Written evidence submitted by Blackpool Council [EXA 077]

Organisation:

Blackpool Council

Reason for submission:

Pilot organisation on the DLUCH Supported Housing Pilot, with longstanding concerns over quality and provision of supported housing.

Questions:

• What is the quality of exempt housing provision?

Quality of accommodation varies greatly. Through work on the supported housing pilot scheme we know in some areas the physical buildings themselves are of poor quality, especially in respect of fire risk, but for the most part the physical quality itself broadly met national standards in Blackpool (although worth noting that the bar for national standards is already a low one).  Blackpool properties were reasonably maintained, with appropriate space and amenities; however there is a tendency for properties to be developed for exempt accommodation in areas where there are lower house prices and high deprivation and where communities are experiencing challenge, and a concentration of exempt accommodation properties within these areas, when not well managed, can exacerbate issues in some communities.

The area of weakness is more consistently the quality and effectiveness of support, as there are no national standards, and no clear funding mechanism.  This is most evident in non-commissioned accommodation which is where there are the greatest concerns, most significant, and least oversight.

We have seen a trend emerging for landlords of other types of housing, including houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and family homes, to change their accommodation status to become supported housing.  This business model is adopted not to meet local need, or as a response to a lack of need for either of these former types of housing, but simply to increase income through higher rents.

The provision of support in some non-commissioned exempt accommodation is not reflective of the needs of people and is not outcome focused. There can be a perverse incentive to keep people in supported housing longer than necessary due to the rental income and the relative ease of maintaining a static population over a regular turnover of tenants.

Councils have limited roles and intervention powers to check and address quality concerns, especially in relation to support and HB are obliged to pay if the support is “more than minimal”.

There can also be knock-on effects for communities and other public services if supported accommodation is not managed properly and people supports needs are not met (e.g ASB, blue light services)

• Is the current model of exempt accommodation financially viable, and does it represent value for money?

The ability for providers to charge higher rents for exempt accommodation is appropriate. The costs of managing shared supported housing units are higher than general needs social housing and such schemes would not be financially viable if the same Housing Benefit and welfare rules applied to exempt accommodation as general needs social housing. Most Housing Benefit claims from exempt accommodation providers are legitimate, but councils do not always have a clear picture of the costs to enable them to scrutinise value for money. There is also evidence that rising rents have in part been driven by a minority of landlords who are seeking to exploit the outdated Housing Benefit regulations for financial gain. 

There is a lack of transparency about accommodation and eligible service costs (funded by Housing Benefit) and support costs (which cannot be funded by Housing Benefit) mean some providers may have reclassified some support costs as housing-related costs so that they can be covered by Housing Benefit, which has pushed up rents.

For some councils with a high number of non-registered exempt accommodation providers (approximately 70% in Blackpool), the Housing Benefit subsidy gap is also a concern.

Alongside strengthened definitions of care, support and supervision, potentially within the current Housing Benefit regulations, there needs to be sufficient revenue funding in the system so that providers have certainty of funding for support costs and commissioners have the necessary transparency to ensure quality standards and value for money. This is particularly challenging for providers who are attempting to support people with more complex needs.

• Are there significant geographical and regional differences in the provision and the problems of exempt accommodation?

Areas with lower cost housing are more at risk from significant, and unnecessary growth, especially as the lease based developer model grows; but this is still at a national level, and so a nationwide model is needed.

• What is the proportion of exempt accommodation provided by commissioned compared to non-commissioned providers, and is an appropriate balance being struck?

In Blackpool, as in many areas, there is now very little “commissioned” accommodation (following the end of the ring fence on SP) and so HB is often the only form of funding, and regulation, in place.

• How does whether a provider is registered or non-registered, or commissioned or non-commissioned, impact the quality of provision?

Most exempt accommodation providers are reputable organisations that put the needs of their residents first and are as concerned as councils are about the minority of providers who exploit the system and damage the sector’s reputation.

Registered providers do fall under a regulatory body, but exempt from HMO licensing rules and management, which makes this a more attractive option for unscrupulous providers, and can make it more difficult for councils to ensure that accommodation is safe given registered providers are not subject to HMO rules

Where accommodation is commissioned by councils or other public sector organisations, the quality is monitored and managed through contractual arrangements. However most exempt accommodation in many areas is now non-commissioned. There are occasional local “best practice” or partnership arrangements in place, but these are very much down to good faith on the providers behalf, and not enforceable.

Councils do scrutinise Housing Benefit claims for exempt accommodation, but they do not have effective powers to challenge unreasonably high rent claims and few levers to challenge concerns about care and support by an uncooperative non-commissioned provider unless there are safeguarding issues.

• How should exempt accommodation be provided and what should the service cost?

1)      Local councils should have control over all referrals into exempt accommodation supported housing in their area, for example through a single referral ‘hub’.

2)      Housing Benefit regulations should be amended so that exempt accommodation must be commissioned, or approved by the council and linked to a quality framework.

3)      Costs will vary according to the local housing market and the financial model for individual schemes, however unreasonable levels of profit being built into investor/lease based models need curtailing.

4)      A specific category for support costs should be built into the HB regs, or alternative funding route, to show clear and transparent support costs, in addition to base housing and management costs.

5)      Councils acting as a central hub for all exempt accommodation and proactively addressing quality and value for money concerns, may require additional resources.

6)      Similarly, any additional regulation by an independent body (i.e RSH) may require additional resource

These additional resources should be off set against savings in accommodation costs, and wider costs to the public purse (health , police etc) that will come from better quality provision.

It is also worth noting that there are other types of accommodation with support that cannot be funded as exempt accommodation, such as Housing First schemes and Floating Support. The latter has suffered drastically through the elimination of supporting people ring-fence and unilateral funding mechanism of HB, and Housing First expansion is stilted by this.

A ring-fenced revenue stream delegated to LA’s and sitting outside of HB, may provide a better balance.

• How should the regulatory oversight of exempt accommodation be organised?

There are currently a number of organisations with some regulatory oversight. RSH is registered, Charities Commission if charitable, CQC is formal “care” is provided.

However there is no real focus on exempt accommodation in any one organisation, and no consistency.

This could be improved by setting up a specific regulatory body for supported/exempt accommodation, or making one of the above accountable for all.

There must also be a strengthened role for the local authority.

• What should be the regulations governing exempt accommodation and how should those regulations be enforced?

The current Housing Benefit regulations are out of date and have loopholes in them that are being exploited by the minority of exempt accommodation providers motivated by profit maximisation. Given the impact of poor providers on people and communities, these gaps must be urgently closed.

This could be achieved through HB by adding a specific “exempt” category of accommodation (as detailed earlier) and providing clear funding for “support” within it,

Furthermore all claims for exempt accommodation must be with approval from the local authority, in terms of both planning status, and strategic need.

Mandatory reporting to, and monitoring by the LA must be built in as a requirement, with a focus on outcomes.

Alternatively an entirely separate funding and regulatory system could be devised, with more powers delegated to the local authority.

• Is there sufficient publicly available information about exempt accommodation?

No

January 2022