Page |
|
1 | Summary |
2 | The nature of exempt accommodation available in Bradford |
3 | The quality of exempt housing provision in Bradford |
5 | Current financial models for funding exempt accommodation |
8 | The future of regulation |
10 | Better management of cost and provision |
11 | Publicly available information about exempt accommodation |
11 | Sources |
12 | Appendix 1: Learning From The New Domestic Abuse Duty |
This document has been prepared by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council as a direct response to the Exempt Accommodation Inquiry. Although Bradford has only around 2000 units of exempt specified accommodation, we have experienced sufficient issues with the quality of accommodation that our Housing Standards service can only focus on the most worrying. We have encountered providers where the level of support on offer to residents is approaching zero. Exempt accommodation comes in at high cost to the Exchequer through housing benefit, and the only defence against poor support and inflated rent is the Housing Benefits team, pushing back on the worst offenders. Current housing benefit subsidy rules cause a loss to the Council, which is powerless to say “we don’t need accommodation for this group there, we need it for that group here”, leaving us burdened with losing money in respect of low quality provision that is not what the District needs.
In short we feel that the current system, whatever it was intended to achieve, is not working for Bradford. We have offered some suggestions below as to how improved regulations and a strong system of regulation via licensing can weed out organisations delivering a poor product. We have also included at Appendix 1 an example of where a government initiative - The New Domestic Abuse Duty – has worked to the benefit of the District and the individuals using the provision. We feel there are lessons to be gained here both from how this initiative was able to be implemented, and the issues caused by failures in current regulation of specified housing.
At our last count Bradford had 1925 units of exempt specified accommodation of which 1603 are from Registered providers.
We cannot say precisely what is commissioned or not. This is for two reasons – the nature of one commission (described in more detail below), and the effect of micro-commissioning by Adult Services for disabled adults.
The balance between the type of provider affects the local authority financially. That the number of registered provider is so high is a reflection of the stance taken by Housing Options, which focuses on contracts with Registered Providers in order to reduce the costs for the authority, unless there is a need to commission from a specialist provider.
The question of whether the balance between commissioned and non-commissioned is discussed in detail below. Housing provider establishing accommodation without liaising with the Local Authority using an exempt housing benefit model can easily result in housing being established that is in the wrong place and/or of the wrong type, undermining a value for money approach across the District.
Commissioned accommodation has traditionally been provided by RPs in single unit purpose-built or adapted shared accommodation, primarily low rise (below 12m), family accommodation within a unit, single household accommodation in a street of houses, and dispersed single household accommodation. Exempt accommodation in the non-commissioned sector has been similar, with the agency having control of the entire building.
More recently, the Council has developed a commissioned service (now in its third year) which combines provision of interim/temporary accommodation as fulfilment of statutory duties, with a rapid move on to other accommodation, some of which is supported. To deliver exempt accommodation the provider has adopted a number of strategies, including procuring and converting buildings such as a 1960s building which had originally been a bank and offices, which was converted to provide accommodation with level access. This provider has also leased floors in medium/high rise buildings, primarily those converted from offices.
There has also been an increase in non-commissioned supported housing located in converted commercial buildings. So far in Bradford we have not seen a significant growth in exempt housing provided in multiple houses in a street, other than instances where large houses near the university, that were originally converted into student bedsits, have been taken over as exempt housing.
Bradford Council Housing Options service has a single gateway for support (both floating and accommodation). This has been tidied up a good deal in recent times – virtually all providers are now Registered Providers, although there are specialist exceptions in Domestic Violence provision and care provision. Housing Options has stopped referring to providers who are not commissioned, even though they may have been on the gateway previously, where there is no visible source of funding for the support offered to residents., with the single current exception of York House, which is not commissioned but has been inspected and is monitored.
The Council has large contracts for commissioned supported housing of various kinds, and significant recommissioning started in January 2022. The service is cautious regarding new contracts in office/mill conversions, particularly where cluster construction means the space is concentrated, and the building may have multiple other occupiers, as antisocial behaviour can become much more of a risk. There is still a need for hostel type accommodation, and this is better provided where the building is single use, but these are becoming harder to source.
