Written evidence submitted by Westminster City Council [HOL 84]

1. Introduction

1.1              Westminster City Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to this enquiry. Our submission focuses on statutory homelessness and rough sleeping. Although these issues are interrelated, they have different causes and we have distinct responses to address them.   Our submission is an individual one but we have shared it with Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth councils as we share many of same issues - as central London boroughs managing high homeless demand in areas where housing is expensive and the cost of providing services is high. We have drawn up our comments in consultation with each other and broadly endorse the views each other have expressed.

1.2              Summary of our asks

That supply of social and supported housing does not reduce as a result of the national policy changes:

• The requirement for Starter Homes is set at a level that enables local authorities to develop other types of new homes to meet needs
• Local authorities have nominations to new social housing developed by housing associations to replace homes sold through the new extended right to buy
• There is a mechanism for high value voids, sold by local authorities, to be replaced quickly and on at least a one for one and like for like basis, and that local authorities have nominations to them if they are outside of their boundaries
• That local authorities have the freedom to develop homes outside borough boundaries to increase supply using Section 106 funding
• Supported housing services are not adversely affected by forthcoming welfare benefit changes.

1.3              That homelessness legislation and guidance is reviewed and there is a fair financial settlement:

• Local authorities can address homelessness through the offer of a private rented property, in areas that are affordable to low income households, without fear of legal challenge 
• The local authority housing duty is not fixed indefinitely but reviewable and contingent on a requirement for applicants to engage with services and support - employment or skills services for example
• That any consideration of applying the Welsh Prevention Duty to England takes into account of how it may work in a London context
• That the financial settlement for the funding of Temporary Accommodation reflects its true costs.

2. Differing causes of homelessness for households, couples and single people in Westminster

2.1              Statutory Homelessness

Westminster’s homelessness acceptances are in the top ten boroughs in London. In 2014/15, approximately 75% of the 617 households accepted as homeless in Westminster were families and 25% were single people. The largest single cause of homelessness for both singles and families who were accepted as homeless in 2014/15[1] was eviction from the private rented sector (which includes homelessness as a result of benefits shortfalls) and this has been the trend for the past three years. The second largest cause for both singles and families was disputes with family/ partners or friends (non-violent). However, it is important to note that for single homeless people, another significant cause of homelessness was leaving hospital. 

2.2              Westminster has the largest private rented sector (PRS) in England and rents are extremely high. The main cause of eviction from the PRS is that landlords are able to command rents at levels that are increasingly unaffordable to low income households, particularly for those who make up the majority of those presenting as homeless  - those who are not working and are on benefits.  As table 1 shows, rents in Westminster are well above allowable Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates (upon which Housing Benefit is based). It also shows that the majority of rents are unaffordable for non-working families within the benefit cap. This problem is most acute for larger, family-sized properties.

2.3              Rough Sleeping

Westminster has the highest number of rough sleepers in the country. Some 2,570 people were seen rough sleeping in 2014/15 and 2,197 people in 2013/14[2]. Rough sleepers in Westminster broadly fall in two categories:

• The largest category (c70% in 14/15 according to our street counts[[1]]) are economic migrants, principally from the European Economic Area (principally from Eastern Europe) who sleep rough in Westminster for a number of reasons including: because it is close to places of work, provides opportunities for begging and/or is at the centre of the transport network (with Victoria Coach Station located here, for example). Many sleep rough so they can maximise the remittances they can send to their country of origin, although some have support needs
• Around 30% are United Kingdom nationals, and most sleep rough because they have mental health, substance abuse or other issues.

2.4              The causes of rough sleeping are complex for more entrenched rough sleepers and they often have complex and multiple needs. The identified support needs of rough sleepers that were assessed during 2014/15[3] were:

• 44% - mental health support needs
• 34% - alcohol support needs
• 27% - drug support needs

3. The relationship between homelessness and the availability of social housing

3.1              As table 2 shows, demand from homeless households has always outstripped the supply of social housing in Westminster, but this has become more acute since 2011 as homeless acceptances have risen and social supply has gone down. The result is that temporary accommodation numbers have increased and a family can now wait over ten years for a social rented home. Temporary accommodation is typically procured by the Council from the private rented sector. In practice, temporary accommodation is increasingly long term housing – the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurred.  

