Written evidence submitted by Nottingham City Council and Nottingham City Homes [EXA 093]

This response is submitted by Nottingham City Council (NCC) and the Nottingham City Homes Group (NCH). Nottingham City Council is the strategic housing authority for the city, as well as a social landlord of around 25,000 council owned homes. NCH Group also comprises a small Registered Provider of social housing (NCH RP) responsible for around 400 homes and NCH Enterprises Ltd (NCHEL) which provides around 300 market rented homes, as well as managing a number of homes on behalf of other social landlords. The City Council takes a strategic overview of around 10,000 other social rented homes in the city, provided by a range of social landlords, some locally based whilst others are regional or national. Social housing represents around 25% of all housing in the city of Nottingham.

This response uses the questions posed in the Select Committee’s call for evidence as the basis for the responses set out below. Should further information be required this can be requested.

Nottingham’s response broadly relates to exempt accommodation that provides support to singles and families at risk of homelessness, domestic abuse survivors, people with mental ill health, ex-offenders and others with housing related support needs.

References throughout this document:

CICs – Community Interest Company
RPs – Registered Provider
RS – Registered Societies (co-operative societies, community benefit societies, and former industrial and provident societies)
LA – Local Authority

What is the quality of exempt accommodation?

With specific reference to CICs, RS and lease based RPs, the quality of accommodation can cover a number of matters which have detailed below:

Property Standards

Although a number of organisations in the city meet HHSRS and HMO requirements, Nottingham has also come across occasions where properties have been let to tenants in poor housing conditions with a lack of amenity provision or small room sizes that have required action to be taken under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, including improvement notices and prohibition orders to improve the standards of the accommodation. We believe without these orders, property standards would not have improved in a sufficient and timely manner, to not cause distress to existing and new tenants.

At its worse, Nottingham has witnessed instances where poor safety standards led to the Fire Service serving an enforcement notice on a property that is operated by a CIC, housing ex-offenders.

It is our view that certain organisations are changing and using their registered statuses of CIC or RS to evade licensing requirements under Part 2 and 3 of the Housing Act 2004, thus enabling organisations to manage properties and tenancies as they see fit, away from basic minimum standards that the local authority is seeking to uphold, therefore requiring intervention

Property Management

Nottingham have found property management to generally be poor in a number of supported accommodation settings. For example, this is due to a number of factors including:

• Lack of risk assessment in place prior to housing household

A number of organisations lack policies or vetting procedure to ensure the safety of existing and new residents, and whether the setting is suitable for the individuals support needs.

• The inappropriate mixing of cohorts i.e. (men and women / drug & alcohol abusers / domestic abuse survivors)

Nottingham City Council advises all organisations to be mindful of housing individuals with multiple and complex needs and ensuring that those accommodated are suitable to reside together in harmony i.e. not mixing families with vulnerable singles. Nottingham is aware of an instance where a survivor of domestic abuse was housed by an organisation, who then proceeded to also house the domestic abuse perpetrator in the same accommodation not long after the survivor was housed. Adult Social Care were involved in this case.

• Volunteers providing support in premises (high turnover)

Having contacted organisations to query particular matters, we’ve found upon visits or calls a high turnover of staff at premises. I.e. volunteers generally provide support to residents and property management. It is unknown what experience the volunteers have to support cohorts and whether appropriate DBS checks have been undertaken etc.

• Beds in kitchen

An external agency alerted the Council, to a case where a citizen housed by a CIC, was actually residing in the kitchen of a premises i.e. a bed was placed in the kitchen for the citizen to sleep.

• County Lines Investigation

An external public body alerted the Council to investigations being undertaken in regards to a Nottingham based CIC that is suspected of being involved with County Lines activity. Referrals were immediately stopped by the agency whilst investigations are undertaken.

• Cash in hand activities

An external public body alerted the Council to cash in hand payments being requested of tenants. The organisation in question, is in receipt of exempt Housing Benefit, however further requests for payments are made of tenants via a cash in hand agreement.

It must also be recognised that poor quality accommodation has a negative impact on the people who live in them, both in terms of physical and mental health as well as other aspects of what can be termed life chances.

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

With specific reference to CIC, Registered Societies and lease based Registered Providers, it could be argued that the existing model of exempt accommodation does not represent VFM for the tax payer.

Without undertaking a detailed analysis of the exact public sector officer time spent managing concerns raised about a property, or by other support bodies, or public agencies, colleagues do feel a disproportionate amount of time can be spent managing and investigating allegations of concerns.

Nottingham City Council works with a number of internal colleagues alongside of other public sector bodies and charities including: DWP, Probation, Police and the former Community Rehabilitation Company to raise concerns accordingly.