Currently many office/mill conversions are being listed as supported housing, but even with commissioned provision we have seen a number of issues. There is a spectrum of quality and some providers have high standards and try to provide more aspirational trauma informed settings. While the Council has an oversight role in housing standards, limited resources men we have to focus our resource on the worst provision in a directed way. Our knowledge is limited to those providers we scrutinise closely, who are often the worst, leaving the average to mediocre to remain under the radar. In comments below on regulation, we recommend resource to be focused on raising standards regionally or nationally as well as locally.
Most of the issues below are common to converted commercial medium/high rise buildings. It is the fact that the exempt accommodation is increasingly being based in such a structure that lies behind the majority of these problems. With the general reduction in support funding in recent years, providers now have a tighter financial model and local authorities have less resource to lead on sector wide improvements, leading to much less scope for purpose-built new builds or adaptations. We have found this affects both commissioned and non-commissioned provision, irrespective of registration status.
Most developers of these kinds of conversion projects use “approved inspectors” to ensure conformance with building regulations – and the council is often not able to enforce conditions that might be imposed on developers in other kinds of construction. Fire Services are statutory consultees for planning applications but as office/mill conversions do not require planning consent, they are limited to taking action after the building comes into use. While theoretically building control should have enforced earlier requirements, and housing standards then ensure the completed premises continue to meet prescribed standards, in reality new conversions can have flats advertised and occupied without comprehensive safety checks, as there is no ‘final sign off’ required before occupation can happen (ie any enforcement action is retrospective).
A big issue generally with commercial building conversions is the chain of responsibility/ownership. Sometimes a Registered Provider/Not For Profit organisation owns the freehold of the building. Or a commercial developer or freeholder may lease all of the building to a Registered Provider. Sometimes just part of the building is leased to the RP, with other parts being managed by a managing agent on behalf of individual leaseholders. Sometimes a consortium of leaseholders can sublease to an RP. These issues make it hard to identify who to issue a notice to (or even who to speak to), who has to hold a license, who owes the Council tax, who to prosecute etc.
We have found that the following issues, while potentially affecting both commissioned and non-commissioned providers, are more likely to affect non-commissioned providers, irrespective or registration status. Commissioned supported housing is controlled to a certain extent by the commissioning body who can set standards and endeavour to police the management standards, and the type and quality of support provided.
While some non-commissioned providers offer excellent accommodation, we have found some owners bend the rules by having more tenants in smaller spaces than recommended minimums, as local authorities have limited power to enforce against this.
Poor management can create problems for tenants in any type of accommodation, such as repairs not being done. Poor management of high density accommodation used to house vulnerable persons can create problems for local public services. In accommodation where the support is commissioned, the commissioning body can specify that there is 24hr onsite support or a 24hr concierge/security service.
Where there is no clear source of funding for the personal support, there may be insufficient funds for any kind or regular management presence or a security service. Extra security or a concierge type service can be covered by housing benefit in exempt housing , but the cost of a concierge service in Bradford is estimated to be in excess of £50k pa. If the building is let piecemeal and only some is exempt housing, the managing agent for the other parts may find itself being expected to provide a security service, for which it does not have the resources.
We have encountered extreme examples where nobody is taking responsibility for the safety and security of the building - whoever is in charge has effectively walked away , even stopped maintaining the building. Residents disable fire alarms, block escape routes etc, or allow the building to be used for criminal purposes. Eventually a prohibition order has had to be issued to prevent the continued use of the building, and the remaining residents moved out.
We believe in a number of cases, the primary reason for entering the supported housing arena is simply that whoever is letting the premises can charge high rents and receive enhanced, and the tenants can claim Housing Benefit if they are in receipt of UC (or pensioners). We have noted a trend in the past for developers selling leases on individual flats or even rooms to small investors at home or overseas, to advertise that they will be suitable for student accommodation. The leaseholder may be expecting – or may even have been promised - a guaranteed rent, and the only way the developer can achieve this in a city with a very small population of students not living in the family home, is to move into the supported housing market.
