5Standards in dispersal accommodation
59.Asylum accommodation is heavily inspected and Providers’ performance in maintaining properties is subject to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). However, much of the evidence we received indicated that some accommodation is substandard, unsanitary and in some instances, unsafe to live in. The four KPIs relevant to the standard of accommodation are set out in Table 6 below. The COMPASS contracts specify the furnishings, equipment and facilities that should be provided in the different types of accommodation according to different sets of needs, such as for those with young children.66 Overall the standards of asylum accommodation should comply with the Housing Act 2004 and the social housing ‘decent homes standard’.67
Table 6: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) relating to accommodation
|
Key Performance Indicator |
Obligation |
|
KPI 4: Accommodation standards (safe) |
Contractors place all asylum seekers in accommodation that is not assessed as being unsafe, as set out in the contract, and respond to any emergency action required within the specified response time. |
|
KPI 5: Habitable accommodation |
Contractors place all asylum seekers in accommodation that is not assessed as having severe defects, as set out in the contract, and contractors maintain housing within the specified response time. |
|
KPI 6: Fit for purpose accommodation |
Contractors place all asylum seekers in accommodation that is assessed as being fit for purpose, as set out in the contract, and contractors maintain housing within the specified response time. (This indicator relates to the number of service users, not the number of units of accommodation). No more than ten failures in one payment period. |
|
KPI 7: Complaints management |
Contractors provide the ways and means for asylum seekers to raise complaints, and seek to resolve any complaints within five working days. |
Source: National Audit Office, COMPASS contracts for the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, HC 880, Session 2013–14, January 2014
Maintenance
60.There are strict time limits within which Providers are required to carry out repairs. These vary from a matter of hours for emergencies to 28 days for more routine maintenance issues (see Tables 7 and 8 below).
Table 7: Response times for reactive maintenance
|
Classification |
Meaning |
Response Time |
|
Immediate |
Works (which are not Emergency, Urgent or Routine) which are necessary where the condition of the accommodation is such that there has been a material adverse effect on a Service User’s health, safety or security or disruption or loss of a fundamental service or facility to the accommodation. |
Continuous call out facility to investigate and restore or provide temporary alternative accommodation within 2 hours of notification by the Service User or the Provider becoming aware of the defect. |
|
Emergency |
Works (which are not Immediate, Urgent or Routine) which are necessary where the condition of the accommodation is such that there may be a material adverse effect on a Service User’s health, safety or security or disruption or loss of a fundamental service of facility to the accommodation |
Continuous call out facility to investigate and restore or provide temporary alternative accommodation within 24 hours of notification by the Service User or the Provider becoming aware of the defect |
|
Urgent |
Works (which are not Immediate, Emergency or Routine) which are necessary where the condition of the accommodation is such that there has been an adverse effect on the comfort of a Service User or is likely to lead to serious damage |
Investigate and make safe within the 1 Working Day after notification by the Service User or the Provider becoming aware of the defect and to affect a permanent repair or remedy within 7 Working Days of such a time |
|
Routine |
Works (which are not Immediate, Emergency or Urgent) which are necessary to rectify the condition of the accommodation where the condition of the accommodation is such that, although defective having regard to the Provider’s obligations, the works can be deferred without causing serious discomfort or inconvenience to the Service User, or damage |
To be carried out within 28 Working Days of notification by the Service User or the Provider becoming aware of the defect |
Source: Taken from Table B.11.1, Schedule 2, COMPASS contract for the Midlands and East of England Region
Table 8: Examples and classification of the applicability of response times, as set out in a COMPASS contract
|
Classification |
Example of Fault, Failure, Defect or Incident |
|
|
Immediate |
Gas leak |
Flooding or free standing water within the accommodation |
|
Structural instability |
Water penetration through the structure of the accommodation |
|
|
Fire damage |
Damaged or friable asbestos linings or insulation products |
|
|
Emergency |
Failing or unstable ceiling fabric |
Blocked drainage either inside or outside the accommodation that affects the accommodation |
|
Hole in or weakened floor |
Plumbing leaks that give rise to potential flooding within the accommodation of an adjacent, other property |
|
|
Bare or exposed electrical wiring |
Partial loss of mains water or electrical services |
|
|
No operational hot water supply |
No operational smoke or fire alarm |
|
|
No operational space heating system |
Ground floor windows and any entrance doors are not capable of being closed and locked etc |
|
|
Complete loss of mains water or electrical services, gas supply, etc |
||
|
Urgent |
Taps requiring new washers |
Minor blockages and leaks in roof damage |
|
Door and windows requiring easing |
No valid gas and/or electrical certification |
|
|
Broken glazing |
||
|
Routine |
Requirement for cleaning etc |
Glazing repairs etc |
|
External repairs etc |
||
Source: Taken from Table B.11.1, Schedule 2, COMPASS contract for the Midlands and East of England Region
We have received evidence that people are being placed in accommodation that is unfit for habitation or which ends up in such a condition due to poor maintenance. With thousands of properties on their stocks, most of which will be old, it is inevitable that there will be some problems but the breadth of the evidence submitted to us suggests that the issue goes beyond a handful of isolated cases. We outline some of the more common problems below.
