Agenda item

To include:

a)     Evidence from the Housing Disability Panel

b)    Evidence from Age UK on carer’s experiences of housing services

c)     Evidence from other service users

a)    Evidence from Age UK

The Committee received a presentation from Ismail Bahriyeli, Carers Services Manager, and Andy Murphy, Chief Executive, of Age UK Islington, on carers’ experiences of housing services for vulnerable people. The presentation slides and a copy of the Carers News newsletter were circulated to members.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         Age UK sought to provide a one stop shop to carers, providing information, advice and support. Age UK had ‘one approach’, which was to provide support to anyone, including carers, those being cared for, family members, or others providing support. Support was not limited to those who cared for the elderly.

·         Services for carers aged under 18 were provided by Family Action.

·         Mr Bahriyeli commented on the importance of identifying hidden carers, those who may be providing care but without accessing support services. It was emphasised that it was important to make people aware of the services available and promotional work was carried out in GP surgeries, Job Centres, and other community buildings.

·         Age UK also worked to raise awareness of carers needs to professionals. For example, Age UK worked with trainee doctors at UCLH to champion the needs of carers.

·         It was acknowledged that providing services to carers and specifically considering carer needs was a relatively new development. Age UK provided resources for carers and organisations working with carers on its website. A quarterly ‘Carers News’ publication was also produced. 

·         Age UK had carried out a survey of carers to gauge their opinions on housing services for vulnerable people. It was reported that 70% of carers registered with the Islington Carers Hub were female, the majority were in their 50s, and 13% of Age UK’s casework was housing related. It was noted that this related to Islington’s housing services, as well as housing associations and private housing.

·         Age UK’s survey identified four housing-related themes which were crucial to carers: rehousing, repairs, money (i.e. financial support with housing and utilities costs), and aids and adaptations.

·         It was commented that casework sometimes focused on the lack of suitable accessible housing, such as ground floor flats. Feedback from carers on the council’s services was generally mixed. It was reported that some carers were unaware of the services the council offered to vulnerable people. 

·         In response to a question, it was commented that Age UK Islington worked closely with Family Action, which provided support services to young carers. It was important to establish strong partnership arrangements to ease the transition to adult support services. It was commented that some carer support services for young people were either not available to adults or not as flexible, and this was sometimes surprising for young adults.

·         A member commented that the council’s housing supply would likely decrease as a result of national housing policy changes and this would further limit the housing options for vulnerable people. It was suggested that housing providers should consider the ‘best available’ option when receiving a rehousing application; as although there may be no ground floor flats available, it may be preferential for a vulnerable person to live on the 1^st floor as opposed to the 6^th floor. It was important to clearly communicate the lack of available housing and to manage the expectations of residents.

·         It was queried if Age UK had amended their working practices in response to the worsening housing crisis. In response, it was advised that the organisation was seeking to work more closely with housing providers. Age UK was also working to encourage volunteering, so local people were able to care for vulnerable people in their communities, however it was commented that this was a long term goal and would take many years to develop.

·         It was queried if Age UK regularly received case work from residents who were dissatisfied with Occupational Therapy assessments. In response, it was advised that such casework was received from time to time. Age UK was not in a position to contradict a professional assessment, however could request a re-assessment if appropriate.

·         Age UK was proactive in seeking out vulnerable people and made calls to carers and the vulnerable and elderly to identify if their needs were being met or if their needs had changed. This was intended to identify possible issues early and to generate referrals before vulnerable people’s needs escalated.

·         Age UK continued to provide support to carers for up to two years if the person they cared for died, and made referrals to bereavement services.

·         It was asked if carers themselves faced any specific housing issues. It was noted that Age UK provided advice to carers on succession rights, as this could be problematic in the event of a vulnerable person’s death if not planned for.

·         Members of the public from Kings Square TRA identified that 147 homes were being built at Kings Square, including 26 independent living units. It was noted that some of these units had two bedrooms and would be ideal for carers living with vulnerable people. It was queried how these units could be excluded from the Right to Buy to ensure that they remained as social housing for vulnerable people. The Executive Member for Housing and Development advised that the Council was not able to exempt properties from the Right to Buy and commented that the Council was campaigning against measures which would require local authorities to sell social housing. It was recommended that the residents write to Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning. The Committee asked that Cllr Ward take up this matter on behalf of the residents.

The Committee thanked Mr Bahriyeli and Mr Murphy for their attendance.

b)    Evidence from the Housing Disability Panel

The Committee received a presentation from Andy Greene, General Manager of Disability Action in Islington, which facilitated the Housing Disability Panel. The presentation outlined disabled people’s experiences of Islington’s housing services and contributions were received from other members of the Panel.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         It was queried how Islington Council was implementing co-production in housing services for vulnerable people; in particular, it was queried if disabled people could be further involved in the design, commissioning and delivery of services. It was commented that this would be the best way of ensuring that services were working for vulnerable people. The Housing Disability Panel was keen to contribute to this.

·         It was queried if it was the intention to provide person-centred services, as it was not thought that disabled and vulnerable people were asked about the effectiveness and prioritisation of services on a regular basis.

·         It was thought that the Council’s protocols for joint working with disabled people were not effective. Although some teams championed the needs of service users, it was commented that others were particularly bureaucratic. It was suggested that the Council tended to revert to bureaucracy when dealing with more complex problems.

·         It was emphasised that ‘one size doesn’t fit all’ and it was important to use funds innovatively to provide person-centred and user-led services across the Council.