3.2              Opportunities to develop new social housing supply are limited in Westminster due to the cost and scarcity of land here and lack of available social housing grant, so on average the majority of permanent properties that become available are from relets (i.e. homes made available by existing tenants moving out). Proposed future policy changes relating to the sale of high value council stock to fund the Right to Buy in the housing association sector and policies supporting the provision of increased affordable home ownership are likely to reduce the future supply of social rented housing. The introduction of starter homes as a planning policy requirement which will count as affordable housing may impact the viability and capacity of development sites to deliver other forms of affordable housing.

3.3              While the majority of social lets go to homeless households, the Council also has duties to rehouse other groups and it is only right that social housing should benefit a range of low income groups. Currently 4,500 households have priority for social housing of which 2,500 are homeless households.  The shortfall in social supply is exacerbated by the nature of Westminster’s stock. Currently 87% of homelessness households waiting for a home need family sized accommodation when 50% of the stock is studios and one bedrooms.   

3.4              While the Council is doing everything it can to develop new social supply and to reconfigure stock so it better meets needs, the scale of homelessness means it cannot be addressed through new social housing alone. Local authorities need greater freedoms to make fuller use of their powers to discharge their rehousing duties to homeless households into private rented housing. This will enable households to become settled into more stable and affordable housing more quickly. We suggest how this can be done more effectively in more detail in the final section.      

3.5              It is also important that national policy changes do not result in an overall reduction of social supply i.e. that:

• The requirement for Starter Homes is set at a level that enables local authorities to develop other types of new homes to meet other needs
• Local authorities have nominations to new social housing developed by housing associations to replace homes sold through the new extended right to buy
• There is a mechanism for high value voids, sold by local authorities, to be replaced quickly and on at least a one for one and like for like basis, and that local authorities have nominations to them if they are outside of their boundaries.

4. Steps to tackle homelessness and measures taken by local authorities to deal with homelessness

4.1              Statutory Homelessness

4.2              Prevention

On average 1,000 households apply for housing as homeless each year and homeless prevention is already the central focus of our work – this includes challenging illegal evictions, negotiating with private landlords, debt advice, supporting families to remain together, providing employment support and assisting with moves into the private rented sector.

4.3              Supported Housing

We provide a range of specialist supported housing services for a wide range of vulnerable groups, particularly people with mental health problems, learning disabilities, older people and rough sleepers, which are effective in preventing admissions to hospital, placements in residential care and homelessness. We are keen to work with Government to ensure that the services commissioned (which are principally provided by the voluntary sector) are not adversely affected by welfare reform changes, whilst ensuring that rental costs for individuals living there are reasonable and affordable.

4.4              A breakdown of our services is set out below:

4.5              Provision of temporary accommodation

Where homelessness cannot be avoided, temporary accommodation (TA) is provided which takes different forms. The Council has a range of contracts with providers to provide long term self-contained TA. However, the number of properties within TA subsidy levels is declining due to increases in private sector rents across London. We estimate we need a portfolio of temporary accommodation of 2,000 properties until at least 2020.

4.6              Developing new social supply

Over the past four years 343 new affordable homes have been developed by the Council and over the next three years we aim to develop 592 new social homes. A regeneration programme is also underway which will not only boost supply but also reconfigure existing stock so it better meets demand.  

4.7              Rough Sleeping

The Council commissions services to support vulnerable rough sleepers to find a lasting solution to their housing and support needs. Westminster’s location means we attract rough sleepers from across the UK and Europe and as a result, we commission services that support people who have a connection to Westminster. For those who do not have a connection, the services will offer a reconnection to a person’s home area.

4.8              Services for rough sleepers include:

• Two day services providing homeless prevention advice and support and a total of three outreach services - including a Contact and Assessment Service to assess new rough sleepers and ensure they have a clear action plan to move away from rough sleeping
• A hot spot team - to develop multi-disciplinary action plans where four or more rough sleepers are found
• A dedicated outreach team to deal with people with the most complex needs
• A range of supported accommodation, tailored to the various needs of our most complex rough sleepers. This includes six 24hr specialist hostels and semi-independent housing with specialised support
• London’s only dedicated mental health team - responsible for supporting outreach services and care for severe mental illnesses amongst rough sleepers
• Hope Worldwide – providing free (at the point of entry) private rented accommodation for rough sleepers with low needs
• A homeless health co-ordination project
• A specialist service making use of a variety of mental health professionals to support staff who work directly with rough sleepers (recognising the growing issue of personality-related disorders in the rough sleeping population).

4.9              Additionally we work with non-commissioned services such as faith based organisations and with the Home Office and Met Police. Our overall approach aims to strike a balance between supporting the most vulnerable and enforcement action to protect our communities from behaviours which can be associated with rough sleeping such as begging and anti-social behaviour.

5. The implications of the statutory duty of care, and possible extension to those in danger of homelessness, particularly single people

5.1              We understand the Committee is considering the Welsh Prevention Duty which places a duty on local authorities to help prevent homelessness and to provide private rented accommodation to all households regardless of priority need, local connection and intentionality. Homelessness prevention is already at the heart of our work and we support the principles of an approach which focuses on helping people at the earliest opportunity to prevent homelessness and a new responsibility for applicants to co-operate with the local authority.

5.2              However, further analysis must be undertaken to assess how a similar model might work in a central London context, particularly as Westminster has high homelessness levels and a high value private rented sector. Therefore, to better understand how a model might work in London, we would welcome a pilot of such an approach here before a move to change legislation. Furthermore, the final design of any scheme must take the following into account:

• Affordable accommodation options for households in the private rented sector – homelessness acceptances in Westminster are already high and the removal of priority need, local connection and intentionality from a prevention duty may lead to an increase in the number of people we have a duty towards. Although there will be more options available to help people prevent homelessness, it is likely that the offer of a property in the private rented sector will be a key option provided as part of the duty. However, there is simply not enough suitable, affordable accommodation in Westminster to meet an increase in demand, which may put additional pressures on local authorities, particularly if legislation continues to require local authorities to provide accommodation in borough. Therefore, these changes would necessitate a wider review of other homelessness legislation and guidance
• Local connection – as a local authority in central London, with a large private rented sector and a transient population, the removal of local connection may also have an impact on the level of demand. Therefore, a pilot would be important in providing in depth information about how these changes would impact London
• Detailed Implementation – homelessness is a complex area of the law and we are keen to ensure that any new model provides more simplicity and transparency, both for applicants and for local authorities. Local authorities, who navigate this complex area of the law on a daily basis, must be involved in the design and formulation of the detail of how a model will work, to help ensure that it is understandable and workable.

6. Different approaches to homelessness in big cities and in non-metropolitan areas

6.1              As stated above, a different approach is needed in London given the scale of the homelessness problem and the fact that the capital is in practice a single housing market area, with issues affecting housing and levels of homelessness that do not follow local authority boundaries. Within this, there is a need for a flexible approach that allows approaches to be tailored to a range of local circumstances - which may be different in central London from those in more suburban areas.

7. The re-establishment of the cross government Ministerial Working Group on Preventing and Tackling Homelessness

7.1              We would welcome the re-establishment of the cross government Ministerial Working Group on Preventing and Tackling Homelessness. Homelessness is a complex issue; the scale of the issue and its causes both change over time; the steps to deal with it effectively and the resources available change in turn. To date national government has been slow to change legislation and guidance to respond to these changes (the legislative framework remains in essence that introduced through the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977; the current statutory guidance dates back to 2006). There is a need to keep these issues under constant review and to make changes where this can be shown to be necessary and a ministerial working group with an expectation of periodic public reports should help ensure that this issue is given a high profile within government and that fitting the tools available to meet the changing nature of the problem is clearly seen as a national priority.

8. How levels of homelessness are monitored and reported

8.1              The collection of accurate management information is essential to understand local and national trends. Current reporting methods could better capture the scale of the homelessness problem, including:

• The length of time households have been in TA – or long term placements (this is complex as some households have been in TA a very long time and some a very short time and any average figure can be misleading).
• Any further requirements for local authorities to collect data will need a reasonable lead in time to amend systems and generally this is already an area very rich in data.

9. The effectiveness of current legislative framework in England with a review of the different approaches taken in Scotland and Wales

9.1              We believe that current homelessness legislation and guidance needs to be reviewed to be more aligned with the objectives of the Housing and Planning and Welfare and Work Bills and welcome government’s recent announcement in this area. We suggest a full review of homelessness legislation, regulation and guidance in the following key areas:

•                                                                                                                                                                                    Suitability of accommodation - we aim to place homeless households in private rented accommodation which they can afford. However the law requires local authorities to offer housing ‘in borough’ where it is ‘reasonably practicable’[4]. While every effort is made to do this, we simply cannot procure enough affordable TA or PRS accommodation in-borough (or even very close to the borough). The expectation that homeless families should be placed ‘in borough’, or very close to the borough, also applies to those who do not have longstanding connections to Westminster. Many of our out of borough placements are challenged. While we acknowledge that some households need to be able to remain in Westminster – we suggest that the law or code of guidance should be changed so that affordability is a key issue when making placements and offers, so that people can live in good quality private rented homes which they can afford in areas where they can set down roots.  Currently a number of households can only remain in Westminster as they receive Discretionary Housing Payment which is not a long term solution. The offer of private rented housing in an area which is affordable in the long term is often preferable to a wait of many years for a social home.

• Reviewable duty - currently, the homelessness assessment is geared towards deciding whether a household ‘qualifies’ for a housing duty or not. Once taken, that decision cannot be reviewed even if circumstances change, or if a social home is not the best outcome for that person. We believe the housing duty should not be fixed indefinitely but reviewed periodically and that it may include the offer of supported housing. This could help us to offer homeless households more rounded and tailored support to address their needs and to make the best use of resources when demand is very high. There should also be a requirement for applicants to engage with services and support (such as employment or skills services) offered by the local authority as a condition of accepting a duty, where they are able to work.

9.2              Additionally we suggested in our draft housing strategy that there should be a debate on a new approach to homelessness in London given the scale of the problem, with possibly a greater role for the Mayor. There was some support for this idea. A purely local response does not always result in the best outcomes for homeless households i.e. waits for a social home will always be longer where supply shortages are greater.  There is room for more regional pooling of resources and cross-boundary working to deliver economies of scale to help address issues that have national and regional dimensions as well as local ones.

9.3              Also boroughs with high land costs and limited space could do more to develop more social supply for homeless households if they had greater flexibilities to use their resources (i.e. Section 106 contributions) to develop homes beyond their boundaries. It would be helpful if planning legislation and guidance made clear that contributions secured to address local housing needs can be used beyond a local planning authority’s boundaries, reflecting the reality that after extension of the right to buy and encouraged sale of vacant high value council homes, there is likely to be more inter-borough working on affordable housing supply.  The legislative framework currently restricts the use of Section 106 funds to in borough development and the homelessness framework doesn’t allow boroughs to easily allocate homes to homeless households beyond their boundaries.

9.4              We also suggest a number of financial measures which would help local authorities tackle homelessness more effectively:

• That the homelessness prevention grant continues to be targeted towards areas where the homelessness problem is most acute.

• There is a long term fair funding settlement for TA for local authorities which covers its true costs and brings more stability for both local authorities and homeless households. The core issue is that private sector rents exceed allowable TA subsidy levels (which have remained the same since 2011). Currently many non-working households claim Discretionary Housing Payments to afford their TA rents which are not affordable within the household benefit cap. The net cost of TA to the Council of this is currently £4m p.a.

9.5              Rough Sleeping

As stated above, the homelessness prevention grant must continue to be targeted towards areas where the homelessness problem is most acute. We would welcome more cross-working throughout London, with the Mayor and other boroughs, to develop a strategic London-wide response to rough sleeping.

February 2016