Written evidence submitted by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners [EXA 107]

We are responding to the Select Committee’s call for evidence on ‘exempt housing’ as the APCC’s portfolio leads for Addictions and Substance Misuse. As you will know, such accommodation is used to house people in treatment for addictions, as well as people in the criminal justice system (notably prison leavers), rough sleepers, etc., but we are not confident it is consistently being provided in a positive environment with the necessary support. Large multi-occupancy housing can also be linked to anti-social behaviour that impacts on the wider community, and to criminal activity.

We highlight our concerns about non-commissioned housing below. First, however, we want to acknowledge those providers who offering very good and essential support for vulnerable people, for example, many domestic abuse refuges delivered by the specialist VAWG sector, whom we work with in our force areas.

However, the experience of the local authorities that we work with is that this housing is often of poor quality. In Dorset, for example, residents are being attracted by adverts on sites like Gumtree to housing that requires no rent or deposit in advance with promises of support that do not materialise. Little consideration appears to be given to the mix of residents in schemes where 40 or more people can be housed together in a single building - for example, those in recovery from a drug problem can find themselves living with people in active addiction.   

There is also evidence that non-commissioned providers may encourage people who are not local to an area to access accommodation, which can contribute to local homelessness and rough sleeping demands. This is a particular concern given the concentration of multi-occupancy housing in some of our most deprived neighbourhoods, which also experience some of the highest demands for support services.

These providers can be based a long way from the communities where they are providing housing (i.e. in other parts of the country) and be in only intermittent contact with local agencies in those areas.  This may help to explain why non-commissioned exempt providers can fail to engage with local partnership arrangements for supporting vulnerable people - for example on homelessness prevention and housing pathway planning. This is a source of local system issues as there is a lack of planning around the support that residents will need, such as access to local substance misuse treatment and recovery services.

Exempt providers can set rental levels far higher than Local Housing Allowance rates, by meeting a loose regulatory requirement to provide ‘care, support or supervision’ to claimants. In practice, it can be difficult to determine whether tenants are receiving the care and support that is promised or even that the basic regulatory requirements are met. We are concerned that some providers are working with a model that prioritises rental income over local strategic need and the needs of vulnerable people – often working with private developers, and not speaking to local authorities, the police, and other key services.

Residents can pay over the odds for the quality of accommodation and support that they receive. At the same time, one Local Authority told us that the cost of exempt accommodation is increasing year on year as more non-commissioned exempt providers enter the market. This can mean that there is less funding available for other services that help the very people that exempt accommodation is claiming to assist.

As well as the quality of accommodation and support for residents, we are concerned by instances where non-commissioned exempt landlords have been unwilling or unable to tackle anti-social behaviour emanating from their premises – in Dorset, for example, there has been at least one occasion where a local authority has used ASB legislation to issue a closure order for a premise, which is not something the local authority or police would expect to be happen with a responsible landlord who puts the needs of their tenants first.

We are particularly disturbed by reports that Organised Crime Groups may be acting as landlords in this space, linked to modern slavery and other exploitative practices. It is a scandal if current controls around provision for exempt accommodation are allowing serious criminals to control and exploit vulnerable people, and to use public money to do so.

As PCCs we are not experts in this area, with the key regulatory powers resting with local authorities. But we do know these powers are limited, and we are concerned to ensure local authorities are resourced and supported to exercise them robustly. We note that exempt accommodation providers are not required to discuss potential schemes with local authorities or to consult with them before a scheme is progressed. We would like to see this gap addressed in the Committee’s inquiry. The police also need to be involved in discussion and consultation on the proposed schemes for exempt accommodation.

We need to ensure that all organisations that are housing vulnerable people provide an acceptable standard of accommodation and support to meet their residents’ needs. Our focus as PCCs is on cutting crime, tackling addictions, and reducing re-offending, and we know that access to suitable accommodation, with appropriate support, is critical for this. Many of those who are at risk of offending – including those in treatment for addictions – will have difficulty accessing mainstream housing and need to be supported appropriately.

We applaud the Committees timely and important inquiry into exempt accommodation and believe PCCs have a key role to play, working with our local authority colleagues.  We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further with the committee.

February 2022