Vermin
61.A particular concern drawn to our attention was the presence of vermin in some accommodation and delays in the problem being addressed. Migrant Voice told us that infestations of mice, rats and bedbugs were the second biggest source of complaint for people in dispersed accommodation. Examples of complaints include:
- I went to see Jane in her upstairs flat in Sheffield. She was anxious and panicky. “I put anything I can under the doors”. She said “The rats run up the stairs, and out of the store cupboard into the living room. I am frightened for the children [ … ] twice they said they were sending pest control—nobody arrived.”68
- The second house was horrible. The house was very dirty. The carpet was very smelly and dusty. The kitchen was full of mice; they even ran across the dining table while we were eating.69
- Having to live with vermin infestations causes anxiety and distress. One client noted that the presence and noise of rats triggered flashbacks as he shared a cell with rats when he was detained and tortured in his country of origin. This trigger led to a significant deterioration in his mental health and the re-emergence of suicidal ideation.70
- The biggest challenge we had was a problem of insects. Since we had moved into this house, all of my children had bites on their skin. The GP said that it was due to insect bites. I complained to G4S to deal with the insects; they did not do anything immediately. After two months, they fixed an insecticide chip but it did not work. After 3–4 months, finally G4S came to spray the entire house and the situation got better.71
Under the terms of the COMPASS contract accommodation must be free of pests to be considered ‘fit for purpose’. G4S told us that a vermin infestation would constitute a “seven day defect” which means treatment would have to begin within seven days of being alerted.72
Health and safety issues
62.Providers have a duty to place people in accommodation that is safe. We were made aware of one claimant being placed by G4S in a house with a known asbestos risk and the issue not being addressed despite numerous letters from doctors about related health issues. 73 Anne McLaughlin MP contacted us to highlight the case of a family in her constituency in which a health visitor reported to Orchard & Shipman (a sub-contractor of Serco) that a family was living in housing conditions which were affecting their child’s growth and development. She had raised the matter with Orchard & Shipman, Serco and the Home Office. Orchard & Shipman acknowledged that the family required a move to a two-bedroom property which was scheduled for the following day. The Home Office sent an initial response stating that: “Additional pressures were placed on our housing stock due to increased asylum intake (requiring supported accommodation) arising from world events.” Anne McLaughlin notes that a year passed from the accommodation first being raised as unsuitable to raise a child to the family finally being moved.74 Bethan Jenkins AM described another case to us concerning a property provided by Clearsprings where a hole in the ceiling of a toddler’s bedroom allowed water to flow on to the floor and the child could not sleep in the bedroom because it was so damp.75
Cleanliness
63.Providers are obliged to ensure that “internal and external aspects of the accommodation are clean prior to the service-user taking up occupancy” and that common areas in “self-accommodation occupied by a number of service users” are kept clean.76 The COMPASS contracts do not require Providers to supply cleaning products or vacuum cleaners though in many cases they do so. Many witnesses were critical of the cleanliness of properties and the lack of availability of cleaning products, including vacuum cleaners. G4S told us they clean around 700 properties per month. However, the examples below seem to cast doubt on whether all properties are cleaned before new people are moved in.