Where there is no visible means of support – the service is not commissioned by a body funding the support, the provider does not have a backer such as a charitable foundation funding the support, and no-one is specifically tasked with overseeing support - the support element can be minimalist. Providers say that they are delivering support such as budgeting or claiming benefits, which a Social Housing provider would tend to provide to any occupant through its tenancy managers, and which both the local authority in Bradford and other housing providers offer through short term floating support
The concentration of vulnerable persons in with poor support in high density accommodation with poor management, particularly if compounded by there being a high density of other tenants in the building or nearby area, can quickly lead to problems of antisocial behaviour. Providers are free not to engage with the Local Authority and so poor providers have no duty to engage beyond just doing enough to get their enhanced rent under the HB regulations. Without regulations on standards it is left to the police and local community safety enforcement to deal with any problems.
Current planning legislation allows conversion of commercial and industrial buildings for residential purposes as permitted development – ie the developer does not need to go through the whole process of applying for planning permission. The Council role is largely restricted to where the development creates drainage/flooding/highways issues. This creates problems where significant numbers of residents are introduced to areas that do not have infrastructure in place. There is no control over the provision for waste management - enough bins, recycling bins, bin collections, bin storage areas - as there would be if a developer was building a new block of flats or a housing estate and planning conditions could be imposed. Waste encroaches onto the highway and creates council duties, attracting flytipping, rats and generally making the city centre look like a wasteland.
The lack of planning and other controls mean that Bradford Council cannot manage provision in order to tailor it to actual need in the District. A majority of non-commissioned providers want tenants that will give little trouble and can be managed at little expense. Bradford needs accommodation for tenants that are chaotic, incapable of managing alone, serious substance misusers, with a significant offending history, or other categories likely to be high needs, high risk or both.
We have found that if the local authority does not make use of exempt accommodation, whether by offering a tendered commission or simply by placing individuals through an informal arrangement, the provider will fill the units up anyway, offering accommodation to people from outside the District, possibly in some informal arrangement with another LA. This then puts a burden on Bradford care and NHS services.
We feel it is necessary to look at the entirety of cost, including the HB subsidy, even in commissioned services. The new commissioners have asked that all commissioned services be Registered Providers or working with a Registered Provider. This is being done on the basis of the overall cost to the authority, and would allow for bespoke provision by organisations other than Registered Providers where this is the most appropriate option.
Bradford Council has undertaken the construction of purpose built accommodation intended for exempt use, notably Jermyn Court which was built by the Council and is currently leased to a commissioned Registered Provider to provide temporary accommodation for homeless households. This was an expensive build, providing flexible, safe and secure space. Accommodation which is constructed or adapted for use by disabled occupants requires more space, so less people fit in the building, and may give rise to other expenses relating to eg fire safety and access.
It was always difficult to commission this kind of accommodation, and expensive. What has happened more recently is that cluster flats in converted office blocks, which would be suitable for students or others who might not spend a lot of time there, but are not suitable for people requiring exempt accommodation, particularly those needing disability adaptations, have been offering exempt housing at premium rates and have raised the costs for everyone.
Funding for the ongoing cost of a unit of exempt accommodation is universally based wholly on the rental charge, for which there is an expectation that enhanced Housing Benefit will be paid. This is true for commissioned and non-commissioned, registered and non-registered providers.
Controls on the levels of rent are poor. Rents in excess of £300 per week are common. It is notable that where the rent charged has to be referred to the Rent Officer for a determination of Local Reference Rent, the Rent Officer generally files a much lower figure for rent.
However, this does not mean that a lower amount of Housing Benefit is paid to the provider. Exempt accommodation is subject neither to Local Housing Allowance (LHA) nor to Local Reference Rent (LRR) restriction Housing Benefit services still have to pay the full amount claimed – the impact of the Rent Officer’s decision falls on the local authority budget, not the provider.
Where the provider is a Registered Provider, the local authority can recoup the whole of the rent through the HB subsidy. This may not adversely affect the local authority’s budget, but it still drives up costs in the sector.
Where the provider is a non-registered not for profit organisation, the subsidy payment will only cover a maximum of 40% of the difference between the Rent Officer’s decision and the amount paid. In addition the subsidy process restricts claims using the DWP criteria for vulnerability, and many providers accommodate claimants who do not fall into one of the DWP categories and have low support needs.