Local authorities have been under significant financial pressure in recent years and are not adequately resourced to carry out this function, as demonstrated in the recent supported accommodation pilots in Birmingham, Hull and other LAs, additional resource and legislation is required to scrutinise providers and weed out poor providers.

Recent concerns have related to:

• Illegal Evictions

Nottingham City Council is aware of hearsay illegal evictions, however vulnerable citizens who have been resident in such properties do not always have the confidence to come forward and provide evidence or a statement of accounts. However, as many of these organisations work as a “closed network”, on occasions, although a citizens will be evicted from one premise, they will at times be housed by another related provider, which can create a vicious circle of dependency.

• Financial Coercion

Nottingham City Council, and other public sector bodies are aware of aggressive financial practices undertaken by CICs in the city. These include comments being placed upon applicants Universal Credit (UC) journals to confirm that the Landlord can act on behalf of the individual.
This practice has become a theme with a particular provider and evidence has recently come to light that the “tenant” must enable the CIC landlord access to the UC account as a condition of residency.

• Anti-Social Behaviour

Nottingham City Council has received complaints from neighbours of supported accommodation and local Police Community Support Officers of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) fly tipping, externally poor conditions and the general maintenance of properties. Communities are being negatively impacted upon, by a small number of organisations that manage a large number of properties and rooms. Investigations into matters by the agencies concerned takes up limited and valuable officer resource as a direct result of these businesses poor standards.

In late 2021 Nottingham City Council were alerted to a physical altercation between residents of a CIC in the city. Arrests were made by the Police and knives were also taken away from the scene.

• Exempt Housing Benefit

Nottingham Revenue & Benefits are responsible for the assessment of Housing Benefit for Nottingham City Council. It has experienced difficulties assessing claims in a number of situations where it has been asked to apply exempt accommodation status.

Issues have included

• Opaque arrangements between the property owner and leaseholder landlord
• Leases requiring the landlord to take on significant refurbishment of the accommodation during the lease period
• Service contracts with businesses which have links to the owner/leaseholder landlord
• Apparent lease and service charge inflation
• Landlords claiming to support non-profit parts of the business through other profit-making activities
• Poor evidence of support

These, and other features would suggest possible contrivance to take advantage of the Housing Benefit scheme

Nottingham is aware of cases where a CIC had not correctly allocated received Exempt Housing Benefit to the correct clients’ accounts within the accommodation. This resulted in citizens being advised they are in arrears, which ultimately led to an eviction being served for arrears which was a result of poor financial management by the CIC. This again resulted in a negative experience of supported accommodation for a Nottingham citizen, as well as cost consequences for other agencies.

• Citizens approaching the LA for support

Nottingham City Council is aware of individuals that have been housed by a CIC, for six months, however they’ve approached the LA as homeless due to not having a support plan being in place to resolve personal support and housing needs.
This can have a negative impact on a vulnerable individual and does not represent VFM. Taxpayers have subsidised the individuals rent and support, only for them to continue requiring support, due to an unregulated support provider whom has not met the needs of the citizen.

We deem the above issues as not representing value due to significant sums of public money being paid to organisations for intensive housing management which at times has been poor or non-existent.

The voice of former tenants and local citizens within the community would be a crucial indicator to understand the success of a number of supported accommodation providers. As organisations housing vulnerable and sometimes an unseen cohort, it’s difficult to trace individuals, therefore regulation is required to protect vulnerable adults from abuse.

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

With specific reference to CIC, Registered Societies and lease based Registered Providers, we understand the same issues that apply in Nottingham, have also been experienced in Hull, Birmingham, Bristol, Derby and other Local Authority areas in the Country.

Nottingham has met with all the above named LA’s and others. Experiences are broadly identical across the spectrum, with some issues more prevalent than others.

As detailed previously, Nottingham has seen an increase in the number of new supported accommodation providers operating and approaching the Council for referrals, especially during the pandemic. All providers broadly specialising in supporting homeless singles, citizens rough sleeping or ex-offenders.

As detailed previously problems with exempt accommodation providers have included:

• Excessive claims for exempt housing benefit
• Anti-social behaviour at supported accommodation
• Illegal evictions from accommodation
• Avoidance of licensing

Nottingham City Council has evidence of a CIC which purports they are working with several LA’s in other cities. Upon Nottingham approaching the LA’s to verify the information, it transpires they do not have a working relationship with the LA. In a number of cases, it transpires that an application for supported accommodation has been submitted and that is the extent of the “working relationship”.

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

Nottingham is aware of approximately 4,000 supported accommodation bed spaces within the city. Of that number approximately 300 are owned/managed by CICs, RS and lease based RPs.

