Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Housing in Croydon

To discuss Social Housing provision in the borough. The Sub-Committee will receive briefings/presentations from the following Registered Providers of Social Housing and Providers of Housing Support:

(i)    Optivo

(ii)  Croydon Churches Housing Association

(iii)CAYSH

(iv)Thames Reach

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

he Director of Gateway introduced the item following the Chairs congratulations on her appointment to the role.

The Sub-Committee was informed that her role did not retain responsibility for housing but was linked through early intervention and prevention of homelessness as well as rough sleeping. The service primarily managed different programmes which enabled people to help themselves access homes and provide support in other aspects of their lives.

The report focused on housing in the borough and registered providers who addressed housing need. In attendance were representatives from housing providers as well as housing support. The guests presented on their item, providing information on key issues as well as outreach work.

OPTIVO

The Chief Operating Officer provided an overview of their portfolio which focused on three key area, with most of their homes being for general needs tenants. There was also a commercial aspect of their portfolio held for student and key worker accommodation.

In Croydon, Optivo had over 3,400 homes in the borough. There was currently a large development programme underway to build 1500 home a year, with 550 homes on-site in Croydon with an ambition to have over 1000 homes by 2023 on a shared ownership and affordable rent basis. Optivo were keen to continue to support families and people on lower incomes into affordable homes.

The Sub-Committee was informed that Optivo had partnered with Croydon on the Housing 1st pilot to provide homes and had been investing in financial inclusion and sustainable tenancy schemes. The Housing Association (HA) had 450 households in Croydon in receipt of Universal Credit and were experienced in working with this clients group having formed an understanding of the challenges faced. They had also been successful in working with residents on an employment and skills programme. Optivo was a large local employer who supported the local economy, with their head office and repairs services located in Croydon.

There remained many challenges for the HA such as budget constraints, and staff restructures, rebuilding and re-establishing strong working relationships and working with the Police and the Council to rehome families experiencing gang violence. There had been funding cuts and grants per homes remained low in comparison to the cost of building due to the increased costs of construction. Welfare changes due to uncertainty over benefits also remained a challenge for residents.

There were opportunities to invest in Croydon and as one of the Mayors strategic partners, Optivo had secured an additional £145m to invest in affordable homes. Additionally reviewing tenancies and being in the position to offer affordable homes to local residents.

Through the valued partnership with the Council, the HA had three key priorities which included building new affordable homes, provision of support to vulnerable residents and working together to strengthen communities.

Croydon Churches Housing Association (CCHA)

The Chief Executive gave an overview of their portfolio advising that they held 1500 properties over four boroughs, with a large proportion of these properties in Croydon. There was an emphasis on providing more homes which had been a priority over the last 5 – 10 years and there was now in place a programme to build 50/60 new homes per year.

The regeneration plans for Croydon were positive, however as Croydon became more attractive to developers, competition for land increased with unit costs rising significantly. This had made it more difficult to produce affordable schemes at the London affordable rent and in order to do this they had to be supplemented with more shared ownership schemes and sales. CCHA had  benefited from the opportunity to deliver larger schemes and was being offered sites of up to 40 homes which was better for resources and management costs in comparison to smaller schemes.

The introduction of the new Senior Supply Officer role had been welcomed, received positively and has had an impact. There was a programme of over 100 homes on site with 70 in Croydon alone which will be delivered in the next few years. They were committed to growth and acknowledged the demand for homes, although being able to respond to this remained a challenge.

CCHA had 212 residents on Universal Credit (UC), the process had been difficult for them, which in turn has impacted financially on CCHA. 14% of households were on UC and rent arrears for these residents were high at an average 8.25% in comparison to just over 2% for other residents. The welfare debt advice saw 141 residents last year with figures predicted to increase in the forthcoming year.

The process of UC remained a challenge for residents and was not limited to the rigorous form filling, but also the four to six week period of waiting for benefits to be paid. As a result it could seem that the system was setting up residents to fail as the delayed payment caused significant arrears to accumulate at the beginning of tenancies. Residents were benefiting from the Croydon Council hardship fund but this was limited and could not be relied upon to last indefinitely due to funding cuts.

Challenges remained from the number of incidences of drug and substance misuse reported, were on an increase and were working closely with police and neighbourhood organisations on this matter. The main threat to CCHA income was in supported housing, as a large proportion of their portfolio was supported housing, however funding cuts were creating instability due to a move to provide more statutory services. A complete review of supported housing was needed in order to optimise the services they have and they will be working with the Clinical Commissioning Group on this.

CCHA had limited access resources and partnership was key to further development and delivery of their objectives. They remained committed to the community of Croydon.