- The carpet was so unclean and dusty. I talked to G4S but they have never changed it. My son has asthma but the condition got worse since I moved into the house.77
- One woman had a blanket on the floor. I asked why and she said that the carpet was dirty and smelt of urine when she moved in. She had tried hard to wash it, but could not get rid of the smell, so she had had to buy a blanket to cover the floor to put her baby on.78
- Families tell me they cannot put their children down to play on the carpets as they are dirty, and that when they have complained about rotting and damp sofas, they have been told to go to a charity shop to buy a throw to place over the sofa.79
Furnishings and facilities
64.The COMPASS contracts set out in detail the furnishings, equipment and facilities that Providers are obliged to supply and deadlines by which any repairs must be made.80 G4S summarised those required for a House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO).81 However, we heard repeatedly that people in the properties are unaware of what should be provided and in many cases have sought items from charities or purchased items themselves that should have been provided, exacerbating their financial poverty.82 During our visit to St Chad’s Sanctuary we saw the piles of sheets and blankets that the Sanctuary staff hand out to asylum seekers because G4S have not fulfilled their obligation to provide a change of bedding. G4S disputed that this problem had been raised with them.
65.The examples below are further indications that Providers are not consistently meeting the terms of the COMPASS contract in respect of furnishings and equipment.
- We were not given a mattress for a child but only a bed frame. The legs of the dining table were broken, so we were eating on the floor. Even though we called G4S many times to share this problem, it was only acted on after 2 months.83
- Broken bed, so woman slept on the floor until G4S responded after 3 to 4 weeks.84
- When I first moved into the G4S house, I was not given any furniture except one bed mattress and a frame. Dining table, chairs, wardrobe, kitchen materials, iron, and bedding were never provided. [ … ] The washing machine did not work for three months but I never received a laundry voucher. [ … ] We still do not have an additional bed. I am sharing a bed with my son, which is culturally inappropriate. I complained about the dining table and chairs but they had never done anything. I am very exhausted from calling them repeatedly and explaining the condition over and over again.85
- A family comprising a lone mother and four children from the Middle East in a Sheffield S9 house with water coming in front and back doors when it rained, and with not even a working cooker. For the past three months other asylum seekers had taken cooked food to the house. [ … ] G4S admitted that the water issue should have made the house unsuitable for the contract—but they went ahead anyway.86
66.Several organisations told us that the problems with some properties were so bad that it affected the health of the residents.87 Particular attention was drawn to the impact of failing heating systems and delays in reported problems being addressed. A failure of heating or hot water is defined by the COMPASS contract as a ‘severe defect’ which renders a property uninhabitable under the terms of the contract—in this instance the faults must be resolved within 24 hours and re-inspected after one calendar week.88 G4S provided us with a breakdown of calls about property defects (see Table 10). In December 2016, the Government announced that it would increase the amount of money it makes available for the provision of ‘staff property management’ as part of the agreement to extend COMPASS for a further two years.89
Table 10: Details of calls G4S received in relation to defects in October 2016
|
Defect type |
Total |
% of total raised in Service Centre |
|
Immediate (2hrs) |
5 |
<1 |
|
Emergency (24hrs) |
858 |
33 |
|
Urgent (7 w/days) |
1033 |
40 |
|
Routine (28 w/days) |
524 |
20 |
|
Inventory |
159 |
6 |
|
Total calls: 2,579 |
Source: Letter from John Whitwam, Managing Director G4S Immigration and Borders, 1 December 2016 (ACC0039)
67.The state of properties and their fixtures is not always the fault of Providers though they are responsible for making good any problems. Asylum seekers may accidently damage equipment such as cookers or washing machines because they are unfamiliar with how they work. G4S also told us that “a minority of asylum seekers display violent and destructive tendencies. That behaviour at times manifests itself in attacks on our staff and damage to properties”.90 Where asylum seekers cause deliberate damage to properties there is little sanction Providers can impose. They can issue warning letters, and refer more serious issues to the Home Office and asylum case workers, but this does not always result in action being taken.91
68.The poor standard of asylum accommodation was the most significant issue identified in the evidence we received, which focused largely on contracts administered by G4S and Serco. It is clear that in too many cases Providers are placing people in accommodation that is substandard, poorly maintained and, at times, unsafe. Some of this accommodation is a disgrace and it is shameful that some very vulnerable people have been placed in such conditions. Urgent action must be taken by the Home Office and Providers to deal with this issue. Even when significant concerns have been raised, a lack of alternative accommodation has led to vulnerable people remaining in housing that is unfit or unsuitable for many months until they are moved. Providers are also failing to ensure that items they are obliged to provide are present and in working order when a person is placed in a property. We acknowledge the financial constraints of the COMPASS contracts and the systemic problems in the dispersal system but, nonetheless, Providers have a clear obligation to provide safe, habitable accommodation and it is beyond doubt that this obligation is not being met in a significant minority of cases. We request that the Government now set out the details of the additional resources it has pledged to make available for staff property management purposes as part of the agreement to extend the COMPASS contracts.
69.Providers will no doubt point to a low number of fines under the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) system to suggest they are fulfilling their obligations. We also accept that asylum seekers and third sector organisations may not be fully aware of Providers’ contractual obligations and deadlines for rectifying faults. However, the weight of evidence that we have received suggests that the compliance and inspection system is failing. We address the inspection regime later in this Report.
70.The COMPASS contracts lack sufficient detail regarding response times for reactive maintenance. The ‘Performance Regime’ schedule, which sets out how performance should be measured against the Key Performance Indicators, has been redacted from the published contracts, which may partly explain the disconnect between people’s expectations and what Providers are obliged to deliver. We recommend the schedule be placed in the public domain.
71.We also recommend that any future frameworks and contracts governing the provision of asylum accommodation provide more extensive guidance on compliance standards and include examples of the most common complaints and deadlines for expected resolution. Such guidance should be made available to asylum seekers in a form they can understand, and to those who advocate on their behalf, so that they are clear about the standards they are entitled to expect; and it should also be made available to local authorities.
Welcome packs
72.When asylum seekers are placed in dispersal accommodation they are given a welcome pack and an occupancy agreement in English, irrespective of whether or not English is their first language. The Helen Bamber Foundation expressed concerns that people were being made to sign documents without providing informed consent or even knowing what they are consenting to.92 Mr Soames agreed that “It sounds like a no-brainer: you should have a welcome pack in the language of the person who is going to use it.” But he went on to explain that “the trouble is there are 51 languages [ … ] It is not ideal and we are working with the Foreign Office to come up with a multilingual way of doing it.”93 A dial-up translation service is available to asylum seekers.
73.The majority of people moving into asylum accommodation will not have English as their first language yet crucial documents are only made available in English, a language which the people who need to use them do not understand. It is unacceptable that such a situation should have been allowed to occur in the first place and we fail to understand why, after four years of the COMPASS contract, it has still not been addressed despite it being raised as a problem on multiple occasions. Welcome packs and tenancy agreements should be made available in the most common languages spoken by asylum seekers as a matter of urgency. We welcome a commitment by Serco to make their occupancy agreements available in five languages, and other Providers should do the same.
Complaints mechanism
74.Asylum seekers are able to raise problems about their accommodation with Providers via their housing officer, via a call-centre, at times of inspection and in some cases via third sector organisations. Problems with the handling of maintenance requests and complaints has been a recurring theme throughout our inquiry. Common frustrations include problems in getting through on contact lines, difficulty in determining who was responsible between the landlord, housing officer, sub-contractor, Home Office and Provider; and complainants being passed between each of them over the most mundane of issues. The NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Psychological Trauma Service noted that there was a lack of sensitivity to English not being the first language, specifically Providers’ staff not adapting their speech to facilitate understanding or using interpreters.94 Bradford City of Sanctuary told us that one of the largest frustrations of many asylum seekers was the slow response of G4S to their complaints. It cited the example of a client who, when he first called G4S was told he would need to wait 28 days for action but found when he called again at the end of that period that the call had not been logged on the system and so the whole process had to begin again, with a further 28–day wait. 95
75.Problems raised with housing officers not subsequently being logged was a common source of frustration.96 The evidence we received from Anne McLaughlin MP included an example in which regular reports from a health visitor to Orchard & Shipman and Serco about problems with a property occupied by a person with brain injuries were not responded to.97 During our visit to Birmingham, G4S were adamant that all complaints were logged. Serco told us that, “For the avoidance of doubt all our service users are given clear instructions on how to report maintenance issues.”98
76.People seeking asylum generally have a low awareness of their rights and entitlements and need support with this. The roles and responsibilities of landlords, and Providers’ housing officers and contact centre staff, should be clearly explained to asylum seekers when they first arrive in their property. This should also be set out in the welcome pack, together with the housing specification and other entitlements defined in the COMPASS contract, the complaints procedure and what asylum seekers can legitimately expect of the Provider, including turnaround times for addressing common problems. This may help reduce frustrations on both sides.
