almo performance management monitoring - … lcspsecoutcomes repor… · undertaken, to explore the...
TRANSCRIPT
i
Settling in
The experiences of households helped into the Private Rented Sector through Local Authority direct letting
schemes in West London
West London Housing Partnership/LHUC Research Project August 2007 Elizabeth Alexander Principal Policy & Research Officer – London Housing Tel. 020 7934 9832 [email protected]
ii
This research was commissioned by the seven London boroughs that make up the West London Housing
Partnership – Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, and Royal
borough of Kensington and Chelsea - and was carried out by London Housing (part of London Councils)
in 2006/2007. The author would like to thank the officers from West London Housing Partnership who
were generous with their time and assistance, as well as the interviewees for their time and openness.
The views and policy recommendations expressed in this report are specific to the research commissioned and undertaken by the LHUC for the West London Housing Partnership. They should not be interpreted as London Councils’ policy.
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nationally, regionally and sub regionally local authorities have been focussed on putting in place
strategies to prevent and manage homelessness. In West London, the boroughs of the sub-region are
planning to make more extensive use of the private rented sector as part of their plans to meet the 2010
target to halve the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation. The success of this
strategy depends on the approaches that are adopted to establish tenancies in the private rented sector
for homeless households. Success is measured by the sustainability of these tenancies and the levels to
which a household’s social, economic and life chances are enhanced. This qualitative research sought to
determine what works, what doesn’t work, and how this knowledge can be used to reduce the risk of a
further need arising for these tenants.
In-depth interviews with 36 tenants about their experiences in a private rented property accessed through
a Direct Let scheme were carried out – both with tenants currently in their home provided by the scheme
(31 tenants), and with tenants that had moved on to another property (5 tenants). Properties tenants had
moved on to were either temporary accommodation or another private tenancy. A postal survey was
distributed to over 2500 tenants and 25% were returned. Landlords were contacted by telephone.
The evidence shows that between 40-78% of placements via the West London schemes are sustained –
the tenants are still in the property they were first placed in by the direct letting scheme. The variation is
somewhat dependent on the length of time the borough has operated a scheme.
Evidence from this research shows that the data available and statistics on the use of direct let schemes
is not consistent across boroughs, particularly there is a lack of knowledge in some boroughs about how
long placements are held for, where households move on to, and the reasons for moving. One borough
(Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) held complete records of this nature. There is a need for
consistent recording of this information.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s records showed that the less than 1% of households
had to move because the landlord sold the property, although the fear that the landlord will sell the
property is one of the biggest reasons for tenants feeling ‘less than settled’. Further research needs to be
undertaken, to explore the scope, frequency and nature of this fear and the action that can be taken to
alleviate the fears of tenants and potential tenants.
The interview subjects and respondents to the postal survey are on the whole ‘satisfied’ and ‘very
satisfied’ with both their home and neighbourhood – 64% and 64.6% across West London in total.
Where necessary, tenants had generally been able to personalise the décor of the home within reason.
The location of the home was generally rated favourably in relation to access to a GP, chemists, schools
(where relevant), public transport, the library, play areas, shops, and other amenities. Location of a
tenant’s home was not as favourably rated by tenants for seeing family and friends, accessing
entertainment/leisure facilities, and support organisations (except in the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea). Possibly the fact that public transport systems are easily accessed compensated for adverse
ii
location factors, but there is also evidence from the interviews that household members do not always
choose to be located close to family members and the location of support organisations is not commonly
known.
Interview evidence showed that households that had entered into a tenancy agreement between
themselves and a private landlord were fully integrated in terms of their lifestyle – there were very positive
responses on health, schools, reference groups, and the freedom to come and go as they chose from
their own front door.
There was no evidence in the interviews of poor health, lesser school achievements, or indeed any
detrimental effect on an individual’s needs according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, apart from self-
actualisation via work and fulfilling an individuals potential.
There was evidence of barriers to entering work and training, caused by the high rent levels of the
properties into which households had been placed. Rent levels are higher in the inner boroughs, which
could be a significant reason why less respondents were in work. The West London boroughs of
Hillingdon, Harrow, and Ealing had marginally more tenants in work, either full or part time.
Four tenants of the 36 interviews had accepted Qualifying Offers and took up a direct let placement from
Temporary Accommodation having been accepted as homeless. There were indications from the
interviews that the take up of a ‘direct let’ move from ‘could have been more fully explained. The
implications of this on households needs to be further explored in terms of their feelings of security and
settledness as well as any detrimental affect on an individual wider needs.
The level of vulnerability of households was a clear indicator of where a household moved if they left a
direct let scheme. While the sample in this study was small, it showed that for more vulnerable tenants
(generally due to ill health), they moved back into temporary accommodation generally having had a bad
experience in the direct let, and were still having a bad and insecure housing experience. For households
that were less vulnerable, they were able to set up another private tenancy without council assistance.
For this reason, the placement of households that are vulnerable due to medical conditions needs to be
considered carefully and where possible placed with landlords who indicate willingness to let properties
for periods longer than 1 year.
Signposting of support schemes available to tenants needs to be increased and improved. While
borough scheme officers reported (and understood) that a wide range of support was available to tenants,
very often the tenants often did not know where and who to go for assistance. Further work needs to be
undertaken to explore what signposting approaches work and what doesn’t, and equally what are the
information needs (and when) of tenants.
Significantly breakdowns in communication between all three parties: scheme officers, tenants, and
landlords was prevalent across the data set. Ultimately, security is required by the tenants, and a
reassurance that a household will be located elsewhere if a tenancy ends can be a quick and significant
win in this respect. Some households who were interviewed had been relocated through a borough
scheme, and these households did respond more favourably to the issue of being settled. Many of the
tenants did not find out that the host borough would facilitate another tenancy until they needed it. Until
iii
that time, the end of the tenancy adds to the feeling of insecurity and an overall insecure housing
experience. Borough schemes that report to providing this facility could benefit from sharing this
information to tenants more readily based on the potentially cost neutral aspect to moving tenants (apart
from administration costs).
The opportunity to empower tenants with the choice to end tenancies should be adopted. When deposits
are returned at the end of a tenancy, this should be utilised to facilitate another tenancy for that
household. Households need be informed of what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of a tenancy
– for example no heating, no hot-water, leaking ceilings, and windows that remain broken for months
without repair are clearly unacceptable. There was evidence of tenants tolerating unacceptable living
conditions, - landlords that fail to provide a decent standard of home should not be rewarded with
continuing tenancies.
Improving Landlord awareness needs to be a focus and a priority for boroughs. While this is partly
addressed through the London Landlord Accreditation Scheme, there was not enough depth, breath and
consistency of Landlord awareness and therefore take-up of the scheme among the landlords surveyed
was minimal. Whilst Landlords felt that they have good knowledge of most things regarding their
tenancies: lease agreements, safety standards, and were responsive to the needs of the tenants
regarding repairs. They were not fully aware of the wider proposals concerning the reform of Housing
Benefit and particularly issues regarding the national roll out of the Local Housing Allowance and how its
effect can be managed and mitigated. There needs to be widespread sharing of information and a lead
from the boroughs concerning the development, implementation and impact of the local housing
allowance on both landlords and tenants.
Finally – there is a shortage of social housing available for permanent tenancies in London, therefore
utilising the private sector will continue, and the results of this research clearly indicates that without
doubt, every one of the households placed in a Direct Let tenancy in the private sector is in a better
position according to the selected range of indicators, than where they were before placement. Most
household members were happy and in a home that they readily identified with and called’ home’.
iv
KEY NOTE RECOMMENDATIONS
Full recommendations and conclusions from this project are inserted throughout the chapters as they
arise. The main recommendations are outlined below.
1. There is a need for further pro active and innovative use of Rent deposit guarantees schemes where appropriate.
- Rent deposit and deposit guarantee schemes should be adopted widely in preference to Finders fees
schemes.
-Finders Fees should be used at boroughs discretion, rather than becoming an expectation by landlords
on the basis that they have accepted Housing Benefit (HB) tenants. Unfortunately fees paid to encourage
Landlords to accept HB recipients continue to contribute to stigma attached to Housing Benefit recipients.
-Finders Fee shouldn’t be a one-off entitlement but used to find new landlords in cases where tenants did
not bring about the end of the tenancy.
2. Steps should be taken to improve the ‘quality’ of private landlords.
- Whilst the quality of the properties on the schemes is generally high, there is evidence of a need for
better and more responsive landlords. Tenant concerns can be addressed through the development and
further roll out of landlord accreditation schemes (LLAS), which need to be actively promoted with private
landlords to ensure better participation and adoption by private landlords.
3. Introduce more flexible and tenant focussed décor agreements
- Some flexibility regarding the scope and quality of décor could increase tenant satisfaction with their
tenancy, for example three way agreements about the furniture, the décor, the provision of white-goods
should be developed to ensure tenant expectations about properties are met and tenant satisfaction with
their home is improved.
4. More creative incentives to private landlords in order to encourage tenancy sustainment. - Incentives could be developed for landlords regarding tenancy sustainment beyond the Finders Fee
5. More targeted encouragement of households to access low cost rented accommodation.
-The location of properties is vitally important for the households with young families due to support
received from family networks. Young households (very often single headed female headed households)
without the experience of setting up, maintaining and running a home before approaching the council rely
critically on the support of family networks. But this can trap them into areas of higher rent because of
proximity demands. To address these issue, methods to encourage families to accept properties of lower
rent needs to be explored.
6. Develop more open and informative direct let tenant inclusion packages
-The depth and breath of information that a tenant has of their rights and also what they should expect
from their landlords needs to be improved. Boroughs should explore further with tenants and develop
direct let tenant inclusion package (DLTIP) which need to include:
v
- clear and plain English information on a tenant's tenancy rights and obligations
- a clear outline and description of what’s acceptable and non acceptable behaviour from a landlord and
what services a landlord should provide
- who is responsible for what services, in managing and servicing the tenancy.
-a clear explanation of what will happen to a tenant and at what stage at the end of a tenancy
7. More effective and timely management of tenant insecurity
-There is a prevalent fear among tenants that their landlord will sell the property they are living in, which
increases reported insecurity.
-Although the current statistics show that less than 5% of tenancies ended because the landlords have
sold a property with a sitting tenant, this is still one of the biggest influencing factors in feelings of being
‘less than settled’ in tenants that were surveyed.
-The findings from this research should be further explored, in order to develop approaches and
strategies that will result in giving tenants a better appreciation of the probable stability of their tenancy.
8. More proactive borough work advising and supporting tenants through the tenancy ‘closure’ process.
-When a private tenancy comes to an end, the practise of doing nothing until the date of the eviction order
needs to be addressed. No action or poor information only serves to compound the feelings of insecurity
that a household might have. Particularly when for many of these households a transfer into another
direct let would be the preferred route for accommodation. A more proactive and supportive approach to
the re-housing of these households needs to be adopted.
9. Develop a consensus on what ‘settled’ means.
-There is a need to revisit what is now perceived as settled?’ – the question needs to be asked of the
much wider population across all housing tenures where settled can mean very different things to
different household at different stages of their housing lifecycles. Further work needs to be carried out
particularly in the context where there is an argument increasingly becoming apparent that households
accommodated in the properties from the temporary accommodation count based on their feelings of
settledness should be excluded.
Should this be Temp to perm excluded, and should we be challenging what the CLG wants to be
understood as settled.
10,More effective use of Council records and data bases.
-One of the findings from this piece of research suggests that utilising household data contained within
Council tax records for example could be used to assist further research. Particularly where there is a
conspicuous lack of information from households that have moved on, with the result that councils need
to consider other methods of finding these household sin order to complete a review of the services.
11. Integrating the lessons from concurrent research:
-The Brent Private Tenants Association (BPTA) is conducting concurrent research that looks at why some
vi
private tenancies lead to homelessness. The interplay and cross referencing between this piece of
research and the BPTA research may yield useful insights about the nature of private tenancies and how
potential homeless households from this client group can be reduced.
12. Smarter and more comprehensive recording of why a tenancy ends.
There is a need for better more accurate and comprehensive data on tenancy terminations. Only in
Kensington and Chelsea were records kept of the reasons why people left their tenancy, and where they
went to. If a deposit scheme was utilised, then information regarding the end of a tenancy would be
shared.
Specifically, we want to know the proportion of tenancies that end in abandonment or eviction in order
that the reasons and trends can be explored and strategies put in place to address the issues that
emerge.
13. Follow up work using focus groups.
-The participation and comments of the interviewees who engaged with this piece of research were
invaluable, and they should be used to assess the recommendations from a service user perspective.