Although the number of 300 may seem small, a number of CIC and RS providers also own a significant number of shared accommodation units in the city that are not at this point classed as supported accommodation.

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

We have found where a provider has been commissioned by the LA the impact has been as follows:

• Streamlined relationship:- Clear referral routes not requiring the provider to horizon scan for new business, potentially taking risks, housing and mixing unsuitable cohorts due to void property pressures
• Accommodation standards:- Expectations set from the outset of the relationship including compliance certification, property  and room standards, cohort support expertise, goals to ensure transitions to independence alongside reviews undertaken regularly to ensure the appropriate throughput
• Management of accommodation:- Inspections undertaken prior to the housing of individuals, clarity around safeguarding process, risk assessments and management procedures in place
• Nottingham citizens: Nottingham citizens have priority access to services, thus those with a local connection can continue to be located around relevant support networks to aid independence and rehabilitation into the community. This also help maintain local relationships which can be very important for some clients in need of support.
• Higher confidence in the standards and delivery of support to residents

Nottingham has found organisations whom are not commissioned or regulated, do not have some of the above processes in place.

Nottingham has limited experience of lease based RPs in the city. However, on a small number of occasions where the Council has developed a relationship with a private developer whom has built purpose built accommodation for adults with learning disabilities, and leased the accommodation to an RP for management purposes, this has been a success. The relationship has required a third party providing specialist support to individuals in the property thus creating a three way relationship.

This model has proven successful to:

• Accommodated adults in appropriate and good quality accommodation
• Enable appropriate and high support to be provided to individuals, planned and delivered specifically for the individuals needs
• Enabled independence in some circumstances
• Provided a cost effective option to institutional care

However, as has been the theme throughout this document, unregulated providers of supported accommodation have required significant intervention to manage accommodation standards and ASB, than established not for profit RPs that operate in the city.

Where organisations are already part of a wider regulatory regime (for example social housing providers) there is typically a culture in those organisations of customer focus, minimum service standards, published or accessible procedures and policies etc that typically results in a higher standard of support, and better client focussed service delivery

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

This would vary across regions due to property prices, wages and ultimately the support required by those housed? Broadly a supported accommodation service needs to:

• Cover reasonable property mortgage or lease costs
• Cover the costs of regulation / inspections by an external body
• Require minimum standards of quality and provision
• Require minimum standards of support that is spot checked
• Ensure staff recruited to provide support have relevant experience
• DBS checks for persons involved
• Feedback to an auditor service user engagement and successes

How should the regulatory oversight of exempt accommodation be organised?

• Similarly to the Regulator of Social Housing, a regulatory body must have oversight of all supported accommodation providers similarly to that of the care homes and social housing sector
• Exempt accommodation status requires that the landlord should be a housing association, registered charity or voluntary organisation. Voluntary organisations in particular, may not need to be registered with a specific body. This should be a requirement for each type of landlord and the governing body should have proper oversight of those organisations activities
• Housing Benefit legislation needs to be tightened to ensure that standards, support and the accommodation are of a good standard. Being able to claim high(er) levels of housing benefit must come with additional scrutiny that is mandatory, rather than the current position of “above a minimum standard” threshold which is relatively hollow threshold
• Company ownership and links between persons must be understood. If one organisation with the same directors is operating poorly, it is likely the same practices be duplicated at other premises
• The Social Housing White Paper has a strong focus upon the quality of accommodation and engagement between tenant and landlord. Within a supported housing setting, this should be no different and can be vital to the rehabilitation of the individual.
• Mandate a fit and proper persons check for all persons providing supported accommodation alongside mandatory DBS checks for all associated staff

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

• Provide funding and enforcement powers to “someone” e.g. Local Authorities or a regulator that inspects organisations and business viability
• Review the ability for Local Authorities to be allocated funding which is then awarded to supported accommodation providers based on need within the locality, working in partnership with other public bodies i.e. probation, NHS and City Care

Much of the comments to the previous point also relate to this section.

Is there sufficient publically available information about exempt accommodation?

With specific reference to CIC, Registered Societies and lease based Registered Providers, providing accommodation to homeless households and ex-offenders, it is likely individuals may not have the means or ability to access available online resources.

Many ex-offenders whom have just left prison, may not be concerned about housing conditions, but more focussed on ensuring they are not recalled back into prison, therefore settling for poorer standards of housing accommodation and support to avoid being recalled.

The National Statement of Expectations for supported accommodation is a lengthy document that needs amending to set out clear and defined expectations of providers and repercussions in instances where actions/activities do not happen.

January 2022