CAYSH

The Chief Executive gave an overview of their services which as a supported housing provider dealt particularly with young people aged 16-21, exploring the different ways to manage the complex needs of those they supported. CAYSH were a local Croydon based organisation whose main objective was to provide safe accommodation for young people facing homelessness, provision of support and advice to enable independent living and sustainability.

The organisation as well as the Council realised that young people needed a different approach, with intervention required at the earliest opportunity to ensure that they did not become the families or households that face homelessness in the future. In order to do this, targeted work was carried out on prevention as well as safeguarding. Croydon was commended on the work that was being carried out to create high quality outcomes for its young people through its commitment to appropriately centred solutions.

The organisation utilised service users as ambassadors who were employed and could identify what kind of responses and intervention would be most beneficial to shape the service.

CAYSH provided the following range of services:

  • Community liaison work
  • Floating Support
  • Drop in Centre
  • Supported Housing
  • Supported Lodgings
  • Concierge

The organisation experienced many challenges, including the following:

  • Rising Population.
  • Increase in Complex Needs.
  • Increase in Mental Health population in young people.
  • Lack of affordable homes.
  • Welfare benefit challenges. 
  • Recruitment issues in managing and managing pay levels

Thames Reach

The Lead Manager gave an overview of the charity who work with rough sleepers. Within the borough they had a contract with the Council to go out and find rough sleepers to encourage them into one of the hubs to work on referrals.

Issues have been identified in the car parks around the borough with around 19/20 people bedded down on any given night. There had been difficulties experienced in moving rough sleepers on, getting them into employment and accessing services or working with organisations to help them off the streets as some were resistant to offers despite the availability of support.

There was also a growing issue with rough sleepers that are EEA nationals due to high level of support needed and the charity had been working on assisting them with routes back home as well as help with services such as housing and substance misuse. The work in partnership with the Council had been significant as Croydon was one of the few London boroughs funding beds for this client group who had no recourse to public funds.

There had been extensive work with the Council to source provision of accommodation for rough sleepers to move into, but this as well as the process of universal credit remained a challenge.

Other challenges faced included that whilst the staff are trying to put in place an action plan for every rough sleeper to help them off the streets, the team only consisted of 5 people who conducted 4 outreach sessions per week, which meant that resourcing was limited.

The opportunities that would be provided through the Housing 1st pilot was welcomed and it was encouraging to see the partners working together extensively to bring this to fruition.

In response to a Member question about what to do when encountering a homeless person, Thames Reach advised that most homeless people knew what services were available and when encountering someone begging the wider public needed be aware of the options available so that they can direct them to CRISIS or one of the other outreach organisations. It was more difficult to get a homeless person to engage with services if they were successful in begging in certain locations around the borough.

It was questioned whether in light of diminishing public sector income, what plans or innovations the organisations had to diversifying their finances. Optivo responded that there was a small programme of outright sales to subsidise the rented programmes. More importantly the organisation had been looking at how they are operating services to deliver increased efficiencies whilst reducing costs. The use of technology had been vital to diversifying and promoting efficiencies.

CCHA responded that some elements of their business had seen a small move to private sales to cross subsidise affordable rent. In supported housing they had moved some schemes to a leasehold model. As a result of Universal Credit there was a balancing act between collection of rent against welfare and debt advice. On resourcing, partnership was key to the success of the organisation and they had been selling finance and forecasting services to smaller associations that had growth ambitions.

It was further questioned how the organisations worked with the Council to integrate services for recipients of UC to support them on the pathway into employment and their responsibility to ensure that integration was effective.

Optivo responded that in the last three years they had seen a 12% reduction in residents on benefits across their portfolio.  They were passionate about the social impact of UC and getting people into work. They worked in partnership with the Council to identify opportunities for jobs and skills pathways into employment. They had initiatives in the Croydon works job brokerage to get people into the work supply chain and supported the Croydon Partnership and the Whitgift job pop up business school.

CAYSH responded that all the young people they worked with wanted somewhere to live and a job which they equated to feeling safe and secure. One of the initiatives in place was a partnership with Andrews Estate Agents who provided them with long lease properties, CAYSH supressed rents for a period which allowed the young person to save for their deposit. Universal Credit could often act as a disincentive at the start of the claim as a result of large arrears built up. It then impacted upon their ability to secure the accommodation and personally limited their ability to travel to their place of employment, purchase work clothes or equipment needed to carry out their duties.

The organisation had been working with the Council and local businesses to tap into the growth of the borough and would like to increase access to businesses such as the Westfield Development through work experience and apprenticeships.

CCHA responded that they promoted back to work programmes, apprenticeships and work experience for residents. They had also employed residents. As a small housing association they were able to provide one on one support where needed to support residents into employment.