Dealing with complaints
77.We heard that complaints are frequently treated with dismissiveness by those responsible for dealing with them.99 Housing4all, a Northern Ireland based group, explained that they had worked with many individuals “who have told us that when they tried to report any of the issues with their accommodation they are met with disbelief, hostility, or they are ignored.”100 Examples we received included:
- He threatened me that if I complained I would be moved to shared accommodation.101
- Always an excuse, “oh you are calling again” almost as if we are bothering them.102
- The housing officer appears to be very patronising. (By saying such things as “You should count yourself lucky living in the accommodation”).103
- Told by G4S worker if they complained: “If you do this it will backfire.” People are afraid if they say something they will be deported. One G4S worker said: “I want to quit this job because they are teaching me to be cruel”.104
78.The Helen Bamber Foundation report that asylum seekers often lack the confidence and assertiveness necessary to make a complaint, for example if doing so is not part of their culture or their ability to engage with figures in authority is affected by their traumatic past experiences.105 There is also evidence that some asylum seekers fear complaining will affect their asylum application or may result in them being moved out of the area, a particular concern if children have settled into a nursery or school.106 Where asylum seekers feel their complaints are not being addressed they will often turn to third sector organisations to raise complaints on their behalf. We were told that this had meant an increasing amount of charities’ time being diverted from advocacy work and providing other forms of social, material and emotional support to asylum seekers, at a time when many charities are facing an acutely challenging funding environment.107
Number of complaints
79.The number of complaints about accommodation issues varied enormously between Providers. G4S told us that it received 42,783 calls via its telephone line in 2015, of which 40% were requests for maintenance and 40% for inventory replacement (and we also heard that many people could not get through).108 During the same period Serco received 127 complaints about accommodation and Clearsprings Group just 25.109 Serco told us that the number of complaints was so low because repair tasks were picked up through the monthly inspections of each property by housing officers. They explained that in the year ending July 2015, 21,930 faults or repairs were logged across all properties in Scotland. Within that period Serco failed to rectify the fault within the time stipulated in the contract on just 57 occasions.110
80.Mr Soames told us that he believed the number of complaints to be artificially low, reflecting cultural issues around complaining and people being worried about doing so. He admitted that Serco needed to do better to “tease out people’s concerns and complaints” and wanted this addressed in any future contract.111 In its 2014 Report, the NAO drew attention to Providers not recording complaints consistently and the lack of a consistent definition, which may also explain the disparity between the figures of G4S and those of Clearsprings and Serco.112
81.There needs to be more transparency around the complaints regime. We do not believe that the low level of complaints reported by Clearsprings and Serco are a true reflection of the number made by their service users; this is more likely to reflect a lack of consistency around how complaints are defined and recorded. The Home Office should ensure that there is a consistent definition of a complaint that has to be recorded. Housing officers should log all complaints and requests for maintenance. Calls to contact centres are already logged but should also be recorded.
82.For a complaints system to work people must feel able to complain without threat of negative repercussions. Providers should make it explicit in the welcome pack, and in oral introductions when someone is first placed in accommodation, that raising concerns about accommodation will not affect their application for asylum. This should also be set out in the guidance on compliance standards to which we have referred. If the complaint is about a member of staff then the asylum seeker should be advised to raise it directly with the local authority, if responsibility is transferred to local authorities as we recommend later in this report. Concern was also expressed to us that Provider contact numbers were often engaged or calls went unanswered. We recommend that the Home Office investigate this issue.
