Written evidence submitted by London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime [EXA 018]

 

This is a response from the Mayor of London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Sophie Linden. The core statutory functions of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime include securing an effective and efficient police force for London; bringing together criminal justice and community safety partners, to ensure that local priorities are joined up; and commissioning criminal justice services.

 

Introduction

 

I welcome the inquiry into ‘Exempt Accommodation’. The response herein focusses on the need to provide quality, safe and secure affordable supported housing to people that are vulnerable and who often have complex needs. Such housing is crucial to preventing and reducing crime. These vulnerable people fall into my safeguarding and community safety remit for which I, as the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, have responsibility and make reference to in my Police and Crime Plan.

 

I am not in a position to respond to each of the inquiry questions, which require expertise in housing and benefit regulations. Instead, I concentrate my response on developing quality assured supported accommodation for those that need it.  I set out concerns on how the unregulated exempt support housing sector, which houses significant numbers of marginalised groups with support needs, such as recent prison leavers, those fleeing domestic violence, and homeless people with substance dependence or mental health issues, are being failed.

 

I raise additional concerns around the condition of some exempt housing provision; standards of management, and levels of support supplied to vulnerable residents and their impact on anti-social behaviour on the local community.  

 

I make recommendations that include a call for a robust regulatory regime; the introduction of new national standards with transparent mechanisms; and the gathering of comprehensive data by the Department for Work and Pensions on Housing Benefit spending on unregulated support exempt accommodation, to assess Value for Money. These are paramount if we are to make long-term positive change to service delivery and practice received by our most vulnerable people.

 

Areas of Concern

 

  1. I acknowledge and recognise that there are many non-commissioned ‘exempt accommodation’ providers of supported housing whose service provision is of good quality. Their provision of a combination of safe, secure, decent housing, together with quality care support and supervision, tailored to the vulnerable persons’ individual needs, can and does positively transform lives and improve life chances.

 

  1. I pay tribute to the work they have done during this pandemic, with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Greater London Authority and London’s local authorities, to house the most vulnerable and marginalised groups, including rough sleepers, women and children fleeing domestic abuse, prison leavers, people leaving national asylum seeker services and others whose homelessness is compounded by factors such as substance dependence or mental health needs.

 

  1. However, the growth of exempt housing provision associated with investors looking to maximise returns using the higher rents permitted by exempt Housing Benefit provisions is concerning.  It is unacceptable that providers only have to provide support that is “more than minimal” to qualify for an exemption that can get them significant enhanced rates of Housing Benefit, making it attractive to them to provide such support, while also often converting homes into Houses of Multiple Occupation or shared accommodation.

 

  1. Furthermore, because Exempt Accommodation is not subject to the level of scrutiny, oversight or regulations required of other affordable housing or care suppliers, there is opportunity for unethical operators to provide inadequate support for vulnerable residents, resulting in poor, unfit housing conditions, without the effective care and support needed.  Exempt Accommodation must provide the most vulnerable people with support to address the risks associated with criminal and sexual exploitation, mental health and substance misuse. 

 

  1. Lack of consistent regulation and oversight of Exempt Accommodation providers has led to organised criminals entering the market.  The UK’s National Crime Agency has stated that ‘the property market is a route exploited by criminals, particularly in London’.  The danger is that unregulated non-commissioned Exempt Accommodation processes and services could be criminally exploited, facilitating money laundering and organised crime.

 

  1. VAWG sector providers have highlighted to my officers an upsurge in Exempt Accommodation providers outside of London housing domestic abuse survivors in unsafe and unsuitable homes with limited support.  Although this seems to be occurring predominantly outside of London, it poses a risk to survivors being housed elsewhere outside of the capital when fleeing abuse. These providers lack any expertise, quality assurance, safeguarding or governance control. They are delivering schemes in Exempt Accommodation without regard to the overall risk assessment required for safe accommodation and in places with high rates of anti-social behaviour and criminal activity. This leaves women vulnerable to further exploitation or returning to an abuser as a ‘safer’ option. That is why I asked the Government to define clearly the terms “relevant accommodation” and “domestic abuse support” in the Domestic Abuse Bill.

 

  1. Whilst developing the London Protocol for Young People Leaving Care, my officers informed me that young people are being housed in Exempt Accommodation without the much-needed care, support and supervision required. Such accommodation is not subject to Ofsted or any other care quality inspectorate. These young people are vulnerable and have complex needs. They are being put at risk of exploitation by County Line gangs and criminals that are known to target such accommodation and the young people that live there. I am told that many of these young people resort to drink and drug abuse to cope and that some self-harm, as their mental health deteriorates.

 

  1. Specialist women’s agencies that are members of London’s Blueprint Delivery Group on Female Offenders in the Criminal Justice System, report that exempt accommodation also impacts on women Foreign National Offenders on release from prison and others that have No Recourse to Public Funds. These women that may have been sex or slave trafficked, after prison release, are sometimes housed in mixed gender Exempt Accommodation, without any women specific, trauma informed support. 

 

  1. Without the adequate support required to those with complex needs, there is also potential for knock-on effects for the local community. The concentration of vulnerable residents with varying support needs can create hotspots of crime and antisocial behaviour and consequently place a disproportionate and unsustainable demand on local public services.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. It is encouraging that the Government has recently banned the use of unregulated exempt housing placement for under 16s. This should be extended to include every child in care up to the age of 18, alongside the introduction of new national standards with appropriate oversight either via Ofsted or a new inspection regime.

 

  1. The Department for Work and Pensions should strengthen the criteria and definitions of ‘care, support and supervision’ in Housing Benefit regulations.  This would allow greater consistency across all local authorities and greater transparency for residents and providers.

 

  1. Government should introduce a light-touch regulatory framework applicable to all supported housing providers, with a national register that requires evidence that providers are meeting minimum standards. This should be backed by funding and powers for local authority teams to enforce standards.

 

  1. Local authorities’ licensing powers should be extended in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation to ensure they are sufficient to prevent exploitation of the Exempt Accommodation system and to prevent an over saturation of accommodation in particular areas.

 

  1. Funding for local authorities is required to ensure that commissioned (and thus quality assured) supported accommodation is available for those who need it. Cuts in local authority budgets are one of the reasons that supported accommodation providers, including reputable providers, have become increasingly reliant on income available for enhanced housing management through Housing Benefit. New funding for support in safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse through Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act sets a welcome precedent here, although funding needs to be at higher levels and for longer periods of time. MOPAC would welcome equivalent provision for supported accommodation for other groups.

 

  1. Increased investment in affordable housing, including homes for social rent is required. Social rented homes provide a stable, affordable option for those ready to move on from supported housing. Especially in London, providers of supported accommodation struggle to secure appropriate accommodation for tenants in this position. This adversely affects those ready to move and also reduces opportunities for those newly in-need of supported accommodation to access it.

 

  1. More needs to be done to make sure that help with private rents available through the welfare benefits system is sufficient to cover private sector rents, by maintaining a link between Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates and market rents and scrapping the Benefit Cap. Shortfalls between welfare benefits and private sector tenants are one of the reasons that unscrupulous providers have set up HMOs as exempt accommodation.

 

  1. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to gather comprehensive data on Housing Benefit spending on exempt accommodation, by provider and that this be subject to a NAO investigation to determine value for money.

 

  1. Unregistered providers of Exempt Supported Accommodation need to be brought into line with local authorities and registered providers so that mechanisms are established to engage and take concerted action on the user experience of such housing residents. Systems must be developed and promoted on seeking advice, assistance and challenge, with a view to inputs in improvements and policy development. 

 

February 2022