A Member questioned what opportunities there were to build on an asset based approach and how this could be implemented. What recommendations could be made for the future of Gateway service, what steps were taken to measure resident satisfaction and if the organisations paid staff the London living wage?

CCHA responded that the only recommendation for Gateway was for more to be done to attract homelessness initiatives and services to the Borough. Resident satisfaction figures for 2018 were disappointing at 74% in comparison to 86/88% the previous year but this was due to issues with estates services contractors. The organisation did pay the London living wage and this extended to contractors used including those for cleaning services who also paid the living wage. They had an active asset management system to ensure that all properties were maximised.

Optivo responded that through an asset based approach they had been exploring ways to maximise resources, work collectively and establish whether homes were sustainable. They were also being more open and transparent with partners, other housing providers and pooling resources to make outcomes more viable. The latest resident satisfaction figures was 96% and had previously been 98%.

The only recommendation for the future of Gateway was to increase the collective ways of working to improve services and for all partners to pool increased resources on safeguarding. An affirmative answer on the payment of the London living wage would be provided after the meeting.

CAYSH responded that their satisfaction figures were over 70%, they did pay the London living wage and were trying to diversify into an asset based approach, where possible through grant fund raising. The recommendation for Gateway services was for the focus to be kept on the young people they were trying to support.

Thames Reach responded that their satisfaction survey was completed on 4th November and details would be provided after the meeting. Difficulties in recruitment due to the extra money recently offered by commissioners to most boroughs increased competition and as a result they were unable to take advantage of the extra money offered until the end of the financial year. A definitive answer on the London living wage would also be provided after the meeting.

 

In response to a concern raised regarding the plans in place for alternative accommodation for the residents of Lansdowne Road Hostel due to the pending demolition when building work started, the Director of Gateway stated that this was a priority. Officers had been working with residents on pathways to different accommodation such as social housing, sheltered accommodation, and private sector housing.

It was noted that in relation to the Night Watch services, a rough sleepers initiative funding had been secured and the Council was working with the private sector to develop an increased offer for single homeless people. A social lettings agency was launched in the Gateway service in April 2018 with 75 landlords signed up who were willing to offer tenancies. The Gateway service would provide the much needed wrap around service needed once they had secured their tenancy.

A Member questioned what progress had been made on fixed term tenancies which the Council had discussed abolishing.

Optivo responded that they would be recommending at their next board meeting to move away from this approach as there was no evidence to support that it delivered benefits. Instead it would hinder mutual exchange which help people to move into appropriate properties and avoid the bedroom tax.

CCHA responded that only residents moving into large properties were offered this and a recommendation was also being made to the board to abolish this as there was no evidence of the intended outcomes.

The Chair questioned what work was being done to address the social isolation of vulnerable residents.

Optivo responded that they were working with sustainability teams on this issue. There had been an increase in hoarding cases identified and they had in place a team dedicated to identifying vulnerable residents. Data checks were being completed to identify people that had little or no contact and also residents that they contacted on a regular basis in order to measure instances of vulnerability. Fire compliance was taking place in complex schemes due to the lay outs and through working with fire authorities there was now a more detailed plan and consistent approach to safety.

CCHA responded that their staff had received adequate training and were able to identify vulnerable residents. As they were a smaller housing association, residents were visited once a week and a lot of mechanisms were not in place as they were not needed. Fire safety compliance measures had taken place and there was an extensive partnership with the London Fire Brigade in place.

Although the impact of BREXIT was unknown at this stage, the housing providers alluded that the biggest concern would be around construction and development.

The Chair thanked all guests for attending the meeting to answer questions.

In reaching its recommendations, the Committee reached the following CONCLUSIONS:

  1. The Members thanked the registered housing providers and support for attending the meeting.
  2. The Sub-Committee was disappointed by the level of detail provided in the report.
  3. The Sub-Committee thought the Housing First initiative to be innovative and welcoming and looked forward to being updated on progress made at a future meeting.
  4. The Sub-Committee felt that the work of the Gateway service was making a positive difference to the lives of Croydon residents.
  5. Although welcomed, it was felt that the short term funding provided by the Government to Thames Reach would not be beneficial to their workforce in the longer term.
  6. The Sub-Committee agreed that the housing providers should be congratulated for ensuring that their contractors paid the London Living Wage to their staff.

The Committee RESOLVED to:

  1. Recommend to Thames Reach that more was to be done to attract and retain employees.
  2. Recommend to Optivo, Caysh, CCHA and Thames Reach to continue to work to encourage their contractors to pay staff the London Living Wage.

Supporting documents: