Agenda item

The Director of Housing Operations was in attendance to present the protocol and take questions, in addition to the Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families and officers from the Children & Young People service. In the discussion, the following points were raised: 

• The Joint Protocol on Section 17 Families had been developed between the Homes & Neighbourhoods and Children & Young People directorates. The protocol was put to the Homes and Communities Scrutiny Committee for comment and was endorsed at their meeting of 14^th October 2024 and had now come to this committee for comment and endorsement.
• There were currently 1568 homeless households in temporary accommodation, the highest ever amount. 889 of them had children, equivalent to 57% of all homeless families in temporary accommodation have children.
• In addition, 1404 children were living in temporary accommodation that Islington provides and 640 children were within the borough. Islington was probably the highest in London in terms of the percentage that were still living in the borough and the third lowest in London in terms of the number of children living in temporary accommodation. It was sometimes necessary to place children and their families outside of the borough due to factors such as escaping domestic abuse, but moving families to remote locations was not routine. It was currently policy to move families to within a ninety-minute commute of the borough and most families living outside the borough were within neighbouring London boroughs such as Waltham Forest, Haringey and Enfield.
• The protocol had been drafted in partnership with Children’s Services. There had been wide consultation including with partner agencies and a cross-party parliamentary group on temporary accommodation.
• The Chartered Institute on Housing had recommended Islington’s approach as best practice to other local authorities
• The protocol sought to place homeless families with children as the focus and ensure an empathetic, holistic approach to meeting their needs.
• A commitment had been made to not use bed and breakfasts to house homeless households unless it was a critical emergency.
• Islington was the first local authority to mandate providers to have cots available for children.
• Officers stated that there was free WiFi was available in all Islington council properties and officers were seeking to extend this to other properties, including in the private rented sector outside of the borough.
• Officers stated that there were more homeless families with children than there were available council or housing association properties and no affordable options for them within the private rented sector. This, compounded with rents increasing on average by 15%, indicated the severity of the housing crisis.
• In response to members questions regarding information sharing when families moved to neighbouring borough, specifically for those on Child In Need plans, officers advised that a Section 17 CIN assessment was often done in collaboration with all parties, such as education, housing, and health and social care etc, and the Council wad under legal obligation to notify the incoming local authority of the family and ensure the family’s information travelled with them. Officers stated though that the challenge was if the incoming local authority didn’t agree that the child met their threshold for a social worker, as Islington could not influence other boroughs’ assessments. Officers stated though that despite that, Islington would nonetheless engage with the new local authority, ensuring the family was linked in with local services and escalating matters on their behalf. Islington would also continue to try to house the family back within the borough.
• The average time to be offered permanent accommodation was ten months.

• In response to questions from members concerning how the banding criteria took account of SEND families and families that were too sick to work, officers stated that the banding criteria was subject to review in new year in partnership with members. The review included the ninety-minute commute which had originally been stipulated because it was the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) determination of a reasonable commute for jobseekers. Officers further clarified that homeless families had to be found secure accommodation as close as possible to the borough, by law.
• Officers confirmed that they did move tenants that were under occupying Council tenancies to more suitable properties when requested. Officers also reiterated that there would be a restructure in Housing services in which the numbers of properties that staff were responsible for, would reduce from approximately 2,000 to approximately 561. This would allow enable plans for officers to undertake routine home visits, community surgeries and annual audits, in which the welfare of tenants can be monitored and requests for downsizing picked up.

• Members noted that officers needed to be mindful of sensitive periods in young people’s lives, such as exams, six months to exams and transitions between education phases, and questioned whether there was scope to recognise these more formally within the temporary accommodation process, in conjunction with education experts. In response, officers stated they recognised the impact of temporary accommodation on young people, but that the housing market was so volatile that young people’s housing circumstances could change before such a designation is applied. Officers also shared members’ concerns about families travelling long distances from their temporary accommodation for the young person to attend school.
• In response to members’ questions about whether Housing staff were trained in trauma informed practice, officers confirmed that training was provided.
• In response to members’ concerns about the possibility of tenants being offered accommodation that posed a safeguarding risk, officers advised that the Council uses a corporate procurement exercise to select its letting agencies and landlords and where a resident believes that their accommodation is unsuitable, officers would move the tenant immediately to a more appropriate placement. This would then be followed up with an inspection of the property and discussions with letting partner/landlord as to why it was not suitable.
• 47% of homeless applications were from vulnerable people, and this captured those families with individuals that had either been professionally or self-diagnosed with special educational needs.

ACTION

Officers in Housing Operations service to consult the Housing and Communities Scrutiny Committee and the CYP scrutiny committee on the outcome of the 12-month review of the new housing allocations scheme before any changes are made to the housing allocations scheme. This review will be completed during April 2025 (12 months since the new housing allocations came into operation.

ACTION:

Officers to share granular performance data with committee members, including the waiting time for families in temporary accommodation and outliers to the ten-month average; the number of families in temporary accommodation; the number of downsizing requests for Council tenancies and how long it is taking to resolve; how many families there were in temporary accommodation with children on Education, Health & Care Plans and/or awaiting a statement of SEND; and data on under occupancy, subject to discussion with the Chair.

RESOLVED:

That the Joint Protocol on Section 17 Families is endorsed by the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee.