Agenda item

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Mr Littlemore to the meeting and invited him to outline his role and to answer questions from Members.

(2)          Mr Littlemore stated that he was the Head of Housing and Community Services at Maidstone Borough Council, his remit included housing, community safety, environmental health and licensing.  He confirmed that Maidstone had transferred its housing stock in 2004.  He was the current Chair of the Kent Joint Policy and Planning Board which was a strategic partnership between health, housing and social care.  He explained that the Board was involved with the development of a protocol for the housing of young people. 

 Q - What are the key challenges across districts in addressing housing issues for children in care (16-17 years old and care leavers)?

(3)           Mr Littlemore stated that this was one area which housing officers struggled with.  Legislation stated that a person had to be 18 years old to hold a tenancy.  It was difficult for local authority and private landlords to grant a tenancy to a young person under 18 years old and in some cases these young people came from disturbed backgrounds and their maturity levels varied. 

(4)          Mr Littlemore explained that the provision for supported accommodation for young people was not uniform across Kent.  There was the Trinity Foyer in Maidstone and a similar supported provision in Swale providing a holistic service for young people but little else across Kent.

(5)          Mr Littlemore stated that there was an issue regarding the different service provided to young people by Social Services and Housing departments depending upon where they lived in Kent. He referred to a paper which had been considered by Kent Chief Executives and Kent Leaders regarding adopting the Dartford model across Kent which had found favour.

Q – What emergency housing services are available to 16/17 year olds?  Can they turn to their local housing authority?

(6)          Mr Littlemore explained that there was a difference between what should happen and what happened in practise.  He referred to the Dartford model which attempted to prevent homelessness by reconciling the young person with their family.  This required a joint Social Services and Housing approach. He emphasised that no one would want to see vulnerable young people on the street. 

Q – What can a young person do if they find themselves “on the street” at 5.00pm?

(7)          Mr Littlemore confirmed that all local authorities had a 24/7 out of hours service which would direct them to services that could provide assistance.  If the young person was 16/17 years old then the first point of call was children’s social services for an assessment to see what duty was owed to them under the Children Act.  If the young person had been in care with Social Services then they should have a pathway plan, which ideally would start planning with Housing Services 6 months before the young person came out of Social Services care.  If there was no duty to this young person under the Children Act then they would be referred to their local housing authority as potentially homeless.

Q – If a child is “kicked out” where do they turn for help?

(8)          Mr Littlemore stated that this would vary depending on the young person’s awareness.  Some services are known to young people through advice agencies or the voluntary sector. Normally they would end up going to the Police, who then contact the relevant authority and may be placed in emergency Bed and Breakfast accommodation overnight. 

Q – Is the housing authority’s statutory responsibility to care leavers different to that to other young people?

(9)          Mr Littlemore explained the difference between Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Part 6 of the Act set out the regulations for entry onto the Housing Register and how priority is set between applicants. The local housing authority is required to adopt an “Allocation Scheme” that explains the criteria used by that authority. Part 6 does not expressly identify ‘care leavers’ as a characteristic to which the local authority should give ‘preference’ under the Allocation Scheme. He then explained that Part 7 dealt with homelessness and care leavers are expressed as a group who may have a priority need. This means that a young person may be entitled to a period of temporary accommodation under Part 7 but have no different priority on the Housing Register to any other young homeless person under Part 6.  

Q – Care leavers are not necessarily homeless, but as an at-risk group, what preferential access do 16-17 years old children in care have to accommodation?     

(10)       Mr Littlemore restated that they were not included as a separate category under Part 6 of the Housing Act.  He referred to the issue of young people’s expectations and what might be offered via a housing service.  There was a high demand for affordable housing and as social housing was in short supply it is not possible to house everyone into local authority or housing association accommodation.  Local housing authorities try to assist these young people into supported accommodation and looked at all possible housing options open to them, including the private rented sector. 

Q - What does the Kent Housing Strategy say about the housing needs of children in care (16-17 years old and care leavers) and how does this respond to other local authority children placed in Kent?