Bradford Council lost £1.4m in subsidy last year because of this. That is £1.4m that could have been used to commission accommodation and support that was needed in the District and appropriate to the needs of those residing there.
A further challenge of this funding model, which affects individual tenants rather than local authorities, is that while the level of enhanced housing benefit is not affected by the claimant’s income while they are entitled to universal credit, if the claimant loses their entitlement to UC, they will lose their entitlement to housing benefit. Even if circumstances are such that full entitlement is not lost, the amount of the award may drop so significantly. With rents running at around £300 per week, this makes the property instantly unaffordable.
Where such individuals have lost access to UC because they have recovered (eg from drug/alcohol dependency or mental ill health) providers could move them on to general needs and out of the category of persons requiring exempt accommodation. However –
This creates a tendency for the provider to continue to class the person as needing support when really they do not have these support needs, because otherwise they can no longer live there because the rent is so high. It also creates a dependency in tenants.
Even where the provider is holding onto tenants for the best of reasons. Because of the pandemic this has happened with some DV shelters where residents have remained despite no longer needing the support provided by the establishment, because at the time move-on was impossible or fraught with the genuine risk of exposure to Covid.
Where exempt accommodation is commissioned, the commission will cover the cost of personal support for the individuals placed there (and various administrative charges) on the assumption that the rent element, including any enhancements to the rent due to the nature of the tenant, will be covered by housing benefit.
If a landlord is relying on support provided by a different provider, the accommodation is deemed “managed accommodation” and does not attract the high levels of housing benefit payable where the provider of housing also provides support. In micro-commissioning by our Adult Services, as care is provided by a different agency, this falls in the managed accommodation category.
It is therefore much more profitable for landlords to be able to claim that they also provide support, as they can then claim Enhanced Housing Benefit for providing services such as
A quick Google search will reveal numerous sites where consultants offer their services to providers to enable them to ‘prove’ that because they provide services of this type, they are in fact exempt providers and can claim enhanced housing benefit. (for example https://supportedhousing.blog/2020/05/04/exempt-accommodation-specified-accommodation-intensive-housing-management/ and https://www.supportsolutions.co.uk/briefing/issue_12/exempt_specified_accom/ )
However, Housing Benefit cannot be used to pay for the personal support element of exempt housing – it will pay for a concierge but not a counsellor - so Bradford Council pushes back on this circular argument if it is presented to them.
This can leave non-commissioned providers with no visible means of paying for personal support for their tenants, resulting in an unsustainably poor product all round.
Currently if a provider is a registered social landlord, they are regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing. In its oversight role, he regulator tends to focus on financial and asset management, and the senior levels of oversight of the provider. While it has enforceable consumer standards in respect of social housing, a great deal of exempt housing managed by registered providers is not listed by them as social housing, and so does not fall under these standards. It is notable that while the standards refer to ‘low cost’ housing, exempt accommodation is anything but low cost.
The regulator can de-register an organisation, but while this would have a serious downside for an organisation whose main purpose was the provision of actual social housing, this seems to have little impact on providers whose main offering is exempt accommodation. As most would also qualify as Not For Profit, they will in most cases just move on to NFP status. De-regulation may provide grounds to shut down a future scheme but that is not certain – and unregulated providers can still claim enhanced housing benefit.
It should be noted that most NFPs are charities, but the Charity Commissioners take no role in overseeing them as providers of exempt accommodation.
Local Authority Housing Standards services have in the past used their powers to close down buildings containing exempt accommodation, as have Fire & Rescue Services. Even so, it would be a bold Housing Standards officer that declared a registered provider not a fit and proper person to manage the accommodation and denied them a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) license.
It does feel that other than the limited powers of those tasked with overseeing the physical safety of premises, the local authority Housing Benefit department is the only agency with any ability to control or regulate exempt accommodation. Buildings can be sold piecemeal and let out half-finished, without Building Control or Fire Service sign off and without anyone being licensed as the landlord. HMO licensng is not a deterrent – irresponsible owners do not take any notice and often it is not even clear who to prosecute. Exempt housing is exempt from any selective licensing requirement.