Inspection
83.COMPASS Providers’ housing inspectors are required to visit each property at least once a month and when asylum seekers first arrive at, or depart from, a property. The Home Office also inspects properties and will inspect one third of the properties in a contract area over the course of a financial year. Local authorities can also undertake inspections. Rupert Soames referred to dispersal accommodation as being the “most inspected accommodation in the UK.”113 Serco undertakes around 62,000 property inspections a year.114
84.Where Home Office inspections find that accommodation does not conform to the required standards, contractors have strict time limits to remedy the defects. The Home Office is able to impose a fine or ‘service credit’ if performance indicators are breached. Mr Soames described the inspection regime as ‘draconian’ and ‘counterproductive’:
By way of example, failing to fix a boiler within eight hours in one property with two occupants attracted a penalty of £74,000; another failure to fix a blocked drain in time for a property with five service users resulted in a penalty of £98,895. [ … ] The penalty regime means that the average penalty applied per user affected for KPI failures was over £4,000, which is more than the total annual revenue we receive for a user. I personally believe that having such high penalties is counter-productive.115
Clearsprings Group have never incurred service credits since the COMPASS contracts began. G4S has incurred none in the last two years. Serco incurred credits to the value of £1,974 in 2014–15, and none in 2015–16 in the north-west of England; and £156,156 in 2014–15 and £443,545 in 2015–16 for Northern Ireland and Scotland. 116 Chris Shipman, Chairman of Orchard & Shipman (a sub-contractor to Serco), told us that he was “not aware of any endemic or frequent problem with the condition of the properties” but that he would welcome an independent inspection: “from my perspective it then takes it out of this arena”.117
85.During this inquiry we have received a mixed picture on the inspection regime, with many questioning whether it is effective. Freedom from Torture drew our attention to the 2016 Home Office audit of asylum seeker accommodation in Middlesbrough. G4S inspections conducted by its subcontractor Jomast found urgent defects in 14% of properties, but the more recent Home Office inspection found urgent defects in 91% of properties. The Home Office found emergency defects (which must be resolved in 24 hours) in six properties. The Home Office stated that KPIs would be considered unmet if defects were not remedied.118 Bradford City Council told us that checks by their Housing Standards Team “indicated a lack of routine maintenance especially with the HMO properties with common parts falling below expected standards.”119 The Council explained that:
A joint visit between the Council’s Housing Standards Team and Home Office inspector indicated that the two agencies may have different priorities when assessing a property and the Home Office inspector may not be familiar with the Council’s adopted standards for HMOs, in particular those relating to fire safety. Therefore to be certain of compliance the Council could not rely solely on Home Office inspections. 120
After some delay, the Home Office responded to concerns over the condition of asylum property and has increased its number of inspections. However, the Scottish Refugee Council told us that they had “not picked up any noticeable improvement in the actual quality of the dispersal housing, especially at the point when someone is moved in.”121
86.A lack of confidence in the Home Office inspection regime prompted several witnesses to call for an independent inspectorate for asylum accommodation. Freedom from Torture explained that:
The evidence suggests that when housing providers undertake inspections into their own practices they under-report on problems, whilst the Home Office is not prepared to hold providers to account despite its own evidence of non-compliance.122
87.Although standards have improved since 2012, the poor condition of a significant minority of properties leads us to conclude that the current compliance regime is not fit for purpose. Those it is meant to help safeguard have little confidence in it and we do not find that it acts as an adequate deterrent to poor compliance. Home Office inspections are infrequent and the low number of penalties appear at odds with the persistent criticisms of the standard of asylum accommodation.
88.We recommend that the inspection duties currently carried out by the Home Office are transferred to local authorities, along with the necessary resources to carry out this function effectively. Local authorities have a crucial role in the asylum system but their ability to influence standards seems to have been eroded since COMPASS contracts were introduced. Giving local authorities responsibility for inspection, monitoring compliance and imposing sanctions will increase their influence in the system to the benefit of those supported by it. They already have experience in property inspection and are likely to have a better knowledge of asylum properties in their areas than the Home Office, having already been consulted on their use.
