic abuse provision, fill in gaps in service, and break down barriers to engagement. Working with a range of Registered Social Landlords and private landlords we have been able to supply almost 50 properties across six local authorities offered alongside a programme of support. Accommodation is dispersed throughout communities to reduce ghettoisation and stigma.
3.7. To our knowledge, no other organisation in the country delivers this model. Whilst we would like to see it become more widespread and form part of the commissioning of support for survivors of domestic abuse, it currently relies on the flexibility provided by exempt accommodation.
4.1. Local authorities have limited ability to influence non-regulated providers offering unsuitable accommodation within their local areas. Whilst local authorities theoretically have the ability to reject claims for exempt rent, this is often subject to legal challenge and the rules are not straightforward, relying heavily on case law. A high level of legal expertise is required to challenge these cases. We would therefore recommend simplifying and clarifying the rules around exempt accommodation, so that local authorities have greater ability to assess and influence housing based on an understanding of local need.
4.2. In order to push back against unsuitable exempt accommodation providers, some local authorities have had to draw on powers not really designed for this purpose. For example, one council with which Changing Lives works explored the possibility of issuing Community Protection Notice Warnings which are intended to prohibit conduct that is detrimental to others. Normally they are used for anti-social behaviour such as noise or refuse accumulation, but having used them for landlords whose practices were either detrimental to their tenants (e.g. intimidating behaviour) or which eroded their rights (e.g. failure to provide rent receipts) they then moved onto explore using this as a disruption tactic against providers of exempt accommodation whose lack of appropriate accommodation or support could be deemed detrimental to their tenants.
5.1. One of the major challenges for people living in exempt accommodation is that it is basically impossible to obtain paid employment whilst living there. While they are unemployed the enhanced costs of the accommodation are paid through Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit. However, once they gain employment, the tenant becomes liable for the higher rent, which is often completely unaffordable, inevitably driving them into rent arrears and, in some cases, eviction.
5.2. This leaves tenants in a situation where they are either not eligible or have to wait a long time to access social housing, but cannot afford a private rental until they have a job. However they cannot get a job until they move into a property with more affordable rents.
5.2.1. Since the removal of the Universal Credit uplift we have even seen a small number of residents in our Sanctum project declined for social housing because they failed a financial assessment. These are all under 25, and therefore receive a lower rate of Universal Credit, and meet all the other criteria for social housing, yet are unable to afford the most ‘affordable’ housing option unless they get a job. Whilst numbers are currently low and each this is not the same across all housing providers, who have different methods for financial assessment, we are concerned that we will see more cases like this as the cost of living increases.
5.3. As a solution, we would recommend delaying the point at which tenants in exempt accommodation become liable for paying rent when they gain paid employment, to allow a buffer period in which they can secure alternative accommodation after rather than before starting work.
January 2022