We do get the feeling that that an abuse of process arises these days from registered providers who are in effect ‘fronting’ for freeholders looking for profits. In one case a provider came in at the request of the landlord of premises comprising a converted pub and snooker hall, which is now generating complaints from and about tenants. There has been a suspicion of dubious arrangements in one scheme, with the majority of the housing benefit collected by the RP being apparently passed back to the owner of the property rather than used to maintain the premises and deliver the kind of services warranting enhanced housing benefit, and the owner then using some of the money to provide a small amount to cover “support”.
The Housing Benefit service in Birmingham (as described in the HOCL report Supported exempt accommodation (England) (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9362/) appeared to believe it had no choice but to pay the enhanced HB, but the report itself noted that there was good evidence in Birmingham that some providers were providing no support or wholly inadequate support, and this would have been a justification for suspending HB. It is not permitted to use either the HB or the service charge for the purpose of providing support.
The power of the housing benefit department is however limited. It cannot reject a HB claim based on subsidy claim criteria, but can challenge a provider on unreasonable costs. It can only question the volume of support, not the quality. Case law has established that it must be more than De Minimis, and it must actually be provided, not just available upon request. It can also challenge the circular argument outlined above - that because a provider delivers the kind of services that can be included within the rent for housing benefit purposes, this means that it is delivering the kind of support to warrant it being a provider of exempt housing, even though personal support cannot be paid for out of housing benefit and it has no visible means of funding such support.
There is a need for a national quality standard for exempt accommodation, along the lines of national standards for care homes which address standards of the premises, the care provided, and the management.
We do feel the solution is some kind of licensing, with powers to inspect. Licenses could be issued by local authorities, or a central body could issue licenses. We do feel it would be better if the licensing powers lay with the local authority, as the appropriate regulations would incorporate several powers that local authorities already have.
The license application should cover
The regulations should cover
Licenses should be short – maybe 3 years, and renewal should involve checks on accommodation standards, standards of support, confirmation that enhanced housing benefit claims are only being made for tenants requiring support, and an evaluation of the overall quality of the scheme. Commissioned providers should provide evidence for the current commission. It may be appropriate to require non-commissioned providers to submit evidence as to the source of funding for support on an annual basis.
It would allow better control over the provision in an area if the local authority were required to produce an overall needs assessment for the area, to which the grant of license could be linked.
We feel some kind of licensing should also apply to specified accommodation that is micro-commissioned, as once someone is settled and with a care package in place, there may not be anyone from the local authority Adult services team in regular contact – the tenant may no longer have a social worker or social work package.
We do wonder if the government of the day had expected all these office block conversions to be put forward as exempt housing when it created the permitted development category for conversion of commercial buildings to housing.
Exempt housing as currently funded costs the Exchequer a great deal in enhanced Housing Benefit. It also costs local authorities, who have to pay through loss of housing benefit subsidy for accommodation that may be both unnecessary and unsuitable. Local Authority housing benefit managers can query whether the cost of the components in the enhanced rent are overpriced, but not whether they are necessary given the type of clientele for which the accommodation is intended.
It is interesting in this context that in Housing First schemes, from the small one operated by Bradford Council to the substantial work of Housing First Scotland, the cost of the accommodation is not significantly higher than LHA rate/social rent. The tenant (or Universal Credit) only ever pays rent at a rate that UC will pay. The scheme may offer the landlord (if the property is rented from a private landlord or other provider) cover for damage or loss of rent, and pay for furnishings, enhanced security, or even better fireproofing (if the person being housed has a history of arson), but these are part of the scheme costs, not the accommodation costs reclaimable from housing benefit.
We feel that something like the method employed in the Domestic Abuse Duty (see Appendix 1) where a local authority is specifically tasked with and funded to identify needs within the LA area and provide suitable long and short term housing for those requiring support along with accommodation is an effective route to better provision and lower cost. Provision could be by a number of means – in-house, commissioned, or by licensing non-commissioned providers. On-spec provision by commercial landlords, whether or not fronted by a RP or NFP can be controlled by licensing and the need to meet the LA needs assessment for the area.
If resourced, a local authority can work collaboratively for the benefit of the individual, provider and system (see Appendix A). It feels at the moment that the balance is not correct as the power it with the provider and that prevents consistency, affects value for money and inhibits the creation of a managed strategy to address need.