·         It was commented that the housing services available to disabled and vulnerable people needed to be publicised further, with clear information on eligibility and who to contact about each service. It was suggested that no one officer seemed to have a detailed understanding of all of the services available. The preference of the Housing Disability Panel would be for one officer to be responsible for coordinating the housing offer for disabled and vulnerable people as this would ensure that clear information was available. It was suggested that such information should be publicised to all tenants, particularly new tenants.

·         It was important for frontline staff to have knowledge of services for vulnerable and disabled people, and to have an awareness of the issues that vulnerable and disabled people face. It was suggested that one-off staff training sessions were insufficient and that staff should be routinely tested on their knowledge of services.

·         It was frustrating for disabled and vulnerable tenants to repeat their needs to different sections of the Council. It was suggested that a shared ICT system across the Council, detailing the access and communication needs of vulnerable people, would help to improve customer service.

·         It was commented that contractors carrying out capital works often were not aware of disabled and vulnerable tenants’ needs and generally would not make reasonable adjustments. It was suggested that information should be shared with contractors working with vulnerable and disabled people. It was also suggested that the Housing Disability Panel could have a role in holding contractors to account through mystery shopping exercises. It was proposed that the Council should set standards for contractors relating to accessibility and the engagement of disabled and vulnerable people. 

·         Although it was welcomed that Council services were moving online, it was noted that half of people without internet access were disabled. It was important to help people without internet access to access services. It was also noted that some service requests had to be logged by telephone, which was not an accessible means of communication for deaf residents.

·         A ‘one stop shop’ for vulnerable and disabled tenants would be welcomed; and would build relationships between officers and service users. It was commented that disabled and vulnerable people could find council services difficult to navigate and sometimes had to speak to multiple officers before getting the information they needed. It was indicated that less persistent residents did not contact other sections of the council after an initial rejection, and this resulted in vulnerable people not accessing the services they needed.

·         The Committee considered the range of communication methods used by the Council, including digital notice boards and SMS messaging. It was commented that those with communication disabilities needed to be communicated with in an accessible way, and a web chat function would be welcomed. It was noted that the Repairs service had recently acquired tablet computers which would allow repairs staff to communicate with deaf residents through BSL interpreters.

·         It was advised that Housing Operations was to carry out a fundamental review of the Council’s housing offer over the next 18 months. It was intended to review how Housing worked with other services and how the service could be made more personalised and user-led, with a focus on integration and early intervention. Officers commented that they would engage with any residents who wanted to participate in this review.

·         The Committee queried how Housing Operations would engage vulnerable people in the review of the housing offer. In response, it was advised that meetings with representative organisations such as DAII and the Housing Disability Panel would be useful; however feedback from individuals could also be received. It was important to engage with people with a wide range of vulnerabilities. 

·         A resident advised that a contractor of the Council removed her wheelchair without replacement, leaving her unable to leave her home for several days. Officers agreed that this was unacceptable and advised that such issues could be addressed through the Council’s contract management procedures.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that considering the accessibility of services from an early design stage was the best way of ensuring that services were accessible to disabled people. It was also thought that involving disabled people in the monitoring and evaluation of services would help to ensure their effectiveness. 

·         It was commented that officer training on disability, vulnerability and mental health should focus on specific skill gaps and what information was needed by staff to perform their roles effectively. 

·         A resident advised of a poor experience she had with a housing officer, who had arranged repairs on her behalf at times when she had previously stated she was unavailable due to medical appointments. The resident considered that this amounted to bullying and had experienced severe anxiety as a result. It was advised that the situation was only resolved after her case was taken up by DAII.

·         It was proposed that housing services should publicise the accessibility and equality standards they set for their staff, in the same was as housing services set expectations and behaviour standards for tenants.

·         A resident had been served with a noise abatement order as a result of playing loud music at unsociable hours. However, the resident was experiencing mental health difficulties at the time and this was known to both Housing and Adult Social Services. In the circumstances the resident considered that serving the order was insensitive.

·         It was highlighted that issues which may be considered trivial could have an amplified impact for disabled people. For example, dog mess was particularly problematic for visually impaired people and wheelchair users, who may either not know this had been brought into their home, or face difficulties in cleaning the subsequent mess.

·         A resident who used a wheelchair commented that her toilet was not accessible and she was not able to close her toilet door. This was particularly inappropriate when friends and family were visiting. She commented that she was unable to access home improvement works through the Decent Homes scheme; and although she had contacted the Council about adaptations, this had not been successful.

·         A resident highlighted that the Council carried out maintenance works, but did not carry out home improvements. The resident was visually impaired and was unable to paint his fence, lay paving slabs in his garden, or install a new tap. He commented that he was willing to pay the Council to do this for him; however home improvements were not offered through the handyman service. It was suggested that relatively minor improvement works could have a significant impact on a person’s wellbeing.

·         The Committee sympathised with those who had negative experiences of the Council’s housing services and urged that residents contact their local ward councillors and ask them to take up their cases in such instances. 

·         It was agreed that the Housing Disability Panel should be consulted on the draft recommendations of the scrutiny review.

·         Members of the Housing Disability Panel commented that the Council was not far off providing decent housing services for vulnerable people, however examples of poor performance and ineffective working practices had to be addressed and further engagement with disabled people in decision making and prioritising services was needed.

The Committee thanked those present for their attendance.

RESOLVED:

That the Housing Disability Panel be consulted on the draft recommendations of the Scrutiny Review.