Supplementary memorandum by Southampton
City Council (HOM 05(a))
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGIES—TIME FOR DELIVERY
GOOD PRACTICE HANDBOOK
KEY AREA
1—CASE STUDIES
A single man aged 45, a tenant of the local
authority was subject to a minimum 18 week prison sentence. There
was no means available to this man to pay the rent for the period
of his sentence and consequently risked losing his home through
arrears enforcement action.
The man in question had some months earlier
been the subject of MAPPA meetings to plan for a previous release
from prison. Many agencies had been involved in planning his release
and managing his resettlement. He had during his period of holding
the tenancy kept to his tenancy conditions being in advance of
his rent payments for instance and had become settled in the property
making it his home.
In order to prevent his homelessness on release
from prison and also prevent him losing the property which he
had invested some energy in making his home, the LA in conjunction
with the Prison advice service and HAAS arranged funds to control
the accrual of debt. Part was paid by Probation, part by the homelessness
department through the use of discretionary funds and part was
left for the tenant to pay on his release. These arrangements
were put in place whilst he was serving his sentence and he signed
an agreement to pay the outstanding arrears on his release. These
plans were designed to not only secure his accommodation for the
period of his sentence but also to create an active incentive
for him to serve the minimum sentence through reasonable behaviour
and preserve the positive relationship developed between the man
and authority, in this case the LA and probation.
NB The discretionary funds used by the LA
was grant from Homelessness Directorate and amounted to £300.
The cost of dealing with terminating the tenancy, carrying out
void works, and completing a new homeless application with possible
temporary accommodation needing to be provided is well in excess
of the funding provided via this solution.
KEY AREA
2—GROUND RULES
FOR SUCCESS
IN DELIVERY
OF HOMELESSNESS
STRATEGY
Our approach to delivering the review and strategy
was to secure involvement from agencies that could represent the
needs of groups of people most likely to suffer homelessness.
In this way we were able to identify the issues affecting homelessness,
the causes and gaps in provision of services both accommodation
and support. It also allowed us to identify what was considered
to be the right approach, what was good about provision and what
could work elsewhere.
A group was set up to steer the process and
agree who and how to consult with a wider audience. It also set
up the foundation for owning the strategies aims, ie there were
agencies representing other statutory services and voluntary services
and who took the messages back into their organisations.
There final document describes the extent of
the problem and sets out four clear objectives which the city
council and all agencies should be striving to achieve. All current
provision should support these aims and be changed as necessary
to enable them to meet the objectives.
The group continues to meet quarterly, with
the purpose of reviewing progress against the action plan, to
allocate the Homelessness funds, and review demand and trends
in demand.
KEY AREA
4—NEW PRACTICES
FOR SUCCESSFUL
DELIVERY OF
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY
Homelessness Outreach
As a result of the new funds allocated to the
authority in 2003-04 a new Homelessness Outreach post was established
within the LA Homelessness Unit. The purpose of this post is to
provide an immediate response to homelessness applicants by home
visiting, to pick up cases where they may be threatened with homelessness
and to mediate or negotiate with landlords and parents to prevent
applicants being evicted.
A new link between the HPU and the tenancy management
role of the LA has been established. All cases. of rent arrears
possession are referred to the outreach worker in advance of a
warrant being applied for. The tenants receive a home visit where
the consequences are spelled out to the household and options
for action described. There has been a 75% success rate for these
cases where warrants are been deferred to allow continued payment.
Another link has been established with applications
via the Housing Register by referring all cases where there is
any mention of a threat of parental/family eviction. Again these
households are visited with the purpose of testing the seriousness
of the threat and to consider other options. The most typical
scenario here has been where parents of pregnant daughters incorrectly
think the best route for their daughters is to require them to
leave the family home, as this way they will be likely to get
an early offer of a council flat. Instead the outreach worker
provides advice to such families including measuring their rooms
to see which will best fit a cot whilst the daughter waits for
supported housing or a permanent offer of accommodation. Another
scenario is of 16-17 year olds whose parents have thrown them
out of the family home without thinking of the implications for
their children. Here the outreach visit often focuses on mediating
the young person back into the family home and helping to set-up
guidelines for behaviour and strategies for tackling disputes.
Since the service was set up in November 2003
and up to March 2004 180 cases have been actioned through this
initiative of which 120 were cases of threatened or actual parental
eviction and in the vast majority we were able to prevent their
homelessness or plan their housing without the use of emergency
accommodation.
DISCRETIONARY FUND
The homelessness review identified an increase
in the number of acceptances for priority need households considered
to be intentionally homeless. This was primarily where the households
had been evicted due to substantial debt or anti-social behaviour
from social landlords in the city. The potential costs to the
authority for limited periods of B&B accommodation and on-going
costs to Social Services where the families had dependent children
was considerable. The commitment by the authority to tackling
non-payment of rent and also giving a clear message that anti-social
behaviour would not be tolerated balanced with protecting the
welfare of children posed a real problem. The discretionary fund
has been instrumental in protecting this balance.
Homelessness officers and an outreach worker
have been given delegated power to access funds to procure accommodation
or other solutions as appropriate. Families are given intentional
determinations and then told to make contact with private landlords
from lists the council provides to set up their own accommodation.
Deposits to secure the property are then negotiated directly with
landlords in full awareness of the households' background. The
deterrent factor of eviction is not affected, the tenant has a
new chance to make a home, the family is kept together, the landlord
has a cushion within which to manage their property beyond the
six month minimum and the potential costs to the council are reduced.
During 2003-04, 30 households were assisted
in this way including 54 dependent children. The savings calculated
solely on the basis of the equivalent of a 28 day stay in B&B
for these households was £13k, on a spend of £16k. The
social costs of splitting families being immeasurable.
Liz Slater
Housing Services Manager
On behalf of the Homelessness Steering Group
| 