There is currently insufficient information available to the general public to understand the different types of specified accommodation, what they should cost, what they should deliver, and how to access the service.
There also seems to be a limit on the information available to researchers and decision makers. Part of this is because of the lack of relationship between providers and the LA if there is no commissioned provision – the only source of information is the Housing Benefit service, and that is very limited.
Key data around demographics, where people have moved from, how long they stay, what their support needs are, what is addressed during their stay and what remains as a need, how much support is provided and the nature of what is provided, why the tenancy ends, where people move to are all relevant data sets to allow strategic needs based planning to be responsive to need and to prevent cycles of homelessness or trauma.
This document has been prepared by a group representing the following functions within Bradford Council -
This submission also contains some factual information from
The Government investment around domestic abuse has created a number of issues around exempt accommodation.
Local Need – this funding was to be spent on providing support based on a local needs assessment. However, the investment also led to a number of housing provider establishing accommodation without liaising with the Local Authority using an exempt housing benefit model. This resulted in housing being established that was in the wrong place and of the wrong type. This undermines a value for money approach to give one example shared accommodation was created when our needs assessment advocated for larger units.
Quality of Support – A number of new providers set up who had no experience of supporting victims of domestic abuse. They appeared to be driven by a financial model and the opportunity to bid for funding rather than a model based on quality of support. Concerns raised were around a number of issues but some examples were
Consistency Across Local Authorities – In Bradford we worked closely with our housing benefit colleagues to improve the quality of support, shape provision and challenge claims when necessary. As this approach was not replicated by all Local Authorities there is a lack of consistency across the country and in particular this leads to challenge from providers around the requests to raise standards. From a provider perspective it also provides a confusing position.
In Bradford we have been successful in working with three of our local providers of specialist support into moving into providing accommodation for their client groups, supporting the local system need for accommodation and opening the financial opportunity for their organisation. The three providers have done so using an exempt accommodation model.
Organisation | Funding Model | Client group | Key Learning
|
Staying Put
| Secured the contract to run the Domestic Abuse Services. The refuge provision was supported by exempt accommodation. The contract asked for transformation to provide better quality accommodation and supporting a move to independent living whilst reducing the repeat victimisation rate.
| Victims of domestic abuse | - Created a social interest company - Recruited new board with specialist housing knowledge - Dispersed model developed to create through put in refuge - Moving towards RSL status - Have created a brand - They aim to transform lives by providing housing to those who have experienced domestic abuse, with short and long term options. Their inclusive homes are for anyone who needs them. Offering good quality accommodation, affordability, safety and solace and support for tenancy sustainment
|
The Bridge Project
| Worked with a national social impact fund but needed to provide some evidence of running a small housing project. Housing project funded by short term local authority funding supported by exempt accommodation.
| Pilot project for sex workers but moving towards housing those experiencing complex lives. | - Pilot work evidenced the benefit of collaboration - Using short term funding to generate a legacy - Created a safe to stay crisis model. - Now able to access the social impact funding. - Ambition to work towards RSL status. - |
Bradford Rape Crisis
| WISH fund secured supported with an exempt accommodation model.
| Vulnerable women initial focus on domestic abuse victims. | - Linkage with a women’s sector expert in the housing field which is also a RSL - Scalable and able to focus on emerging issues - Initially housing benefit claimed through the RSL. - Swift progress on accessing the financial benefit of this model. - Working towards RSL status supported by the RSL expert organisation |
These examples were based on collaboration of voluntary community sector organisations, domestic abuse strategic team, housing and housing benefit teams. We would recommend that consideration is given to make this type of collaboration a way to ensure that exempt accommodation provides quality and is value for money. This had the benefit as follows:
For the individual – they receive quality of support and accommodation is more readily available.
For the organisation – funding and support to move into housing as a way to meet their client’s group needs and the ability for the organisation to access experts and to look at financial benefits of operating their own accommodation model.
For the system – New accommodations meet local needs, is based on a move towards RSL status for providers and harnesses the power of the VCS Knowledge to co-produce what works for their client group.
January 2022