Attached is an update report on the activity and performance of the Council’s Housing directorate in the most recent quarter.

Richard Wood, Strategy and Service Development Manager will be attending to present the report.

The Panel is asked to consider the report and AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising from it.

Richard Wood, Strategy and Service Development Manager, presented the Housing Performance Q2 report to the Panel.

Within homelessness services the overall context of greater pressure on the system was an important component, with the Covid-related eviction ban ceasing, the service had seen increased pressure arising from the private rented sector. Despite the pressures, KPIs were holding up well, with recognition given to the hard work of the homelessness team. Homeless prevention measures were continuing to be invested in and were shown through the statistics to be effective. The rise in pressure on the homelessness service put a direct pressure on temporary accommodation, but the team had increased the speed at which placements were found, thereby enabling the target to remain within range. The Council had received a one-off uplift to its homelessness grant from central government and was planning to direct the increase towards addressing the rising demand from the private rented sector. This would be through direct pecuniary support for tenants, such as support with rent arrears, but also greater support with debt, addition or difficulties finding jobs. There would also be investment in providing infrastructure to support better tenant-landlord relations.

Rough sleeping numbers were above target, at 27 vs a target of 17. Seasonal factors did play a part in this result, with Q2 historically showing the highest number of rough sleepers, as did specific situational factors, such as the end of the ‘everybody in’ programme. However, numbers remained roughly at the level of last year and more than 50% below pre-pandemic levels. Changing weather in Q3 and the progress made in supporting those leaving accommodation under ‘everybody in’, as well as forthcoming changes such as the re-opening of Floyds Row and the launch of the new county-wide approach to rough sleeping, were expected to reduce these numbers in time. It was accepted, however, that the overall rough sleeper numbers were a factor of multiple local and national causes, and that a future KPI which focused on the Council’s own contribution to these figures would be preferable.

The Council’s development of affordable homes was above target, with 68 homes being delivered in the first six months of the year, an increase on the pace of previous years.

The Council had recently submitted a bid to the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund to support its programme of improving energy efficiency for Council tenants.

The Panel was provided with an update to its previously-requested performance dashboard, reflecting the requirements of the Social Housing White Paper. This had been delayed owing to the fact that the Social Housing White Paper had gone out to consultation shortly beforehand and was therefore liable to change. It was expected that the dashboard would be implemented within the next quarter.

In response, the Panel sought clarity over Floyds Row – its place as part of the county-wide alliance against homelessness, its readiness to support those leaving YHA accommodation, and its overall purpose as a rapid assessment and short term accommodation centre. The lease for Floyds  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29

At its last meeting the Panel requested an introduction to the work of the Empty Homes Officer. Melanie Mutch, Empty Homes Officer, will present a report on her area of work. The Panel is asked to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising from the report.

Ian Wright, Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety, presented a Panel-requested report on Empty Homes.

For Council Tax purposes, an empty home was defined as one which was unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for a period of over six months.  Empty homes in Oxford were problematic, given the pressures on housing and land in the city. Currently, 262 properties had been empty for between six months and two years, and 114 for over two years, nine of which had been empty for over 10 years. Properties awaiting probate did not contribute to these figures, which stood at 184, and similarly the 54 properties being renovated. Nationally, there had been a significant rise in the number of empty homes; Oxford’s figures were currently on an upward trajectory also. Although the rise was disappointing in light of the stresses on housing stock, a 2018 report commissioned suggested that Oxford tended to perform strongly against the national average, ranking 29^th out of 326 councils nationally.

The Council had an Empty Homes Officer, responsible for collating information about empty homes in the City, and working with internal and external bodies to try and bring them back into use, as well as managing any nuisance arising from the empty homes. Owners were incentivised to bring homes back into use through a loan scheme, though uptake on this was fairly low. Increased Council Tax on empty properties was also an incentive.

Legislation around long term empty homes was not well-crafted, meaning legal responses to tackling empty homes such as Empty Homes Management Orders were not often relied upon nationally or locally. Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) were neither cheap nor easy; owing to this the Council no longer had a budget to pursue CPOs.

Discussion was held by the Panel over the degree to which the Council’s premium on Council Tax incentivised the bringing of empty homes back into use, and whether higher premiums might be more effective. In response, it was explained that for homes empty for a shorter duration the increased council tax did prove to be an incentive. However, for those paying the top tier of premium, empty for ten years or more, it was not an effective deterrent. It was not possible, however, to raise this premium further as the Council was already charging the legal maximum. The similarity and cross-over between second and empty homes was discussed, with the current treatment favouring second homes on the basis that they could not be charged any premium. It was not known by officers present whether a premium could be charged for second homes, and a request was made by the Panel that this be clarified for the next meeting.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Supply, joined the meeting at this point.

Other issues explored by the Panel included options for houses purchased through CPOs, and whether there were ways to reduce reliance on a dedicated budget. However, the point remained that owners of CPO’d properties would get market value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22

Part 2 of the Panel’s ongoing consideration of the theme of tenant engagement and empowerment focuses on the proposed changes in central government’s white paper on Social Housing. A presentation will be given by Bill Graves, Landlord Services Manager. Also invited to this meeting to contribute are Councillor Diko Blackings, Cabinet Member for Affordable Housing, Housing Security and Housing the Homeless, Councillor Mike Rowley, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services, Stephen Clarke, Head of Housing, Simon Warde, Tenant Involvement Manager, Wendy Hind, Tenant Involvement Officer and the tenant ambassadors. Stephen Gabriel, newly appointed Executive Director of Communities and People will be attending to watch.

It is expected that the findings will be written up at the end of the year, including any recommendations. The Panel is asked therefore to NOTE the report and AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make. Should it wish to make an urgent recommendation to Cabinet, ie prior to the report being written at the end of the year, it is also at liberty to do so. A list of the issues raised previously by the Panel for possible consideration as recommendations is included within the notes of the previous meeting for the relevant item.

Bill Graves, Landlord Services Manager, introduced the Panel-requested update report on the implications of the central government’s Social Housing White Paper.

The Grenfell tragedy had brought to the fore the importance of tenant safety in social housing. To that end, central government had put forward a white paper outlining seven rights of tenants in social housing. Although only a white paper, the clear advice of government was that social landlords should not wait before implementing the proposals. The rights identified were as detailed below:

1)    To be safe in your home

The implementation of the changes required would have a number of consequences for the Council. Tenant engagement would need to be increased significantly, the provision of proscribed safety information would be necessary, a named person made personally accountable for health and safety would need to be selected. The additional requirements would have staffing implications, needing to be funded from the Housing Revenue Account. The process for making appointments to many of the necessary roles was already underway.

2)    To know how your landlord is performing

The Council would be required to inform every tenant, at least once a year, on its performance.

Proscribed information would focus on compliance with multiple safety measures, the Decent Homes Standard, success in resolving complaints promptly and fairly, management and handling of anti-social behaviour and levels of tenant satisfaction over a number of key areas such as engagement, health and safety, overall condition, repairs handling, management of communal spaces, and the wider neighbourhood. Also included within performance reporting all social landlords would be required to make available information on spending, and be subject to challenge by residents if spending was thought not to be in the right place.

The effects on the Council to comply with the requirements would include providing greater detail over spending, including more work with the tenant ambassadors to explain spending. The Council also wished to provide real-time data on its performance, meaning that costs would be incurred to support this. It was likely that the greater transparency over spending would lead to greater scrutiny over spending within and without the Housing Revenue Account.

3)    To have complaints dealt with promptly and fairly

Changes to the Housing Ombudsman’s code and other broader changes would have a number of impacts for the Council. These would include needing to adopt a two stage complaints process for housing complaints, with the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint. Policies would need to be updated and made available online, including the vexatious complaints policy and reasonable adjustments policy. Two officers to investigate and manage housing complaints would need to be recruited and additional publicity amongst tenants on their right to complain and information on how to do this would be required.

4)    To be treated with respect

Many of the changes in this aspect were external to the Council, with a more proactive regulator having greater freedom to make inspections and enforce significant fines and an expectation on providers in breach to self-refer to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14

The main Scrutiny Committee has agreed the suggestion put forward by the Chair of the Housing Panel, Councillor Linda Smith, that the Panel should, throughout the year examine different aspects of one important topic – tenant engagement and empowerment. This first report is an introduction to the ways in which the Council engages its tenants.

It is expected that the findings will be written up at the end of the year, including any recommendations. The Panel is asked therefore to NOTE the report and AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make. Should it wish to make an urgent recommendation to Cabinet, ie prior to the report being written at the end of the year, it is also at liberty to do so.

Councillor Diko Blackings, Cabinet Member for Affordable Housing, Housing Security and Housing the Homeless, Councillor Mike Rowley, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services, Simon Warde, Tenant Involvement Manager, and representatives from the different avenues and fora of tenant engagement have been invited to attend and present this item.

Simon Warde, Tenant Involvement Manager, gave a presentation to introduce members of the Panel to the different fora and avenues through which the Council engages with its tenants and leaseholders. He was supported by representatives of these fora, the tenant ambassadors.

The Tenant Involvement Team is comprised of four permanent staff, and an apprentice to join imminently, funded from the Housing Revenue Account. It exists to ensure compliance with the Regulator’s ‘Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard’ through tenant involvement in the development, monitoring and scrutiny of Council tenant and leasholder services. In 2016 the team was awarded accreditation by the Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) and was awarded Team of the Year. The accreditation which was re-awarded in 2020.

Alongside its more targeted engagement with the tenant ambassadors, the team provides a number of avenues for engaging with tenants more broadly: The Tenants In Touch magazine, facebook and tenant involvement web pages.

The Tenant Involvement team is not the sole source of tenant involvement, with consultation being undertaken centrally through the consultation team. The Tenancy Management and Communities Team also engage with tenants on a regular basis for consultations. It has been found that a mix of online and telephone yields the best balance between cost and accessibility. Postal surveys were no longer cost effective and therefore were used only on request, but door to door surveys could be, particularly in plugging gaps in responses via other methods.

Looking ahead, the Tenant Involvement team’s work would primarily be focused on preparing for the upcoming Housing white paper, where within every strand there is a significant element pertaining to tenant involvement. Other key areas would be responding to the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman regarding complaints processes, and issues arising from the Building Safety Bill. Two other areas of focus were setting up in-depth assessors, whose job it will be to monitor satisfaction levels, and identify and solve areas of dissatisfaction, and to establish a Housing Development Working Group to involve tenants in the pre-planning stages of development sites and post-completion inspections to ensure they are of satisfactory standard.

In the future, it was hoped that tenants might also be able to become involved in performance monitoring around issues such as gas safety, void turnaround times, and incidences and themes around antisocial behaviour. Also, creating a Tenant and Leaseholder Board – a body attended by senior officers and fed into by tenant ambassadors – would create a direct communication link between tenants and senior decision-makers.

The Tenant Ambassadors presented their areas of involvement with the Council.

Brenda Walton and Geno Humphrey spoke about their involvement with contract tender evaluations. A number of ambassadors have been trained by the Council to look at new contracts, as well as renewal tenders. When tender documentation is received by the Council it is passed on to participating tenant ambassadors, who score each one against the same matrix as Council officers. The only difference is that – at the request of the tenant ambassadors –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6