89.Where an asylum seeker has a complaint against a member of Providers’ staff, this should be raised directly with the local authority inspectorate and guidance to this effect should be included in welcome packs. Local authorities should be given the necessary powers to investigate such complaints, given that they are independent of the asylum application process and the system for allocating an individual’s accommodation, and vulnerable people are therefore likely to be more comfortable raising concerns with them.
90.We recommend that property standards be aligned with local authority housing standards and that Providers’ Key Performance Indicators are appropriately adjusted. Local authorities should have the power to conduct routine, proactive and unannounced visits and to report publicly on their findings to address the current lack of transparency. Placing the Performance Management regime for the contracts in the public domain would also boost transparency and accountability, and this should include specific information about the failures which generate a penalty and the scale of penalties. In relation to asylum accommodation in the devolved nations, the devolved governments should have a significant role in deciding the appropriate arrangements, including, for example, a possible role for the national housing regulator. Periodic inspections by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration across the UK could also complement and build upon this inspection regime by providing a country-wide overview of the system
91.The COMPASS penalty system contains inconsistencies. Disproportionate sums are imposed for routine failures while Providers avoid meaningful sanctions for more severe breaches. Any future system reliant on the private sector must better balance penalties for breach of contract with the severity of the complaint.
66 Redacted versions of the COMPASS contracts are available at https://data.gov.uk/data/contracts-finder-archive/search/?buying_org=UK%20Border%20Agency
67 Evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee, Session 2013–14, COMPASS, Provision of asylum accommodation, HC 1000, Q40
72 Letter from John Whitwam, Managing Director, G4S Immigration and Borders, 1 December 2016 (ACC0039)
76 See Schedule 2 of the COMPASS contracts
80 Bradford City of Sanctuary (ACC0015) and Letter from John Whitwam, Managing Director G4S Immigration and Borders, 1 December 2016 (ACC0039)
81 Letter from John Whitwam, Managing Director G4S Immigration and Borders, 1 December 2016 (ACC0039)
87 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Psychological Trauma Service (ACC0042); Helen Bamber Foundation (ACC0021); Migrant Voice (ACC0019)
88 G4S explained that if it is an issue with a single radiator, such as it needs bleeding, it is a seven day defect. Where boilers cannot be repaired, G4S provide temporary electric fan heaters and kettles/boiling vessels pending replacement. See evidence from Bradford City of Sanctuary (ACC0015) for further examples
91 National Audit Office, COMPASS contracts for the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, HC 880, Session 2013–14, January 2014
93 Q278
98 Letter from Rupert Soames OBE, Chief Executive, Serco Group Plc, to the Chair of the Committee, 6 April 2016 (ACC0013)
99 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Psychological Trauma Service (ACC0042); Bethan Jenkins AM, Plaid Cymru Shadow Minister for Housing, Poverty and Steel (ACC0036)
106 Scottish Refugee Council (ACC0035); NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Psychological Trauma Service (ACC0042)
108 Letter from John Whitwam, Managing Director, G4S Immigration & Borders to the Chair of the Committee, 29 January 2016 (ACC0001)
109 Letter from Rupert Soames OBE, Chief Executive, Serco Group Plc, to the Chair of the Committee, 6 April 2016 (ACC0013); letter from James Vyvyan-Robinson, Managing Director, Clearsprings Group, to the Chair of the Committee, 19 February 2016 (ACC0011)
110 Letter from Rupert Soames OBE, Chief Executive, Serco Group Plc, to the Chair of the Committee, 6 April 2016 (ACC0013)
111 Q253
112 National Audit Office, COMPASS contracts for the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, HC 880, Session 2013–14, January 2014
113 Q223
114 Q249
115 Letter from Rupert Soames OBE, Chief Executive, Serco Group Plc, to the Chair of the Committee, 6 April 2016 (ACC0013)
117 Qs 244 and 275
118 Home Office, Asylum seeker accommodation in Middleborough: audit, January 2016
24 January 2017