(11)       Mr Littlemore explained that the current Strategy did not specifically refer to this group. However, the Kent and Medway Housing Strategy was in the process of being revised and he had asked for this to be included.

Q - How do housing authorities monitor the effectiveness of housing provision for children in care (16-17 years old and care leavers)?

(12)       Mr Littlemore confirmed that there was no specific data relating to care leavers.  Local Housing Authorities had to submit a quarterly return to Government on the number of homeless 16/17 year olds but not necessarily care leavers.  However, he stated that this was something that could be looked at as part of the work being carried out with KCC on the Housing Strategy.

Q - What else could be done to increase the awareness and understanding of corporate parenting issues by Borough Council Members? Is there a need for a Member Champion at District level?

(13)       Mr Littlemore expressed the view that there was no need to appoint a District Member Champion, as Kent benefits from mature partnership working through the JPPB and Kent Housing Group. The important issue was to progress the work identified through the Kent Leaders and Kent Chiefs meetings..

Q – Can you explain what the Dartford model is?

(14)       Mr Littlemore explained that the Dartford model involved housing officers and social services Teams working together and the appointment of dedicated officers who were able to act when a young person was in crisis regarding housing.  They made use of a crash pad at the YMCA hostel, which was clean, modern but sparse. This provided a safe breathing space, to enable negotiations with the family to facilitate the young person’s return home, or to provide a support package for the young person to help them maintain a tenancy.  This model needed a dedicated service which wasn’t provided across Kent.  The immediate challenge is the lack of emergency provision, which he suggested could be overcome by authorities “buddying up” with other authorities and the other factor was the changes to Social Services teams and waiting for the new Early Help teams to be established.

Q - What specific support do housing authorities provide to care leavers?

(15)       Mr Littlemore confirmed that they tried not to abandon people and would attempt to offer support within their homeless responsibility. Previously support services of this specialism have been provided through the Supported People Programme.

Q – Just to clarify, is it the case that if a young person left care and had no were to live, they would be treated the same as any other young person on the housing list?

(16)       Mr Littlemore stated that the social services team should be working with this young person to get them ready to leave care at 18, if appropriate.  Social Service’s responsibility to a young person in care did not end when they reached 18.  The young person could go onto the waiting list, and each of the 12 districts had their own criteria.  In some cases there were also approaches from Mental Health professionals to support the young person’s housing application. 

(17)       He referred to the 2009 Southwark judgement and explained that this established whether the Children Act or the Homelessness legislation took precedence in relation to 16/17 year olds.  The outcome of this was that in most cases the Children Act would take pre-eminence, as in most cases it was about the wider needs of the child rather than just providing accommodation. 

Q – If a young person stayed in care until they were 21 years old did this improve their housing status?

(18)       Mr Littlemore informed the Committee that there had been a 17% increase in homelessness in Kent since last year.  There were a number of reasons for this including, the difficulty in obtaining a mortgage, the increase in house prices which was forcing people who would have been first time buyers to become renters. He stated that the proportion of people in Kent who were in rented accommodation had doubled over the past 5 years in Maidstone.   Landlords were aware of the shortage of rented accommodation and therefore knew that they could charge more and be more choosy about who they would let to, often preferring those they see as less of a risk.  These matters have combined to place greater pressure on housing lists for affordable housing. In addition not enough properties were being built across the country to keep pace with the increasing population and there also was the unintended impact of welfare reforms.

Q – Do we utilise empty properties?

(19)       Mr Littlemore stated that Maidstone BC had tried to return empty homes into use, but had found that in this area the effort that needed to be put in balanced against the small number of properties that they had been able  bring back into use,  was not an efficient use of resources. In Maidstone 353 units had been returned over a 3 year period.  Other areas such as Thanet who have traditionally had a greater proportion of empty homes had experienced greater success in attracting external funding to bring empty properties back into the housing market. 

(20)       The Chairman thanked Mr Littlemore for attending the meeting and answering questions from Members.