One approach could be for a focus group comprised of invited interview subjects toe explore and asses
the impact and benefits that any changes or additions to the service would have for tenants.
vii
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE Summary...................................................................................................................i KEY NOTE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. iv CONTENTS................................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 Research project aims.............................................................................................................. 1 Research project outcomes...................................................................................................... 1 Defining a sustained tenancy ................................................................................................... 1 Quality of life and well-being .................................................................................................... 3 Poverty and Social Exclusion ................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 3: SCHEME OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 6 Analysis of the scheme take up................................................................................................ 9 Information on the level of tenancies sustained: .................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 4: TENANT POSTAL SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................. 12 Level of tenant satisfaction..................................................................................................... 13 Conditions of the home .......................................................................................................... 15 Location of home in relation to amenities............................................................................... 15 Other comments from the survey ........................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 5: WHO WAS INTERVIEWED? ............................................................................... 21 Profiles of the interview subjects: ........................................................................................... 21 Selection of the interview subjects ......................................................................................... 21 Household type ...................................................................................................................... 22 Age, Gender, Ethnic Group, ................................................................................................... 23 Priority need grouping of the subjects .................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWS ...................................................................... 24 Descriptions of the Home ....................................................................................................... 24 The pathway into their direct let home ................................................................................... 25 Choice of property .................................................................................................................. 25 Making a direct let a home ..................................................................................................... 26 Moving on from a direct let ..................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 7: SCHOOLING....................................................................................................... 28 Within the DL scheme: ........................................................................................................... 28 Post living in direct letting....................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 8: ENTERING AND SUSTAINING TRAINING........................................................ 30 In training................................................................................................................................ 30 Not considering training.......................................................................................................... 31 Sustaining training.................................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 9: WORK AND WORKLESSNESS ......................................................................... 32 Barriers to Work ..................................................................................................................... 32 Had any changes or improvements come to those in work:................................................... 32 Who wasn’t working and why? ............................................................................................... 33 Benefit disincentives............................................................................................................... 34 Who went back to work .......................................................................................................... 35 Leaving the scheme ............................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 10: HEALTH............................................................................................................. 37 Issues with vulnerability.......................................................................................................... 37 Support:.................................................................................................................................. 38 Leaving a direct let scheme property ..................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 11: ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................... 40 Keeping up with activities? ..................................................................................................... 40
Wider impact - Starting new things?....................................................................................... 40
viii
Family..................................................................................................................................... 41 Young Parents........................................................................................................................ 41
CHAPTER 12: SETTLEDNESS ................................................................................................ 42 Did the interviewees feel settled?........................................................................................... 42 Those that said Yes................................................................................................................ 42 Reasonably settled:................................................................................................................ 43 Those that said No ................................................................................................................. 44 Did the length of the tenancy affect the settled-ness?............................................................ 44
CHAPTER 13: LANDLORDS .................................................................................................... 46 Landlord checks ..................................................................................................................... 46 Inventory................................................................................................................................. 46 London Landlords Accreditation Scheme............................................................................... 47 Décor and furnishing .............................................................................................................. 48 Settledness............................................................................................................................. 48 Interview results: tenants comments about Landlords ........................................................... 48 Interviews with landlords and the services they provide ........................................................ 49 Barriers to working with the council ........................................................................................ 49 Life after living in a direct letting ............................................................................................. 50
Deposit Protection Scheme........................................................................................................ 50 Local Housing Allowance ........................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER 14: QUALIFYING OFFERS...................................................................................... 53
Case study: Recollections of the pathway into a DL by one interviewee ........................... 53 Communication ...................................................................................................................... 53 Why do tenants not recall the information that was shared with them at the time?................ 53 Would the tenants have chosen the private sector over a 5 year wait in TA?........................ 54
CHAPTER 15: WHO BENEFITS?............................................................................................. 55 1 Households that required a platform from which to regain a ‘home’ .............................. 55 2 Other households ........................................................................................................... 55 Direct lets and Benefit dependency........................................................................................ 56 What is better: Finders fee vs Rent Deposit scheme ............................................................. 57
CHAPTER 16: COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................ 59 What the scheme offers ......................................................................................................... 59 Empowering Tenants ............................................................................................................. 59 Ending tenancies.................................................................................................................... 60 Signposting sources of information ........................................................................................ 61 Housing Benefit ...................................................................................................................... 62 Support................................................................................................................................... 63 Locata..................................................................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES:.......................................................................................................................... 64 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 65 METHODOLGY.......................................................................................................................... 65
Deposit scheme tenants postal survey................................................................................... 67 Landlord telephone survey ..................................................................................................... 68 In-depth interviews with tenants ............................................................................................. 68 Restrictions of the research.................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX 1: Tenant Postal Survey.......................................................................................... 70 Appendix 2: borough ethnic groupings.................................................................................. 81 Appendix 3: LB Hillingdon letters to tenants and landlords .................................................... 82 Appendix 4: Borough * Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household ........................................................................ 84
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction Making effective use of homes in the private rented sector is to be a key resource for boroughs seeking to
meet the temporary accommodation target by 2010, with it falling into both prevention work and the
conversion of temporary accommodation to settled homes. However, at this stage, not much is known
about the ‘settled’ nature of these homes for households that have or have not experienced
homelessness. More specific information about the use and outcomes of current practices will provide
the boroughs with information for enabling the most appropriate use to be made of a limited resource.
Specifically what works and what doesn’t? Why is one tenancy ‘sustainable’ and another not? What could
landlords or Councils do differently or more effectively to ease and sustain tenancy in the private sector -
These and other questions will be explored and answered in this piece of research.
Research project aims
• to identify and evaluate the levels of success that clients placed into the private rented sector via
a direct letting scheme have experienced with their tenancies.
Research project outcomes
• identify borough practices that lead to successful tenancies
• identify the range of behaviours and attitudes between landlords and tenants in direct lets
• identify what factors can lead to more sustainable direct lets
Defining a sustained tenancy Key to this research is a definition of what constitutes a sustained tenancy, and then ascertaining the
positive or negative effect each degree of sustainability can have on the life chances of the household
members.
Sustaining a tenancy at its most immediate is easily defined as ‘an individual staying for the term of the
tenancy agreement’. But, in the wider context and in the complexities of establishing and sustaining a
stable home (very often where the household will include one or more children) there will be a range of
economic, social, emotional and background environmental factors. A one year timeframe doesn’t
adequately define a stable home and prove that a private sector rental has been partially or completely
appropriate to meet all a households needs.
Consequently it is necessary to identify a set of indicators and develop a scale of outcomes that, following
the initial placement, will provide a tool with which to assess if the placement in the private sector was
appropriate.
Factors that were considered in this research as contributing to assessing if a tenancy was appropriate or
sustainable where:-
2
- the duration of the tenancy and its completion
- the level of repeat and renewed tenancies
- lifestyle choices
- any increase or decrease in working activity of the household
- the reasons for voluntary moves and where they went next
- the reasons for involuntary moves and where they went next
- tenants views of settled/unsettled accommodation
Previous research on the circumstances that might lead an individual to view a tenancy as settled can be
seen in Warnes and Crane (2003) study of the resettlement of older homeless people where three key
indicators were identified - they defined a settled tenancy as one:
- where the subjects reported feeling settled,
- that they were satisfied with the accommodation, and
- had no thoughts of leaving.
Ultimately the task that has been set is assessing whether a private tenancy has been beneficial or
detrimental (or no change) to a household that has required assistance from the local authority due to the
threat of or actual homelessness. This translates into determining a change over time that can manifest
itself if a variety of ways – the tenancy status, the health of the occupants before, during and after the
tenancy, as previously discussed. Ideally, completing an assessment before the tenancy, and then again
at a later stage would be have provided more accurate information. In the absence of a long-term study,
the interviews sought to measure any change in lifestyle as recalled by the subjects. Thus, the results of
this study rely entirely on the memory of these applicants.
What changes? The issue of appropriateness of a tenancy is a difficult judgement to make: are the household members
experiencing a change to their quality of life having been placed in a direct let. Determining the nature of
the change has been a crucial factor because several different outcomes were possible since the first
placement. These can be broken down into the following:
1 the household is still in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has decreased
2 the household is still in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has remained the same
3 the household is still in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has increased
4 the household is no longer in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has decreased
5 the household is no longer in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has remained the same
6 the household is no longer in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has remained the increased
Whether the household is still in the property in which they were originally placed, or they have moved on,
is a relatively simple determination. Considering the quality of life is more problematic. In fact, some
researchers in the past have actively avoided using quality of life because of the difficulty in making
subjective judgements about another person’s life.
3
Quality of life and well-being The measurement of quality of life and well-being, has been employed in areas of research based on
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1970).
Human needs according to Maslow are
• Basic: air, water, food, sleep and sex
• Safety: about our home and family
• Belonging: clubs, groups, families, or gangs – the feeling of non-sexual love and acceptance
• Self esteem: skills, attention, and recognition
The level of satisfaction achieved in the first four of these needs will predict the final and highest level:
• Self actualisation: fulfilment of one’s own potential
The articulation, scope and method of satisfying these needs is dependent on cultures over time,
although the underlying fundamental individual needs stay the same. Without the basic needs met as
listed above, an individual would experience feelings of pain, illness, and discomfort.
Clarke (2005) used this list of needs to measure well-being, admittedly it was used to measure well-being
within 7 Asian countries, but the theory behind this could be adapted to the needs of the current research
to determine how households have fared since the initial placement. Importantly, Clarke notes that the
extension of Maslow’s needs index can be used to demonstrate whether a society is assisting or
hindering its citizens from becoming self-actualised. Worth noting here is that needs are not dependent
on income – the needs can be satisfied without increasing income. Also, there is room for a shifting
dominant need – one of the non-hierarchical needs will become a priority, and this can depend on its
absence or threatened absence.
To take a guide from the findings of other research on this nature, i.e. the resettling of older homeless
people, Warner and Crane (2003) identified the following as the most important factors:
i person was employed for the last 20+ years ii length of time person was homeless iii feelings of isolation from relatives and friends iv unoccupied during the day v socialising with homeless people vi contact with support at least twice weekly for the first 3 months Poverty and Social Exclusion A strand of poverty and social exclusion that clearly informs an assessment of household’s quality of life
or ‘well-being’ is the extent that a household containing children suffers from child poverty. Two recent
pieces of work from Unicef and the DWP provide a usual tool with which to further contextualise Maslow’s
definition.
4
Recent work by the DWP (‘Working for Children’ –2007) identify five characteristics that are associated
with a household containing children who experience living in poverty. The key characteristics are:
• Housing – Household living in the rented and social rented sectors • Large families – Three children or more • Disability - Household where one of more people have a disability • Ethnicity – Ethnic minority households with children are more likely to be experiencing poverty • Income - Worklessness or working in low-income work or where the income is not rising in real
terms.
Supporting on factor in this, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) reports that Poverty is twice as likely for
minority ethnic group and particularly that they are less likely to be working full time, (even less likely to
be in managerial jobs,), and that the problems are not restricted to first generation immigrants1.
Complementary to this work (albeit based on secondary sources) is a recent publication from UNICEF
(‘An overview of child well being in rich countries’ - 2007) which compares the well being of children on 6
criteria in order to arrive at a ranking of a the relative well being of children across 21 countries
specifically well being is assessed though:-
• Material well being – Level of income poverty • Overall health and safety – Overall levels of health • Educational well being – Educational attainment and level and quality of education • Relationships - Family and peer relationships • Behaviour and risks – Experience of violence, bullying and usual life inhibiting substances • Subjective well being – health, quality of school life and rating of personal satisfaction with self
and life Social Exclusion results from more than just income poverty. There is normally a combination of issues,
often linked, such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and
family breakdown2. In ‘Breaking the Cycle’, the most disadvantaged people were reported to not use
services and benefits as much as others, and this was particularly obvious in the New Deal employment
programme. While the report states that a client centred approach by boroughs is critical to improving
take up, accessing services starts with the clients actually believing themselves to be eligible to receive
them. In the current study, many of the clients would have satisfied the requirements to be accepted as
homeless, but in not progressing a homeless application, local authorities need to be sure that the
accompanying needs of these households are not going unmet. Employment in particular not only has
the possibility of a more sustainable route out of poverty, but is accompanied by the physical and
psychological health benefits. One of the main goals for local authorities in providing tenancies for these
households is as mentioned previously – to break the cycle. Children who experience multiple problems
1 Poverty rates among ethnic groups in Great Britain, JRF, April 2007 2 Social Exclusion Unit (2004)
themselves as children are much more likely to have poor outcomes in adulthood
5
3 and children that grow
up in workless households are much more likely to be poor in adulthood.
Consideration of these previously published works therefore led to the selection of the following topics as
a focus for the interviews with subjects in private tenancies facilitated by borough schemes:
- Satisfaction with the home and neighbourhood - Schooling - Work - Activities - Training - Health - Feeling settled
3 Social Exclusion Unit (2004)
6
CHAPTER 2: SCHEME OVERVIEW
An overview of the different boroughs technique is provided here, along with an indication of the take up
and outcomes of placements. The amount paid up front for tenancies varies and the combination of
Finders fee, deposit, rent in advance, and insurance varies through the seven boroughs. The data
available from each of the boroughs was sketchy and not consistent.
Brent Having operated a Deposit Guarantee Scheme now for about 12 years, Brent has by far the largest
number of placements in total. Clients are interviewed and assessed three times (by options, then by the
DGS team for an initial assessment, and finally by the DGS team once matched with a property).
Landlords offer properties to the scheme, and each is inspected. Note is taken of any actions that the
landlord is required to carry out, and of the CORGI certificates, and the expiry date is used to prompt
letters to the tenant and the landlord regarding the renewal of tenancy agreements.
Annually, they place nearly 300 tenants.
Ealing LB Ealing operates a Deposit Guarantee Scheme, and has now been operating for 4 years. Properties
are acquired through advertising and placed on a database. Applicants are also placed on the same
database and are match to available properties, according to size, preferred area, and other criteria.
When an applicant applies or is referred to the scheme, he/she is provided with the addresses of about 4
properties from the database and sent to view them. Upon selecting one of the properties, the landlord
grants the tenancy. If a clients turns down all 4 properties, the client is referred back to the options
service to reassess the most appropriate pathway for that tenant.
To date they have placed 451 clients.
Hammersmith and Fulham The scheme combines the deposit scheme and Finder Fee payments, and began in July of 2003. Since
then, over 800 placements have been made according to the following yearly breakdown of placement:
03/04 – 102
04/05 – 139
05/06 – 260
06/07 – 295 (as at February 2007)
7
Housing Benefit records were interrogated on a selection of placements made each year:
Year of placement Still live Not
known Moved
property Total
% of placements
still live 2003/04 16 42 10 68 24% 2004/05 23 30 10 63 37% 2005/06 120 125 15 260 46% 2006/07* 3 7 1 11 n/a Total 162 205 35 402
*investigation was restricted due to available time for accessing records.
n/a – sample too small for analysis
Harrow On the Finders Fee placement list for the Harrow scheme were 1031 recipients. HB analysis of the
current address for 680 (resource limitations meant that only 680 of the clients were investigated for a
current address) of those placements returned the following statistics on outcome:
- 345 were live addresses (51%)
- 128 had moved to new addresses and were still claiming Housing Benefit (19%)
- 207 had become unknown to the council (30%):
- 130 had cancelled housing benefit claims
- 48 were not found on the system at all
- 15 were not eligible on their original application
- 8 had confusing information in their claim history
- 6 undeterminable due to investigative error
The year of placement was not made available during the above analysis of the records.
Hillingdon Referrals to the Finders Fee scheme are made from the Options and Advice team of households they feel
are likely to sustain a private tenancy. Clients are provided with a list of estate agents to start them on
their way to finding a place. The procurement teams also hold a number of properties on a database.
Once a property and a landlord are found, the rent officer determines the rent level and the Housing
Benefit contribution if a tenant is working - relevant forms are completed. The Finders Fee is confirmed
and paid at the start of the tenancy. The signing of the tenancy agreement is facilitated by the borough,
and a follow-up letter goes to the landlord and the tenant separately containing helpful numbers and sets
out responsibilities for each party.
The LB Hillingdon procurement team is meticulous about investigating and recording levels of compliance
with gas safety, electricity, and in assessing properties before a tenancy in established.
Since April 2005, LB Hillingdon Finders Fee scheme has resulted in 660 placements. Interrogating
Housing Benefit records to identify those households that had moved from a property placed via scheme
returned 11 households. Data on the number of households that were not found on the HB records was
not provided; therefore the portion of placements that are still in the same property was not determined.
8
As each tenancy is set up, LB Hillingdon copy the ethnic monitoring form from the Housing Benefit
application. Analysis of this information should be made available to the sub-region in order to highlight
where take-up of the scheme is not accessed by ethnic groups.
Hounslow Information about the scheme was requested from LB Hounslow but not made available.
LB Hounslow officers decided against interrogating HB records to locate households who are still
receiving HB but had left their Direct let schemes because of the cost incurred with the outsourced
management of Housing Benefit. Thus, there were no ‘leavers’ identified.
Kensington and Chelsea Kensington and Chelsea have been operating a combined Finders Fee / Deposit scheme for 2 years
under the Letstart scheme - a short period of time compared to the other boroughs. The scheme
operates on a list of waiting clients that are awarded priority ratings, and of which 15% are in TA
(currently 80 households on the list) When a property becomes available, about 4 of the top priority
waiting clients are given the details and the option to view the property separately. (The current waiting
period for high priority cases is about 3 months.) The first client that indicates they would like to take the
property is guided through the process and a tenancy is set up. K and C scheme operators facilitate the
tenancy agreement between the tenant and the landlord, but also each party enters into a Tri-Agreement
with K and C that sets out responsibilities for the duration of the tenancy. Once the agreements are in
place follow-ups checks are made with the landlord, and a degree of follow-up care with the client is
provided dependent on how vulnerable that client is.
Housing Benefit records were not involved in determining the whereabouts of clients now – the detail
recorded by the team was complete: at the end of March 2007 there had been 120 placements made, of
which 11 have moved to a new Letstart property, and 8 have left the scheme altogether. This data
indicates that 78% of placements have sustained their tenancy so far. About 50% of placements are
made into properties managed by private landlords, and 50% managed by estate agents.
The reasons for leaving the scheme were:
- 4 moved out of borough, - 1 moved back in with parent - 1 moved to TA - 1 left to go to university - 1 was referred to a new scheme (New Generation scheme)
The reasons for moving property were:
- 3 moved because problems with the landlord arose - 4 because the flat was too small – change in circumstances - 1 required a different area - 2 moved because of landlord issues (1 pulled out, and 1 had mental health issues) - 1 landlord sold the property.
Out of 120 placements in one year, only one household had suffered the upheaval of moving property
because the landlord sold the property.
9
Of the 11 movers out of properties, 8 of the properties were cost neutral to the borough with either the full
deposit returned, or the deposit transferred to a new Letstart tenant.
Analysis of the scheme placements The following table contains a breakdown of the applicants that have taken a tenancy via the scheme in
each borough. Note that the period for which the data applies is different among the boroughs. Figures
are stated in percentages for ease of comparison.
Table 1: Analysis of placements
Brent Ealing H&F Harrow Hillingdon
Hounslow
K&C
Period of data Mar 06 - Mar 07
May 00 – Jul 07
April 05 - Mar 07
Apr 02 – Aug 07
Apr 05 – Mar 06
Apr 06 – Mar 07
Apr 06 – Mar 07
Total placement 332 451 560 1228 285 345 120
% % % % % % %
Head of households
Female 60 70 82 74 65 72
Male 36 30 18 26 35 28
Unknown 4 - 0 -
Ethnic Mix White 26 35 45 35 48
Black 58 20 25 25 35
Asian 13 12 8 20 27
Mixed 2 6 1 3 5
Other 3 28 22 17 5
Age of head of household
18-24 9 15 29 14 20
25-44 62 37 56 64 66
45-64 16 7 12 14 28
65+ 2 0 12 2 6
Unknown 13 41 1 6 0
Employment status
Working (part or full time)
19* 22 104* n/a 30
Pension 3 0 10 n/a 10
Property size Studio n/a <1 Below 1 0 1
1-bed n/a 20 10 12 24 38
2-bed n/a 59 55 66 41 62
3-bed n/a 18 32 22 29 19
4-bed + n/a 3 3 4 6 1
Household composition
Single adult 27 12 n/a 16
Single adult with children
53 64 n/a 45
2 adults 3 1 n/a 11
2 adults with 15 22 n/a 48
10
children
More than 2 adults
2 0 n/a 0
Detail unknown 2 0 n/a
Information on the level of tenancies sustained: One of the outcomes of the research is to determine the success of tenancies set up via the scheme, but
this was not completely possible due to the lack of recorded information. All boroughs were asked to
provide access to HB records to determine if households placed via the schemes were still in their
property. While RBKC did not need to utilise the HB records for this detail, the interrogation only took
place in Harrow, Hillingdon, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Brent and Ealing were too late getting in
providing access to the HB records, and Hounslow opted against the interrogation because of the costs
involved due to the outsourced HB system. Interrogating the HB records was a time consuming exercise,
and was only part carried out in Harrow and Hammersmith and Fulham. Hillingdon did not make the full
results available.
Only Kensington and Chelsea record detail about when and why a tenancy is ended and because of the
short operating time of the Letstart scheme, a sustainability level is not applicable to the sub-region as a
whole. Households that were placed less than 1 year ago in a 1 year tenancy agreement would be
expected to still be in the property, hence the 78% return from Kensington and Chelsea. Likewise,
because Hammersmith and Fulham have operated a scheme for four 4 years, the number of tenancies
that have been sustained (households still living in the same property) should be viewed independently.
The data for Hammersmith and Fulham is relevant only to tenancies that are older than 1 year, and there
is evidence of a decrease in the numbers sustained. This trend is expected and could be explained by a
number of reasons:
- the household has moved property, and is still claiming Housing Benefit but the address history
does not include the initial placement address
- the household has become unknown to the Housing Benefit because they have either moved
borough or claiming benefit under a different name
- the household is no longer receiving benefit because they are living rent-free, either back with
family or friends, in their own home, sleeping rough
- the household is no longer receiving benefit because they hare now earning enough money to
exhaust the benefit tapers.
The information for Harrow was not able to be differentiated by year of placement and so includes
households within the first year of their tenancy and those whom have been placed for a lot longer.
Therefore an average of 51% of all placements identified as sustained across several years of activity,
will have a wide but unknown variance.
Recommendation: the level of detail provided by Kensington and Chelsea is invaluable when discussing
the success of schemes. In all the other boroughs, there would be great value in recording further detail
about placements ending tenancies.
11
What needs to be recorded:
- number of renewals to the tenancy, and duration of lease
- tenants reasons for not renewing a tenancy
- landlord reasons for not renewing a tenancy
- where the household went to following their scheme tenancy
Recommendation: utilise the record-keeping potential of the benefit system to the full. There was
evidence of data lost or incomplete records, for example, recording the scheme by which a household is
placed in property needs to be consistent. Further interrogation of the records for data on placement
should be reliable.
Recommendation: Interrogating the HB records has provided an indication of the number of tenancies
that are continued. Further investigation would be useful in light of the absence of recorded data. West
London boroughs are encouraged to:
- complete for the boroughs that are unable to be included in this research
- identify when benefit payment was stopped and analyse against placement date for information
about the average length of tenancies
Recommendation: The interrogation of Housing Benefit records to identify households that moved on
from their scheme placement property was good, but did not return the expected numbers of households
that were required for interviews. A more targeted approach to identifying the whereabouts of households
is recommended, more specifically Council Tax records could be utilised for this purpose.
12
CHAPTER 4: TENANT POSTAL SURVEY RESULTS
• Age and sex Across all of the boroughs, the survey respondents were predominantly from female-headed households
(68-82%). The age distribution of respondents was also consistent, with two minor discrepancies but
worthy of note: Hounslow had very few respondents in the 18-24-age bracket (2.9%), and Hillingdon had
a slightly higher number of respondents in this age bracket (27.2). The rest of the distribution according
to age was remarkable similar with by far the most respondents aged between 24-44 years old (52.3 –
69.2%)
• Work status
Interestingly, there were a high number of full-time workers in Kensington and Chelsea, and particularly
few of these in Brent, that returned the survey. There were no retired persons completing the survey in
Hillingdon, and no students in Hounslow. Harrow had slightly high number of respondents in part time
work.
• Benefits:
The above work activity is reflected in number in receipt of benefits: Brent has particular high numbers
receiving full benefit, with less receiving part benefit. Hounslow and Harrow had higher numbers of
respondents that received part housing benefit.
• Household Makeup
As a total figure, predictably, the majority of the respondents were lone parents with 1 or more than 1
child (36.6 and 24.9 respectively), together accounting for 61.5% of respondents. Households with
children accounted for 86.7% of the respondents. There were very few elderly people (2.3% single, 0.5%
2 or more over 60).
At a borough level, there were slight differences between the respondents:
- Kensington and Chelsea had 10.6% aged over 60
- Brent and Hounslow had considerably higher respondents who were single non-elderly
people (22.7 and 25.7% respectively) than the average (8.1%)
• Ethnic group
The ethnic mix of the respondents does not match the breakdown of the homelessness acceptances, nor
the general population of the sub-region with 30% white British.
13
Table 2 : Ethnic Group of respondents
Ethnic Group
White Black Asian other
Not known Total
Brent Count 9 24 7 6 1 47 % within Borough 19.1% 51.1% 14.9% 12.8% 2.1% 100.0%Ealing Count 27 26 19 5 3 80 % within Borough 33.8% 32.5% 23.8% 6.3% 3.8% 100.0%Hammersmith and Fulham
Count 60 43 13 20 7 143
% within Borough 42.0% 30.1% 9.1% 14.0% 4.9% 100.0%Harrow Count 81 63 56 16 3 219 % within Borough 37.0% 28.8% 25.6% 7.3% 1.4% 100.0%Hillingdon Count 109 30 38 18 2 197 % within Borough 55.3% 15.2% 19.3% 9.1% 1.0% 100.0%Hounslow Count 25 19 17 6 3 70 % within Borough 35.7% 27.1% 24.3% 8.6% 4.3% 100.0%Kensington and Chelsea
Count 27 5 9 5 1 47
% within Borough 57.4% 10.6% 19.1% 10.6% 2.1% 100.0%Total Count 338 210 159 76 20 803 % within Borough 42.1% 26.2% 19.8% 9.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Level of tenant satisfaction Overall the tenants were very satisfied and satisfied with both their home and the location. There were
very low levels of dissatisfaction with both home and location expressed in Kensington and Chelsea, and
slightly higher than average levels of dissatisfaction with both the home and location expressed by
tenants in Brent and Ealing.
The results are not surprising. Postal surveys went only to tenants that were still in the property they
were placed in by the scheme. Negative scores, i.e. dissatisfied and very dissatisfied, are not absent but
certainly not as frequently rated as the higher scores. This data could indicate that where tenants are
dissatisfied with their home and/or neighbourhood, households do move. Because of the lack of
information about movers, the question of where they move to, i.e. to a more or less favourable situation,
remains unanswered.
The following table shows the borough distribution of scores:
14
Table 3: Tenant postal survey – Tenant satisfaction with their homes.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Brent
Ealing H&F
Harrow
Hillingd
on
Hounslo
wK&C WL
very satisf ied
satisf ied
neither satisf ied or dissatisf ied
dissatisf ied
very dissatisf ied
Table 4: Tenant postal survey – Tenant satisfaction with the neighbourhood.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Brent
Ealing H&F
Harrow
Hillingd
on
Hounslo
wK&C WL
very satisf ied
satisf ied
neither satisf ied or dissatisf ied
dissatisf ied
very dissatisf ied
15
Conditions of the home Tenants were asked about any issues in their home arising from damp, keeping warm, keeping cool,
overcrowding, noise, the state of repair, safety and security, and if the home contained reasonably
modern facilities. Responses show that the majority of homes that applicants are placed in are in good
condition. Tables containing the borough breakdown for these conditions are supplied in the appendices.
Table 5: Conditions of the home
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Damp Keeping warm Keeping cool Over-crowding Noise Poor state ofrepair
Safe andSecure
Reasonablymodernfacilities
Not a problemSlight problemSerious problem
Location of home in relation to amenities The location of the home returned the following percentages (table 6). Relatively few household thought
that they were not well placed to any amenities. However, location of homes was less favourably rated in
relation to three key amenities: family/friends, entertainment and leisure, and support organisations.
Only RBKC returned a higher than average response to the location of support systems.
Table 6: Location of amenities
16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Doctor
Pharm
acy
Work
Public
Transp
ort
Librar
y
Primary
scho
ol
Secon
dary
scho
ol
Play ar
eas
Shops
Family
and f
riend
sBan
ks
Post o
ffice
Enterta
inmen
t / Le
isure
Suppo
rt orga
nisati
on
Well placedFairly well placedNot well placedNot important
Other comments from the survey Comments were made freely in a space provided by 327 of the respondents. These comments were
categorized according to content, and a summary is provided here. Comments were made by
approximately half of all respondents, and the distribution of respondees indicative of the total
respondents per borough. The comments made were consistent across the boroughs and therefore have
been grouped topically.
1. Satisfied with the service. The comments were predominantly positive with over one third of
those choosing to make a comment indicating that the service and scheme were helpful, useful,
met the required needs of the client, friendly, and the clients were very pleased
the council officer that I had was extremely helpful and understood my needs he was so nice that he felt more like a friend this of course put me at ease
I felt that I was dealt with very well and quickly I was given adequate information and was housed quickly
the service I received was very useful to me I also think the rent deposit scheme has been a great success
(staff member) was very helpful understanding, without him it could have been very difficult to get back to a normal life, because we would become homeless
It really help me and my son as we were sharing one bedroom, no dining room, no living room , no place for him to study, I am very grateful with the deposit rent scheme.
it wasn’t bad experience after all, honestly it was good everything was fine and easy contacting the landlord housing benefit process my application quickly
the officer that dealt with me was first class and helped me through one of the most stressful periods of my life
17
I find the finders fee team work very hard to help me and my family to find a home, and was very helpful in every way.
2. Information shared at the time or setting up the tenancy could have been more complete.
Tenants felt that they were not adequately informed about ending tenancies, the long term
implications of the scheme, finding properties, the effect of the scheme on their bidding priority on
Locata.
Mr X seemed to think that I know all about the scheme, I was not aware of any details and he failed to explain them especially that I would have to pay rent he never returned my calls
I was promised financial help and a removal van to help me move but was told once I moved in I was not entitled and removal van was never arranged for me. I was left with no bed, kettle, toaster, coffee table, just a fridge, cooker and washing machine and also a sofa
I was of the understanding I didn’t have to pay any rent for the first four weeks, but then after six weeks I owed the landlord two hundred pounds neither myself or the landlord realised this until I received a letter
although easy to contact, I felt that the officer could have given myself more detailed information at the time regarding the scheme the down side was housing benefits - it 8 week to sort out, and tenancy agreement took time due to landlord not knowing what to do
I felt I could have been kept more in the loop in terms of what was happening especially at the critical point of property negotiations. It was mostly I who had to push for information on where things stood.
Very helpful, but I don’t think that some of the landlords were fully aware of how the scheme actually worked i.e. 4 weekly payments rather than monthly payments which they generally expect.
I have never heard of the finders fee scheme I would be grateful if someone explains to me what I means
Neither the landlord nor myself were told that if the tenancy was not renewed after 12 months we would have to go through eviction process. I wish I had been informed about this
We still don’t know what happens after the tenancy agreement for the property we live in know expires will finders fee find us another property?
I was never told my banding would go down form c to d
I felt even if they found a privately rented house for me I would still remain on the council housing list, which I didn’t. I had to re-register for Locata. If I have a problem with renting again who do I go to, council or finders fee?
when I first went onto the direct letting scheme I was told I was unable to go onto the local housing register after 2.5 years I only first found out I was allowed to be on it which has slowed me down, so my whole housing situation is a mess
The only thing that I was unhappy about was that I was told, going on the scheme, would automatically put me on the housing register. This was not as a result I feel a whole year was the case wasted
3. The lack of shared information was referred to regarding tenants not being in a position to receive
an offer of a permanent tenancy.
Before I was on the deposit guarantee scheme I was placed in temporary private renting and told I would only be there for 1 year and would get a permanent council place at the end of it this
18
turned into 4 years and then went onto the DGS now I have been told I wont get a council place
I wasn’t told that I would no longer be on the housing waiting list. And put on a house bidding scheme, where I have no chance of being housed
4. Mostly, the tenants felt that the process of offering a rent deposition scheme was presented with
a lack of alternative options.
I felt I was pushed into this scheme without me knowing what was happening at a very vulnerable time in my life. And now I feel I am stuck, and my life can’t progress. I cant go back to work as I cant afford to pay rent on this property
Since I didn’t have more information about the scheme I can’t comment but its seems officers all they want is to put you in the house whether you like or not!!!
I felt I was pushed onto scheme without agreeing to it. An easy way of getting me off the housing list. Now I am trapped, with no chance of a council or housing association place.
I was told if I don’t take any property that the offer me they will not be able to look for me any other property and I will be out in the street again. I was not happy because I had to take whatever I was offered in order not to be out on the street
I was told I was going on finders fee, practically bullied and information given was incorrect
I was never told how the scheme full works; only now I understand, as I was informed by a member of Locata. If I know then what I know now, I wouldn’t have gone with finders fee. I waited 10 months to be fobbed off and stuck here!
5. Dealing with estate agents was a difficult task for many of the applicants
Most estate agents asked for a guarantor with ridiculous requirements/conditions, e.g., earnings of over £27,000+ !
I must say it was very difficult to get a response from the letting agency if I mention that I am from the direct letting scheme. Most of the letting agencies don’t want to get involve in this scheme
It has been so hard to get estate agents who accept DSS those who accept put condition of 1 month rend and deposit.
There could have been more information about it as estate agents laughed at me when I asked them to give a house under this scheme. I didn’t know!!!
Finders fee scheme is not very useful because none of the estate agents are prepared to take housing benefits tenants. The only reason we have found is that the estate agents do not like the way the rent is paid by the council, they want a monthly payment whereas the council pays for 3 weeks in every month. So they do not want weekly rent because it makes their life difficult. Also they have complained that the council does not pay the rent on the same date every month.
6. Follow-up care was suggested by a number of the tenants, particularly focusing on landlord
liaison.
free finders must visit the homes after the tenant move in, to insure that the tenant and landlord are both
19
satisfy
the finders fee scheme should not only consider offering houses but also do some follow ups and see how landlords/ladies deal with tenants
7. Rent levels in the private sector were mentioned on a few occasions, specifically rents were too
high for the clients placed
The housing officer moved me into the property then told me that housing benefit would not cover the full cost of the rent leaving me to pay the short fall on the rent out of my job seekers allowance.
I am now in a flat that I find difficult to afford half of my wages goes to the landlord, I even borrow money to live and I know that the council will never give me a council flat. I think this is a trap
But by the time we made the contract, the finders fee staff disappeared altogether. We were receiving housing benefit ourselves and paying our landlord and borrowing money so that we could pay on time
8. Many people felt that the conditions of the property were not as good as they expected, although
the number of comments to this nature is small compared to the overall responses regarding
conditions of the property.
I am of the view that the property should be properly inspected before it is tenanted to ensure that it is in a good condition. Closer monitoring should be carried out to avoid potential problems
I received a fair service but I have a point about renting an accommodation for client because they don’t view the house whether it suitable to client example - health and safety
there was not any furniture in the home while the contract that I signed is saying with furniture
9. The impact of particular staff should not be overlooked, both for good work and poor work. Many
clients felt that this space in the survey was a place to mention staff and often by name.
Service is good, but maybe more staff is needed to support employees with workload. As its quite difficult to contact council officer before, during and after tenancy
the first council officer who handled my case she was very helpful when she resigned, the person who take over her place is very unhelpful, rude and an approachable man
I dealt with two different people. One was very helpful, and one was unhelpful and obstructive causing a great deal of stress
I found the council very rude, unhelpful and patronising and information I obtained was through me researching it myself
After initial problems and feeling rejected I was very happy with the housing adviser I finally had to deal with.
once I made contact with Jacqui on the finders fee scheme I was helped prior to this I found I was treated appalling by Steven whom acted like everything I said was a lie despite explaining my circumstance and providing all info when asked
X if I may mention her, was very helpful and dealt with my needs and problems sympathically and understandingly. I wish all others could emulate her.
20
10. There were a couple of salient mentions made of the process, and these are highlighted because
of the implications that an officer’s actions have of the lives of others.
the whole process was rushed and documents I had given in kept on getting lost, which meant that I had to supply the same documents over again
I was of the understanding I didn’t have to pay any rent for the first four weeks, but then after six weeks I owed the landlord two hundred pounds - neither myself or the landlord realised this until I received a letter
Only criticism: rent review (very stressed as a result!!!) office very slow. Twice missed out on a flat they approved because someone else rented it while they were deciding. I’m convinced I only got the 3rd flat I applied for because the letting agent was sympathetic and didn’t show it to other potential tenants until the decision was made. I had been told rent the review took 2 business days but in all 3 cases it was at least a week.
my officer contacted my family when Id already told her there was domestic violence involved which upset me
Summary
Clients that responded to the postal survey did make good use of the spaces available to comment freely
on their experience of the scheme and this was dominated by positive comments. There were some
useful suggestions made that borough officers could take into consideration.
Recommendations:
There are some recommendations to be considered regarding the operation of the schemes:
• More information consistently provided to clients, perhaps through a check list, or an information
pack
• Greater consistency with the physical checks to a property before establishing a client into the
tenancy
• Consistent follow-up with the client and the landlord after a period of time, suggest 3 months
• Information on ending tenancies and what the landlord and the client can expect to happen next
• Updated list of estate agents that will work with housing benefit recipients and the borough direct
let schemes
• Further information about locata and how the scheme affects their bidding rights and chances
• Further work with locata about the distribution of information to tenants who take up the scheme
21
CHAPTER 5: WHO WAS INTERVIEWED?
Profiles of the interview subjects: There were 36 heads of households (and a number of children) interviewed in this phase of the study. A
breakdown of the households by borough and ‘settledness’ is as follows:
Table 7: Tenant interviews – number interviewed by borough West London Region (WLR) Local Authority
No interviewed who had sustained a tenancy
No interviewed who had not sustained their tenancy
Of which have left the scheme altogether
Total interviewed
Brent 3 0 3 Ealing 3 0 3 Hammersmith 2 5 1 7 Harrow 6 3 3 9 Hillingdon 7 2 1 9 Hounslow 2 0 2 RB Kensington & Chelsea 2 1 3 TOTAL (all WL) 25 11 5 36
Selection of the interview subjects The postal survey sought volunteers to take part in an interview, and the response to this invitation was
very high in all boroughs except Brent. A selection of these volunteers still in the property (where they
completed the postal survey) facilitated by the borough scheme, were interviewed.
Unfortunately it wasn’t possible to locate households that had moved on from their direct let tenancy in
every borough:
- Hillingdon staff had written to all those identified through comparing the HB records for
placements made with their current address (11 households), none of which offered to come in
for an interview.
- Hounslow have now outsourced their Housing Benefit administration, and decided not to pay the
charge for accessing the data as requested.
- Ealing legal advisors did not give permission to utilise the housing benefits records to identify
current addresses of previous recipients of the scheme
- Brent failed to provide the data within the allotted time
22
Therefore, interviews with heads of households that had left their properties were decidedly fewer than
anticipated and for this reason caution is required in assessing the comments from the following subject
selection:
- from Hammersmith and Fulham, although only 1 of these had actually left the scheme. The other
four had moved from one DL property to other council assisted accommodation
- three subjects in Harrow had left the scheme completely
- two subjects in Hillingdon had left their initial placement, 1 of which had left the scheme entirely
but both these circumstances had evolved since they had completed the postal survey
- One tenant in Kensington and Chelsea had moved with her family twice since first placement,
both times into a new DL with the assistance of Kensington and Chelsea
The progression of tenancies of the subjects interviewed is shown in the following table along with an
indication of how settled they currently feel. Although a direct let is a private tenancy, the difference
between the two for the purposes of this research is that a direct let is assisted by the council; a private
tenancy is one without any council assistance.
Table 8: Progression of households involved in the interviews into and out of Direct Let properties. Progression of accommodation
Total Not settled Reasonably settled
Settled
Home parents – DL4 8 3 2 3
Home partner – DL 2 0 0 2
TA5 to DL 9 5 1 3
PT6 to DL 4 0 0 4
DL to DL 7 4 1 2
DL to TA 2 2 0 0
DL to PT 3 1 1 1
Supported housing - DL 1
TOTAL 36 15 5 16
Household type The majority of the subjects interviewed were heads of lone parent households (17), as the table below
shows. There were five couples with children interviewed, no couple without children. There were 2
single persons (both men) over 60, and 2 single women under sixty.
4 DL – Direct let 5 TA – Temporary Accommodation 6 PT – Private Tenancy
23
Table 9: Breakdown of household type of those involved in the interviews Households Total Not settled Reasonably
settled Settled
Lone parent 24 8 4 12 Single under 60 4 2 1
2
Single 60 and over 3 1 0 2 Couple – no children 0 0 0 0 Couple with children 5 4 1 0 Total 36 15 5 16 Age, Gender, Ethnic Group, Although the sample space was small, (36 subjects), the ethnic groups reflect the overall make up of the
West London boroughs as a whole. Translators were used in the interviews for 4 interviews. In some
cases, the lack of available interpreters at the scheduled dates and times did result in missed interviews.
Age distribution: the ages of tenants ranged across the normal distribution of age for a population with
most of the subjects (22) interviewed falling between 25 and 44.
Gender: with 10 of the 36 households headed by men, this distribution reflects that of homelessness
acceptances in the West London boroughs and nationally. The direct letting schemes are adopted when
households approach the council for assistance and as a prevention option. Councils undertake an initial
assessment and offers assistance to those household that are likely to be accepted as homeless.
Therefore, it is understandable that the scheme adopted by a similar household make up to those that are
accepted as homeless.
Priority need grouping of the subjects Household’s applications for a DL scheme property are not subjected to the full investigation as per a
homeless application, but still the indications of priority need will allow a better understanding of the
sample.
- Households with children and/or a pregnant member: 29 (one pregnant person)
- Households vulnerable due to age: 4
- Those with a physical disability: 9
- There were no 16/17 years olds
- There were no care leavers
- Households including a mental illness or handicap: 1
- Households that had fled domestic violence: 7
24
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWS The focus of the interview questions, as set out to the interviewees, was to try to identify any changes to
the life chances and well-being of the households that were placed in tenancies in the private sector
facilitated by the direct lettings process.
The outcomes of the interviews are provided here, under the 6 main topics discussed in the interviews –
Home, Activities, Training, Work, School, and Health. Not all households were able to discuss each topic,
and the areas of discussion are reported with this in mind, for example, occupants without children do not
contribute to the discussion on schools.
Domestic Violence was the underlying reason for requiring assistance from the councils for several cases
involved in the study. For these households their contribution to the discussion is selective. Extracting
the effect of accommodation from the effect of leaving the relationship on children’s attitude to schooling
for example, is almost impossible. Ultimately the members of these families are safer and healthier than
they were.
Descriptions of the Home 34 out of the 36 subjects said that the home they were in via the DL scheme was an improvement from the home beforehand. More than that, they were comfortable in their home and satisfied with the physical environment the property provided them with. This is confirmed by the postal survey in which the respondents indicated very high levels of satisfaction with their homes and their neighbourhoods.
• Life before moving into a direct let In many instances the homes or private tenancy properties that the subjects had come from was not
suitable for them, or in poor repair or the cumulative effect of the conditions and layout of the property
adversely impacted on an individual’s scope to undertake ‘normal’ everyday housekeeping and personal
tasks. A few subjects mentioned that the previous property was fine ‘once you were in and closed the
door’.
Eleven of the subjects came from overcrowded conditions, but this did not affect how settled the
households felt in their DL home, only how satisfied they were with their DL property and the space they
now had.
Nine of the subjects had come from temporary accommodation and the reports of their conditions, health,
security, stress and happiness fit with description of temporary accommodation as documented by
Shelter7. For all households that were in temporary accommodation, the move into a DL property meant
much better living conditions, relief from stress, and improved health. However, these aspects aside, the
subjects equally reported feeling settled and not feeling settled.
The studio – it was damp, in lots of places. Everything broke, … it was just, I was on the bottom floor, …
7 Shelter 2006
25
ground floor. Hard to describe really, small cramped, obviously with a cot and everything. and I had to sleep on the sofa, which wasn’t fun, because my bed was in the wall, and if I pulled it down I didn’t have any room, and shower unit only, and the landlady took 3 months to sort that one out. When I was 6 months pregnant I had no shower, so she kept sending people round but she kept saying, that ones too expensive, that ones too expensive, so I never got that. I was cleaning my hair and washing myself in a bucket (45858)
…And it was really really bad at home. … However much my mum and dad wanted me to stay, I was becoming a burden and it was really awful. And all my family and all his family kept ….., cos my mum and dad are Irish …., he didn’t get out of bed. I used to put a tray in there for him and that went on for about 6 months and I got depressed as well, and I went to the doctors and I couldn’t stop crying and I’m normally not that type of person and it really, you know, shock me. So I raced, got myself and job and thought ‘I’ve got to get out of that house, I can’t be there any more.’ And so I used to go over to my sisters everyday cos I couldn’t bear it that he was upstairs and he didn’t like the baby. I know it sounds a bit weird but he told me not to come in the room with the baby. So I started not wanting the baby, does that sound a bit weird, I feel really bad about. At the end of the day, if it weren’t for Finders Fee, I don’t think I’d be here now. (33726)
The 'bed and breakfast' was a £5 voucher for Tesco’s to last you the week. I had to sign-in every morning, there was no lock on my door, and it wasn’t a proper bed. (05311)
The bed and breakfast I was in, the council put me and my 14 year old daughter in, the state of it! I didn’t let my daughter stay there. They suggested she go back [to her mother]. (06983)
It looked like a show house when we went in. It was immaculate. And we had all our own stuff. (80331)
The pathway into their direct let home The pathway into the direct let for those involved in the study generally had little effect on the settledness
of the household once housed. There was a small indication that if a household had come from a private
tenancy previously, they were more likely to settle into a scheme property. Households that came from a
family home or temporary accommodation had equal numbers of those that settled and didn’t settle. This
could be a result of the small number of subjects involved in the interview phase.
Recommendation: postal surveys in the future should pay more attention to the ‘settledness’ of the
respondent across all tenures.
Many of the tenants interviewed noted how quick the scheme was in providing a solution to their need.
Often taking a matter of weeks between viewing a property and moving in, the scheme was spoken of
highly by the tenants that felt settled and reasonably settled.
For the others, it was viewed as a method of councils escaping duty, and the fact that it all happens
quickly only assists in blinding the applicants into taking the option.
Choice of property Most of the subjects reported high levels of satisfaction with their property, but their choices were not the
obvious ones in many instances: properties were some distance from the normal surroundings for the
tenant - one had taken a property 2.5 hours from her work, childcare provider, and church. In another
situation, a tenant with mobility problems had taken a flat on the first floor of the building and now was
identifying a need for a ground floor flat. Both of these situations had arisen from the lack of landlords will
to take on housing benefit recipients.
26
Making a direct let a home Tenants on the whole are very satisfied with the state of the homes provided by the direct let scheme.
Some tenants had to do a bit of work to their property at the beginning of their tenancy, but there was
adequate freedom given by the landlord at the time. Ultimately this makes the tenants more comfortable
in their home.
The living room is quite huge, and then I’ve got a kitchen by the front door, and it’s a split level flat, so I’ve got an upstairs and a downstairs, 2 bed room and a bathroom. bed/r are upstairs. I’m first floor. Its lovely – I ‘m right next to the train station, I mean the main road is busy, and I’m right next to the train station, but I don’t hear it. It’s bright, and airy…….I couldn’t have wished for a better property (45858)
It was [furnished], it was really good – it looked like – apparently he told me it was the first time he had rented. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it had all had, they paint all the walls magnolia, and it was all wooden floors downstairs, and it was all clean and tidy, yeah, nice. There was no washing machine in there but he got that for me. (25839)
[prop] it’s ok. …I had to go in and paint all the walls and that. The heating’s not brilliant, so I wanted to get new radiators and things. The landlord is a bit of a scrooge sort of thing. But we are getting there – it just wasn’t heating the house up. Its oil filled things, and they were only small. So I had to get these [other] heaters, and they are a lot better. …they are on a stand thing, and the heat goes up the stairs, and they are really good. You can fix them on the wall if you want, but they are portable. But I paid for them.
There was a leak, last year, that went down into the person’s flat [below]. It took all the paint and that off, and he knew all about this and that, but it was a case of you just get on with it, I don’t want to bother sort of thing. So I know that he’s not bothered about it. As long as he gets his money he won’t get in touch with you.
He did to start with, [come round], but that was when I first was there. The money wasn’t getting paid in direct, but now we have that sorted out, but now he’s getting paid direct. What happened was the council hadn’t sorted out the money properly at first, so there was no point setting up a direct debit until you knew exactly what money was going in every week from the council.
I think there is [enough space], just for the 2 of us. [daughter]’s room is a bit small, but I mean, [she’s] got enough room … (55087)
Wonderful wonderful landlord. No problems there. The place is a bit too small, and unfurnished. But the old windows at the back had been removed, and double glazing had been installed – three ticks to the landlord for that!
I love the flat – it’s got a really good homely feeling. (83188)
It’s smashing – reasonably done out. I feel safe and secure; it’s in a little close. The garden is about 12 foot by 12 foot, and the whole estate has a gardener, .. And the outside just got painted. (05311)
Moving on from a direct let Two households were in temporary accommodation following their move out of the direct let property, and
difference of where they were living now was noted:
[Temporary accommodations property] nightmare – obviously its shared facilities and you have to clean up after yourself, and obviously you get people that don’t and you have clean before you cook, and clean before you bath. Its two small rooms, and with another baby on the way it’s going to be very limited for space with a cot and everything. it was a shock – going from having space to not having it, specifically with the litttle-uns'. (33342)
In a letter to her council re her TA:
27
The flat is on the ground floor and has not central heating. The small bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen have no radiators at all…. The most dangerous thing is the boiler. That is old gas boiler near the window in the kitchen but the window has spaces in through which the wind blows. The wind has on four occasions blown out the flame in the boiler…..three months ago, I had contacted the landlord about the broken shower and the broken oven….the oven had been broken when we moved in. …for two weeks there are not hot water in the flat and we have to use a kettle to make the hot water. (60749)
Two households had moved into a private tenancy of their own, and felt a lot better about their home,
even though they had less available space. The physical condition of the properties didn’t necessarily
seem to be the issue - the Landlord and particularly, willingness to keep the property in a decent state of
repair were more important. Both these women had gone into a slightly smaller property in a better area
by choice. Both were making use of a very small room, and one had her small son (3 years) now
sleeping with her which she said she wants to stop:
It’s a different kettle of fish….its was redecorated before I went in, it had been cleaned, they had done the garden, a really different experience. Everything was all ready. And people are not allowed to move in without the gas safety certificate, whereas I had to insist that that was done [on DL prop]. …. [location] is very nice, fields back on to our back garden, heating was a bit iffy the time I went, my boiler, phoned my landlord and it was sorted within 2 days. …I saw damp appearing and mentioned it to him, and he was like ‘oh my goodness, we’ll get that sorted’, and there was a builder there for 3 days repointing the chimney, [and let it dry out and redecorated]. They’ve done more at this place in 6 months than I had in 3 years where I was, with complaint as well – the landlord said that’s too expensive we’re not doing it. and I felt like I didn’t have a leg to stand on. very very different. . (00648)
Her new property was in reality a 2bed although the Landlord had advertised as a 3 bed. Its ok. …it’s a flat. He says it should be 3 bedrooms, but to me it’s a 2 bedroom house. But the sitting room, he wanted to turn it into a third bedroom, so I use it as a 2 bedroom flat. [I have a] [daughter1] 7, [daughter2] is 5, and [son] is 3. The 2 girls are in one room, and [son] has to share the bed with me, which I want to stop. He wanted the kitchen together with the sitting room. [he wanted just one room – in the kitchen as a living room, and the sitting room as another bedroom, - so no reception]. It’s furnished, yes, it’s comfortable. it was new, when I moved in he had just redecorated everything. He got the furniture, it’s so cheap, with the kids they break everything, they have broken the wardrobe already – it’s so cheap. That what all landlords do – they buy cheap furniture so that when you go away they keep your money. (38597)
28
CHAPTER 7: SCHOOLING
Twenty-nine of the households had children in the school at the time of the interviews. Predominantly,
the children remain at the school that they had been going to before living in the direct let property. The
interview subjects had chosen properties within the area to facilitate this, and it’s remained an important
part of accepting the new home. Very few households had had to change a school due to the location of
the new accommodation; some had changed school due to the children’s age.
The Shelter report (2006, Chance of a lifetime: the impact of bad housing on children’s lives) highlights a
number of areas where bad housing has an impact on the education of children. Through the interviews,
any effect on the schooling bought about by where the households were living in the direct let property
was the focus.
None of the parents interviewed felt that their children had suffered at all in terms of their schooling while they were in the property they obtained via the DL scheme. Within the DL scheme: The experience of school was rated very positively by all parents. The children that were at the
interviews exhibited a very normal attitude to school, mostly good, some think school is ‘dumb’, and all of
them enjoy school and get something out of it by way of sports, music, drama, and friends. There were
no reports of ill-health keeping children from school, of non-attendance on days they should have gone.
Most disruption to schooling reported was due to the conditions before taking up a DL home, and this
disruption settled down again once in the DL home. Only a few subjects mention difficulty with obtaining
the appropriate gear such as uniforms, footwear, and books but still the overall feeling about school was
positive. There was also some mention of bullying at schools, but the low frequency of reports suggests
that this wasn’t anymore prevalent than in other tenures, and the schools had assisted in over-coming
bullying.
‘ he loves it, loves school’ (91451)
‘ he was just so happy there, really happy. He had nice friends, Christmas, the school fair, … very very beautiful memories,…’(60749)
He love it – he doesn’t want to come home, even on Saturday he says ‘can I go to school’. We’ve just had his school report and it was blinding, he’s doing really well. Yeah, he has a little group of friends that he plays with. I chat to the mums while he is there. (33342)
Tenants noted the difference in schooling once they moved into the direct let property:
Things are good now. [daughter] is quite good at school. cos she was getting bad reports at school – her behaviour was, that, and it’s all changed. At the first parents evening I went to, they was like ‘she’s doing really well, she’s not crying any more, she’s not standing there saying she cant do it, she’s overcoming her differences, … she still going round nanny and granddads and she’s naughty, but at home she’s doing her homework, because we didn’t have anywhere to do it [at mum and dads], we were sharing a room – it was joke. (33726)
29
She didn’t mind bunking off when she was at [school] she was one of 900 wild kids. She has really responded well to the more regimented new school. She has acclimatised well – enjoys the facilities. Its 6.5 days, and she spends the weekends with me. Now she treasures what she has got. [about her future] – she has aspirations of being a chef, or an air hostess. I want her to go to college. (06667)
One subject noted, that if she had known more about the DL works, she would have chosen a property
closer to a better school, but when she went into the tenancy her son was at primary school. Then, with
no way out of private renting as she sees it, she felt forced to send her son to the local secondary school
that was not highly rated. This fact could have been avoided, but she doesn’t know how to end her
tenancy and find another.
One woman had her two daughters in a school, but the change in the experience of schooling for her
children’s happened between the move out of a violent situation and the refuge, the direct property and
the post DL property had not made that much difference. The children were still going though, and still
managing to do well at school.
The kids, their school is a bit far. …it’s a bit far – if we walk its about 25 minutes – its useless waiting for a bus – they never come.
We don’t like this school. [where we used to live] they loved that school there. I think it’s the people who make the place. Because here it’s another people another community – it’s very strange. Myself I can’t even adapt myself to living here. It’s strange I tell you. in [other area] we used to know everybody, talk, it was nice. Here everybody keeps to themselves; [Daughter1] is bullied as well. I spoke to her teacher about the bully – and the boy who used to bully her and it has stopped, but now she kids bullied by other kids, but I think that’s normal.
The school is a good school I like – their teacher works really hard. I like the school, it’s the people who ruin it. and [Daughter1] is doing very well, and she is in high graded in everything, maths, and like maths 3 of them go to a higher lesson with the head teacher, and she is higher graded with everything. [it’s the same school as before] – I didn’t want to change them. DL prop was quite far as well – they are no closer and no further (38597)
Post living in direct letting One interview subject with school age children had moved home since the DL property and was currently
in temporary accommodation waiting re-housing having been accepted as homeless. For her son,
attending secondary school had become much worse – he still attended, but the 1hr 15min journey had
taken a huge physical toll on him. Standing all the way in both directions had exacerbated the existing
eczema on his feet, to the point of requiring an operation in order to gain relief. Frequently, at the mercy
of public transport, he was late to school or his trains were cancelled, and this was reflected in his school
reports. He was also constantly complaining of having a headache.
30
CHAPTER 8: ENTERING AND SUSTAINING TRAINING
Many of the tenants had taken up training opportunities since the beginning of their direct let tenancy.
In training There was wide and sustained evidence from the households interviewed that there was a desire,
commitment, and indeed an aspiration to engage in a wide range of training opportunities in order to
improve their earning potential and improve their life chances.
83188 – creative writing
Creative … because of where I am with the boys [his sons], because they are in such a positive space I’ve been able to tap back into this part of my brain ….Its a foundation course, for 8 weeks, and then go on to other things.
38597 – teaching assistant course
93149 – nursing
91451 – in her 1st year of a 3 year nursing diploma. She had entered the training since going into her DL.
91107 – Desperately trying to improve her English at the temple so that she might find another job.
33726 – Didn’t complete her chef training that she had left while at her mum and dads, but now wants to go back. Since moving in her direct let property, she had done other training courses – like fire safety.
55087 – was phoning about elderly care-giving jobs that would put her through the associated NVQ
30696 – Finished two open learning courses to prepare herself to go back to work. She finished them while living at her parents.
25839 – Had made a different decision about training whilst in the security of a family situation and with another income earner in the households. Now, as a single mum, she felt slightly differently about it.
[training] … I’ve got, an NEEB – nursery nursing – but that is the lowest paid job. Now, looking back I wish I’d never, cos that took me 2 years. I done it when my youngest was small [10 years ago], so I could work while the children were at school, but that is the worst – you know, you can’t get any lower than that.
There were few subjects who had been in training at the time of taking up the DL. The circumstances
surrounding them approaching the council for assistance meant that training had generally gone by-the-
by that stage. Consider young mum that were forced out of a family home because of the pregnancy –
it’s often the case that the pregnancy forced them to stop training before anything else. (90623, 25167).
In the case of 25167 the baby was still too young for her to consider going back to her training – but she
said that she would go back … being a full time mum was driving her up the wall with nothing to do. She
had completed 2 years of college and about to start university when she became pregnant. She had had
to leave the home because of the breakdown of her relationship with her mum and step-dad. Since then
she had considered her options, and was pretty set on getting a car. Similarly, 90623 had started Art and
Design in 1996 however pregnancy stopped her from completing the 3 years. Since then her young son
had died at 4 months old, she spent 2 months in hospital, then 3 weeks in TA until being placed in a DL
31
property. Now, 1 year into her 5 year lease she felt well enough to go back to her studies and had
arranged an interview with the design school in order to complete her training.
Not considering training Those in full time work (46267, 80331L, 00648 (unless it was on the job training)) and those for whom
getting a job almost seemed pointless given the amount of rent they would have to pay (this is explored in
latter chapters more fully), or those with health issues that meant they weren’t working and unlikely to
start (14904, 06983, 05311).
Sustaining and completing training 58211 – Two adult’s daughters – 1 had completed her college training during the time in the tenancy, and the other had started at the same college. 28664 – had managed to complete his training, and now that it was time to start work, he had had to move from the DL prop to one that was affordable on his earnings. 93149 – Currently in the access to nursing course 2 days a week due to complete at the end of this year, but had also looked into doing her nursing degree. I applied to Buckinghamshire university to do nursing there and the baby will be a bit older and I can take him to nursery. There is a scheme with training where they can help you, you just have to bring in the paper-work and they will pay it … There’s loads of opportunities. I want to do something, have a quality of life, and be an active mum. I always think – midwifery – I have a real interest in that field. I’m inspired, seeing that I know I can do it.
32
CHAPTER 9: WORK AND WORKLESSNESS
‘I would love to go back to work, but we always seem to be worse off. We’ve done so many calculations, and had lots of interviews at the job centre, … I said to them at the jobcentre would you do it, and even they said no’.
‘…at least at [TA Property] I had options, I could of got a job because the rent was low (£700/month), no w – It’s impossible to do anything with my life. My rent is £1200/month, and I am in the highest band of Council tax …. It’s literally impossible to do anything …’
Barriers to Work There is definitely a barrier to work created by the rent levels of properties that households who have
taken up a scheme tenancy are in, and not only a barrier to work but also to entering training in some
instances because of the requirement to work following the training. Those not considering training
include those for whom getting a job almost seemed pointless given the amount of rent they would have
to pay.
Of the 36 subjects interviewed:
- 11 had been in work and then stopped at some stage
- 6 had continued working, as they had worked for quite some time by that stage but had a break in
the middle
- 6 had not really ever worked, but now had to
- 8 had never worked and still didn’t for heath reasons
- 5 were in training
Had any changes or improvements come to those in work: Most of the interviewees who had been working previously had held on to the jobs and continued the
same number of hours since entering their DL property. Only one had actually decreased the hours
worked, but this was due to ill health bought on by the breakdown in her relationship. Predominantly,
those working enjoyed their work, felt confident, and had interaction with other people during the day that
they felt benefited their family life.
45858 – Increased her rate of pay, and no longer travelled out of town at weekends. She felt that working had improved her relationship with her son, and was providing enough money for a holiday this year. I was working, fulltime. I was marketing assistant, for [thread company]. I was on about £16,000 a year when I left. When I started I was £15,500. About £1,100 into me a month. I fell pregnant, and lost my job. They didn’t tell me that. I went to see a solicitor, but they couldn’t help me because I hadn’t been there a year. They told me that the reason they sacked me was pathetic, but they couldn’t prove it b/c I hadn’t been there a year. In my job, as marketing assistant, I went away a lot on weekends and stuff like that. I had to do exhibits, and stuff like that, and obviously being pregnant I couldn’t do that any more, and after I found out I fell pregnant, people just started being really nasty to me, and it got to the point where I just bit back, and then I got sacked for it, apparently, It was a load of rubbish. My attitude was
33
bad apparently.
But I still had a part-time job, [supermarket], evenings and things, stacking shelves. So I still had that for a couple of nights a week. [I’d been there since March 04]. I left there when I had [son], I left in December. I never went back. Basically, because I hadn’t been at [supermarket] long enough I wasn’t entitled to maternity leave, so I had to leave. and then I went onto income support.
I am working for [company], and I am a part-time clerk, and I work 16 hours a week. I work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I get paid monthly, my basic pay is £419, but I get the London weighting, and I think that’s £100 and something, so I get about £500 and something a month. It’s more than [the last job] – I was doing more than 40 hours there, and I was taking work home with me!
[son] was, it was last October he was just over a year and a half. I always said I wanted to go back to work, I wanted to go back after 6 months, but I just couldn’t leave him. Basically I, the job centre, has given me information before, and I just went in there and said ‘I am ready to go back to work now’ and they helped me. I applied for 12 jobs, and I got an interview for one of them, that was [company] and I actually got the job. All the others, none of them replied. I am not going to say it’s because I am a mother, but it’s a factor. Its one of them things. They say ok, you can’t be discriminating against mothers, but at the end of the day they will go ‘ok she is single, she is a mother’, and they will go with the girl that’s single and hasn’t got all that problems. At the end of the day it is … I mean, if I am ill I take time off, if [son] is ill I take time off. So, fingers cross, [son] hasn’t been that ill, and he loves nursery.
It’s brilliant, I love it. I love the adult conversation, I missed it so much. You don’t believe how much just ‘mum, mum, mum, mum’ just gets on your nerves all day. And I was getting depressed, cos all I was doing all day was housework, and you know [son] was just there, and like annoying, and he wanted my attention, and I was like, no I had housework, and I’ve got bills. But now, I get away from it, and I go home and it’s nice. Whereas I am not at home all the time.
For the first year, they give you an extra £40/week for going back to work, and as far as I know that don’t get taken into consideration for your HB. So October that will stop. At the moment I am up about £160/week, which is brilliant. Obviously when that goes back down I will be back in the same situation as I was, but, at the end of the day, I am still working so I am not any worse off, because at the end of the day I am still getting help with the nursery and stuff like that. [son] is going to nursery, I’m going to work. I’m not that extremely better off, but, I never wanted to be on income support for any long time any way.
46267 – the only one working full-time
80331 – been working in the same organisation for 21 years.
00648, 80331, 45858, 55087, 46267 -All appreciated that it was flexibility from their employer that was
the best thing above the money and holidays, they needed to be able to be flexible for their children.
They are really flexible, I couldn’t wish for a better boss.
Flexibility with kids and sick leave – it’s a pay-off, but its worth its weight in gold
Who wasn’t working and why? Pregnancy: 7 had young children and it wasn’t time to go back to work because their children were
around 2 years old or younger. At the same time though, they were aware of the costs of childcare, the
rent, the benefit tapers and the expense of going back to work. For many, having a child, particularly a
young child, was a big enough hurdle. Managing their own tenancy was a challenge. Add to that the
issue of getting a job, the process of amending the benefit payments, and then childcare, and the whole
process is seen as a much bigger challenge.
Age was a factor in several cases – both for the ‘too old’, and the ‘too young’:
34
25839 coming to the realisation that she would have to start work soon, but didn’t know what to do. She had come from a domestically violent home, and was not quite set up yet. She had managed to get her 4 boys through school – 1 had completed university and was working, 2 were still in university. She had worked 10years ago, when her youngest was in junior school. She can’t go back to that job because it wouldn’t pay enough.
05311 had suffered severe injuries whilst working abroad, and now, having reached 62years old had qualified for a pension, a bus pass, and was quietly going about his recovery – he really wants to work and had been for an interview. But the reality is that there aren’t a lot of jobs available for a 62yr old man who had travelled the world working for a charity for the last few decades. His interview at B&Q had been short.
91107 had also left a domestically violent relationship, and was desperate to get a job, but unable to, blames her age. She had worked as a nanny, and was feeling that families don’t want women her age as their nanny. Her ex-partner had also ruined her reference at her last place of work because he didn’t want her working. She explained this as part of her culture. In the meantime she was improving her English.
Health: for some, becoming economically active through work was unlikely.
Benefit disincentives Money: Predominantly it was those that are going to lose too much benefit money, and so make it not
worth it, or just never make enough to pay the rent were not working
I’m never going to be able to afford this (20506) the cost of rent, the child minders, no maintenance from [daughter]’s dad, and it’s scary – you move out for the first time and you don’t know how much everything costs. The bills, like water, electric, I didn’t have a clue. (57518) ‘I said to them at the jobcentre would you do it, and even they said no’. ‘…at least at [TA Property] I had options, I could of got a job because the rent was low (£700/month), no w – It’s impossible to do anything with my life. My rent is £1200/month, and I am in the highest band of Council tax …. Its literally impossible to do anything …’(83536) One woman was coming to the realisation that she would have to start work soon, but didn’t know what to do. She had come from a domestically violent home, and was not quite set up yet. She had managed to get her 4 boys through school – 1 had completed university and was working, 2 were still in university. She had worked 10years ago, when her youngest was in junior school. She can’t go back to that job because it wouldn’t pay enough. Other work: well, I feel like I’m in a catch … I didn’t know who to talk to about this, down at the job centre, because my rent is a lot. I mean, if I was in a council place, I could quite happily go out to work. It seems, and I don’t think I’ve got a hope of finding a place, cos people with you know small children and that are a priority. But it just seems they’re paying, where if I had my own place, I could work, pay the rent, and be on my own. Its £900/month. Obviously I wouldn’t need a 3 bedroom, sometimes you look at these councils flats go up, and I think well If I have one of those, I know I could afford the rent, and I could go out to work, it just seems catch 22 There is no way I could afford £900, cos I’ve got no skills as such. You know if I went out to work it would be receptionist, shop, clerical, its not going to be too,… nothing major. I even thought about doing the knowledge, you know the black cabbing – but to get you going it was at least £500. ……. £900, and that’s just rent – and then you’ve got everything else on top. I don’t know how much you would have to be earning …. I’ve got to go [to job centre] soon, because my youngest is coming to that age where you have to go back out to work. So when I get to that point, I don’t
35
know – I’ll see what happens when I get there. [I] used to work, as a nursery nurse. I finished work in September 04 when I was pregnant. That was at [company] nursery, and before that I was at [company], and before that I was a nanny, and I’ve done …. I’ve always worked, so its hard like for me, cos I’d quite like to go back to work but they’re still babies, and I think when they go from nursery to school then I’d be straight out. There is no way I can go back and pay the rent that they’re paying for me. If I’ve got a permanent property that I could pay for, then that’d be fine. But there is no way I can go back and pay the rent that they’re paying for me now. (25839)
Rent – most importantly – it’s extortionate and it stops you from going back into work. I would have gone into work a lot sooner if I was in a permanent council flat. It’s more than double what a council flat of that size would be. (91451)
It would cost me money to go to work. You would have to be earning £30k to go back to work. What, with rent being £1200 a month. You give me a job earning that! (78602)
Who went back to work There were no clear indicators of what motivated people to re-enter work. Some of the interviewees had
had enough time to get their confidence up enough to go back to work.
60749 had been able to start a self-employed role continuing her beauty therapy work from before. She did this while in the DL property, but I think more importantly because she was able to work at home and have clients visit her, and work just within school hours. Since leaving the DL property, it had become more difficult to keep her work hours up because of the 1 hour journey to Hammersmith from her TA property in Hounslow but she was still working. Her eldest son was in university, and her second son had come to a more independent age.
28664 – Had finished training and started work.
00648 had left a relationship in which she hadn’t worked since having the children and found now that she had to work. She started as an inventory clerk, and was now in charge of the department, and looking to head into another department soon. Time was a key factor in getting back on her feet …she had left the relationship about 5 years ago.
30969 – it took me a long time to get the confidence up enough to go back to work
The benefit tapers and the high rent levels also promote ‘resourcefulness’ among the tenants. While for
some this meant ‘under the table’ earnings, for others it was an exchange market based on skill-set and
available and the needs of the household.
- Ironing, £20 week …. Looking after a nephew, … - art work, car boot sales - childcare provided by family members in exchange for tasks/favours …one woman braided her
sister’s hair in return for childcare while she was in training
I stopped smoking and saved up, and managed to by a car. It was £750, and I saved about £25 a week … insurance is about £35 per month with my ‘no claims’. Now I ferry my family round in the car, they pay for petrol and I get free petrol ….
36
Leaving the scheme 28664 had left the scheme because of the rent. He had completed training while in the DL property with
his wife and baby, and then began working but the rent was too much. The service was great at the time,
and he noted it helped him a lot saying it was worth it for him but now he couldn’t afford it. On top of the
rent he had received notice that HB was clawing back £769.65 and Council Tax benefit £281.25. He said
was earning about £900/month, and the DL property would cost about £700 including bills. His brother
had re-mortgaged and assisted him into a property that cost him £300/month including bills which he
could afford.
Recommendation: a piece of research is currently being developed for the London Child Poverty
Commission that will look into the barriers to work and worklessness. The results of this work will inform
the West London Boroughs more fully on the barriers to work and how to address them.
Recommendation: DWP published a work entitled ‘Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefits as in-work
benefits; claimants’ and advisors’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences’8. The report highlights were
knowledge of housing benefit by claimants, local authority staff, and jobcentre staff could be improved.
8 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefits as in-work benefits; claimants’ and advisors’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences’, Turley and Thomas, 2006, Crown Copywrite
37
CHAPTER 10: HEALTH
Subjects living in a direct let property that suited their needs all reported improvements in the health of themselves and their family members. Where the properties were unsuitable, such as landlord not repairing heating, the health of the family suffered.
Predominantly, direct let properties resulted in less stress and tenants were safe, secure, and generally
warm. In cases where there was vulnerability due to health, the subjects felt that they and their family
members were much healthier in their DL home. Examples include: where drink was a problem she was
now drinking less, and drinking less strong substances, asthma attacks became less frequent, epilepsy
sufferers experienced fewer occurrences where no other stresses were involved. None of those that had
a medical condition going in the DL had reported it getting any worse due to suffering caused by the
factors other than the nature of the condition itself, i.e. a degenerative condition is going to get worse
anyway. Conditions in their direct let property had not exacerbated any health issues of the subjects
interviewed. The only thing in the back of the minds of these tenants was if their condition was to get
worse, would the council help them again, and how do they go about ending a tenancy. A few of the
subjects with mobility problems were living on the first floor without a lift (they had chosen this property),
and would in the future need to move to a ground floor property.
Those that had left a relationship, or escaped a violent relationship were feeling safe, secure, and better
for it. Time was a key factor here, as people spent time sorting things out with lawyers, building new
friendships, and generally finding their feet again.
It’s taken some time, but I have had a high priority on food. They weren’t healthy in the mind and their bodies, and now they are firing on all cylinders. I’d say the only downside of this is we won’t be permanently housed. (83188)
Increased vulnerability There were several cases of placement made where household vulnerability due to health reasons was
high and all of these households reported feeling not at all settled. Predominantly moves out of the
scheme lets for these households are based on the landlord’s choice, not the households. Where
mobility among the private rented sector as a result of tenant choice is desirable, the likelihood of tenants
with increased vulnerability due to health choosing to move is very low.
Becoming economically active through employment for all of these households is really unlikely, and so
the private rented sector for this client group is an expensive long-term housing option for the public
purse. These interviewees had had to move a number of times, each time issues with the landlord, the
nature of their subsequent property (shared facilities in one case), and the move in general was the cause
of stress and further health issues. With each new property the ability of these households to re-establish
/ settle themselves in the new environment was difficult.
38
Mobility issues (06983)
Injuries received when hit by a car by the terrorists during the war. Her husband is her full time carer. Their tenancy was coming to an end 2 weeks after the interview. The council had told them to wait where they were until the eviction order, so they had no idea where they were going to go. (14904)
A severe epileptic, experiencing seizures frequently (2-12 per week dependent on stress) - with 1 young child in the family and another due at the end of April, We first came to the council in 2002, and told there was no permanent housing. We were living with [his] parents, but had to leave, so we moved, on the Out of Area scheme, to Lancashire. We were there for, about 3 years, and then came back. We were in bed and breakfast first, on HB, for 8 months, then on to the FF scheme. … We had to find a landlord that would accept HB without references and a deposit up front – that took a few months. We were there [in dl scheme property] for 16 months, then the Landlord wouldn’t renew the tenancy, … We went to the council and they told us to stay where we are until the eviction order comes through …we gave them 2 months notice, and then at the last minute they shifted us in a hostel, with 2 rooms and we share everything with the other people …(33342)
Couple with 5 children, the youngest is 2 years old. The husband is in a wheel chair with severe problems, and was tortured before fleeing their country … The first DL property had been a 3 bedroom house (1 room was an ill-converted loft room) meant for mum, dad, 4 sons (one of which was a newborn) and a daughter, and was quite a distance from where they had first approached from, from their family members that provided support and had been English speaking. The landlord had then wanted the property back and then taken an iron rod to the eldest son. The family went back to the council and had been placed in a 5 bedroom house closer to support networks and schools, but the landlord wouldn’t spend any money on repairs and the family had been without heating or hot water for long periods of time during the winter months. Currently, the kitchen roof was leaking. (23254)
Support: There was some evidence from the subjects interviewed of support provided for households with health
issues, for which the recipients were extremely grateful.
(chronic fatigue) - The council pays for a cleaner once a week, with is practical. …. I feel supported here (30197)
The health worker introduced me to a toddler group in [nearby location] (93149)
The Doctor from [location] visits every week (14904)
Leaving a direct let scheme property Those that had left the DL scheme and gone into TA had reported health issues that got considerably
worse:
(Epilepsy) getting worse again, as in more frequent. It harder to keep it from [son], keep him out of the way and take care him. He does this think where he holds his breath and that’s really bad. …And after a fit, [dad] needs to lie down for the rest of the day, and in the TA we just don’t have the space to keep quiet and leave him in peace. We have to go out …(33342)
The cold and the damp and the distance of her TA meant the her health had got worse (60749)
39
Recommendation: There is adequate reason to recommend that use of the direct let scheme be
restricted to those households who do not exhibit additional vulnerability within their households, although
determining the ‘additional vulnerability’ needs further exploration.
Recommendation: The practice of doing nothing until the bailiffs warrant / court order comes through
the door is in appropriate, and contributes to the insecurity of the households. Councils are provided with
prior warning that a household will have to move, and this time should be used to find an alternative
property for the household. Where a household member has vulnerability due to health reason, this
becomes even more important.
Recommendation: in placing households who are vulnerable due to health reasons, efforts could be
made to provide tenancies that are longer than one year. Where information leaflets for landlords are
provided, some boroughs request the landlord to provide a 1-year AST. Negotiating longer leases with
landlords might be possible if the Landlord indicates how long they are willing to provide the property for.
40
CHAPTER 11: ACTIVITIES
There was evidence in plenty of the interviewees of motivation that gets them out and about and
engaging with others. Full time mums are obviously busy with getting the children out to school and
home again, but they still took up new things, and had a support groups from different areas. Money is
definitely tight for the households, but for many juggling funds is a management challenge that they are
proud of getting on top of. Many cases referred to not going out and not doing things that cost money,
but for others the range of free or inexpensive activities available to them was enough to keep them and
their family entertained.
Predominantly, the households were active throughout the day, kept up contact with both family and
friends where they wanted to, and made use of what is available in the borough. These factors all
indicate an achieved level of ‘re-settledness’ according to previous research.
Keeping up with activities?
The church offers lots of help, I’ve a few friends that give help, I’ve joined a lone parents group, so we will be having outings, we will go and play Golf, we will go to the seaside, have activities for the children. It’s very educational, that’s why I like it. One of my church friends is coming to get me now, after I leave you. (38597)
Sometimes like I couldn’t bring her to church. This was another problem that I had, I couldn’t bring her. And she used to roll on the floor. And I used to say to her ‘promise: please promise mummy you’ll be good’, and we’d get in there and she’d start screaming and so he [the Father] threatened me, he said ‘she won’t go that school, and I said Father I can’t bring her. And he’s insulted parents and told them to leave the church when their kids were rolling on the floor. So he said to me she wont get into that school and I for once stood up for myself, cos I cried when he wouldn’t christen her, and for two years I went to that church and I got her christened, then said he wouldn’t let in the school. and I said Father, I’m not being funny but you don’t know everybody that comes in every week, I said, I think you’re being unfair. And he said ‘ I’ll sign it, but if you don’t keep coming she wont make her first holy communion – and she’s doing her first holy communion [next week]. So I kept going. I overcome it. (33726)
There is a pub on the corner, and I go there for the music. I play guitar, and bass. The pub has sessions, just acoustic, but I still have a lot of my old musician friends from the recording studio, and we’re still in touch (05311)
Wider impact - Starting new things?
It’s a lot different from what I used to do. I want to get back into my training – I used to do Tae Kwon Do, I used to be pretty good – I got my black belt. But I decided that I’d been there done that, but I am thinking of getting into another martial art again. Now I go with [son] , we got out on day trips. We go to the zoo and things like that, which is good. We are even planning a holiday this year, which I haven’t been able to afford to do. We are only going to Wales, but I’ve actually go the money which is nice. So, you know, we go out, we go to the park, I walk to the shops with him. What else …. I do like my soaps, East enders and all that. And I do like my films. I don’t really go out as much as I used to, I don’t really drink. I’ve literally quit smoking in November, so I’ve been tackling that one, but I feel alright now (45858)
We have a started at a toddler group, and there are people there of every kind of culture. We have some parties, where everyone brings their own country’s food, and we share.(93149)
41
Libraries are really popular with the interview set, especially those with children and regardless of the age
of children
The library in [place] has a children department, and the listen to music, and play around. … It gives me a place to do my assignments too.. Sitting down at the computer typing..(93149)
Family Generally, when the tenants have wanted to stay close to family, they have managed to do so while in
their DL property. Family are a source not only of support, but of enjoyment in free time. Most of the
tenants interviewed reported seeing their family often and welcoming the support that they provide.
My son has moved house, it’s an old, 5 bedroom house, and I spend a couple of days a week up there with him, painting and decorating, and getting fed …. And I have a daughter in Scotland, and I visited her last month, up on Thursday, back on Monday, it was great, I hadn’t seen her in 9 years. (05311)
Young Parents Young mothers feel judged and stigmatised.
A reluctance to take up opportunities for skills development because they feel it assumes that they are
unable to cope. And, low attendance at parenting sessions cannot be used as an indicator of lack of
interest.
Promote an emphasis on play
Paediatric first aid courses
Promote positive play working with parents one-on-one
Parent craft sessions, e.g. addressing issues about physical punishment and shouting
Childcare:
Considerations for the design of the property
Access to local mother and toddler groups and mothers who attend
Nominating rights to access free places in a registered nursery
After resettling:
Visiting for q12 months with the length of time between visits tapering off slowly is a helpful standard to
start with, particularly dependent on the location of and availability of family support.
42
- CHAPTER 12: SETTLEDNESS Note the outcomes proposed: Are the household members experiencing a change to their quality of life having been placed in a direct
let? Determining the nature of the change has been a crucial factor because several different outcomes
were possible since the first placement. These can be broken down into the following:
7 the household is still in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has decreased
8 the household is still in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has remained the same
9 the household is still in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has increased
10 the household is no longer in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has decreased
11 the household is no longer in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has remained the same
12 the household is no longer in the property in which they have been placed, and since placement the perceived quality of life has remained the increased
And bring this in: i person was employed for the last 20+ years ii length of time person was homeless iii feelings of isolation from relatives and friends iv unoccupied during the day v socialising with homeless people vi contact with support at least twice weekly for the first 3 months Did the interviewees feel settled? The final question in the interview was do you feel settled? The answers were:
- 16 said yes. - 5 said reasonably - 15 said no
Those that said yes Interestingly, of the 16 that said yes, 7 were in LB Hillingdon, and 2 from LB Harrow. LB Hillingdon was
only able to locate 1 applicant that had left the scheme, and this was a voluntary move because of a
change to his working situation. The rest of the Hillingdon subjects were still in the property provided by
the scheme, and so this bias must be considered when discussing the results of the question. However,
of the subjects interviewed in other boroughs that were still in the scheme, the answers were not as
successful. In Harrow, six subjects were still in the DL property, and only 1 had said yes to being settled.
In LB Hammersmith and Fulham there were 6 interviewed still in the scheme, but 4 had had to move
properties (instead of leaving the scheme), and they were not as settled as the others. RBKC also had a
high rate of settedleness among interviewed subjects, all 3 interviewed said they feel settled. This small
sample means the results should be taken as an indication.
43
The subjects from RBKC included 2 that that had stayed in their first property, and 1 that had moved to
two new direct let properties since her first placement. RBKC has very good landlord liaison and supports
tenants well. The borough also clearly does provide an avenue for re-housing into another direct let
following the termination of a tenancy – this knowledge could be contributing to the settledness of the
tenants interviewed.
While location was very important, there was one subject that had ended up taking a tenancy far from not
only her support network, but also far from the area that she was very familiar with. For this she got a
nice property and a nice quiet street, and safety, but she also travelled 2.5hours to nursery, work, church,
and her friends, and then 2.5 hours home again. This made her think twice about going out. But she still
said that she feels settled. She would look to move back into her original area at a later date (once she
had completed her training), but that’s the nature of life she said ‘people have to move on’.
Hillingdon did still have a high rate of settledness among the tenants interviewed. There are several
reasons that, in combination, contribute to the success of the scheme:
- The options team has been asked to refer those that are likely to sustain a private sector tenancy.
- Rents are cheaper, and therefore allowing work to be a more readily available option thus improving the confidence and financial freedom of applicants. There was slightly more residents in part-time and full-time work in Hillingdon according to the postal survey.
- properties are vigorously checked for appropriateness
- the landlords information packs are informative, and the boroughs involvement in setting up the tenancy agreement gives clear instructions about responsibility for all parties during the tenancy
- As an outer London borough, Hillingdon may simply be better for settling – predominantly the applicants had a car, and the freedom of mobility may create a better experience in the property
Recommendation: Further exploration of what Hillingdon is doing that results in a high level of
satisfaction.
Definitely, it feels like home. Before it didn’t,, and I hated it there, but [son][son] got his space now and he can run around. Its home. I can’t thank the council enough for moving me so quickly. (45858)
We spent three years ether, and actually very happy. We had a good relationship with the landlady, but really, she didn’t do anything – I did it all. The property then started really going down hill. At once stage we didn’t have hot water for 6 months. (00648)
Yes, it’s a homely home and there is no stress. I don’t think I am settled settled. (80331)
I am settled because I know that I will always have a roof over my head, the council has accepted, and the government, that they have to provide that, and [because] I have the freedom to get up and eat. I am quite happy there. I am starting to meet more people. It’s got to the stage that shopkeepers won’t let me leave. (78602)
Yes I am settled, but I want to move on. I know I need to move, I am just waiting, but I am comfortable (27548)
Reasonably settled: When asked do you feel settled, the answer was yes, but always with a ‘but’. Predominantly, for this set
of households there was always in the back of their mind that next time the lease expired it wouldn’t be
44
renewed, and the stress of moving was considerable, and in one subjects words ‘destructive’. Whilst the
properties are generally in much better condition that anything these clients would get elsewhere, it’s the
practical issue of having to move that creates the less the settled nature of their tenancy. The
respondees that said ‘yes, but’ were overall less confident about their future housing.
For new, yes, it’s my preference, it’s a house so [my boy] can round around – it’s having a toddler boy! It’s fine. (93149)
Things have picked up. That’s why I took the Finders Fee – to create a place I can make a home for my sons. (83188)
Yes, yes, landlord likes me, is happy for me to stay. Council house is better, but 9 years on Locata! (58211)
We were settle of sorts. The Landlord was unreasonable in his demands for renewing the tenancy. We weren’t prepared to do it. We did everything the council said, [and then ended in a TA sharing facilities]. That put us off, we don’t want another [scheme property] (33342)
The year is nearly up – at anytime now he could say he wants the property back, and I have all the upheaval of going through it again. It’s hard going back to square 1. (06983)
Those that said No No … to a degree, knowing the outcome after however many years does worry us. Feeling settled is being able to carry out a family life, having the surroundings to make that happen. The boys hear others and ask me ‘do we have to move’ … cos its isn’t our place. At the end, I’ll be homeless, I will lose this home where the boys have grown up ….(83188)
No, I don’t feel experienced about the DL, the register, housing list, I don’t know. This isn’t enough info, and the rent is extortionate. ….Cant put fixture and fitting on the wall – you know its not your own. …. You never ever settled because of renewing the tenancy …(91451)
No, I want to move to something smaller, not on the 1st floor, nearer the clinic, to Chelsea. I have a change in need – [granddaughter] is becoming more independent. …[I] am subjected to the [uncertainties] of the landlady … there is no appeal to her decision. She could more for this property from elsewhere, the real rent is probably about £400/week. (06667)
A very young mother, whose own mother (whose youngest child is the same age as her own daughter) is depressed and to whom she provides a lot of assistance but is some distance away.
Not really settled, I want to move back to Wealdstone. It would make it easier. (25167)
Did the length of the tenancy affect the settled-ness? 1- year tenancy … not many of the applicants felt settled. The stress repeatedly created at the time of
renewing the agreement led to unsettled feelings
Open-ended tenancies … in most cases the applicants felt that this was because the landlord did have
quite settled expectations of the tenancy on the whole. If they were prepared to just let the agreement roll
over, the tenants by that stage knew that the landlord was quite happy with them as tenants.
Longer tenancy agreements …. Yes, there were three tenancy agreements of longer than a year (1 had a
2-year, and 2 had 5-year agreements) and they felt that the opportunity to settle was there for them. One
45
had negotiated for 5 years instead of 10 because that coincided with one of her children finishing school.
Interesting, she felt settled, but still wanted to move because living in town didn’t suit her and her family.
Landlord liaison played a big part here. Most of the households that felt settled in Hillingdon had had
discussions with the landlord about the length of time, in the meantime the tenancy would continue,
keeping in mind that a change of circumstances could arise for either party. For most of the landlords this
was in direct relation to the fact that the tenants were keeping the property in good repair, decoration, and
looking after it. The absence of this contact and discussion with the landlord was commonly sited as a
reason for only feeling reasonably settled, or not at all settled …
- we don’t know when he is going to sell it
- its an investment for his kids, but I don’t know how old his kids are
- to be subjected to the decision of the landlord means that you don’t feel settled
The tenants are unaware of the possibility that they themselves could chose to end the tenancy and find a
better place. This is supported by the postal survey results that show ‘ending a tenancy’ to be the area
about which the tenants know the least. Mobility in the private rented sector is normally high, as choice
takes renters where they want to be. Renters in the private sector do normally have financial freedom,
but this shouldn’t be too different form the financial security of HB payments, and a refundable deposit.
Recommendation: Explore what younger applicants want in greater detail. It may be that for them a
good tenancy is one that does not fit the normal expectations. Particularly, do levels of satisfaction with a
tenancy or scheme overall increase if further awareness of a continued assistance is provided.
46
CHAPTER 13: LANDLORDS
Overwhelming, the first problem with a property is the landlord/landlady. Realistically, the household has
chosen the property for themselves, chosen the area that the property is in to be close to facilities like
school, support from family, the church and work if appropriate, and has HB paying the rent. The only
thing the tenant doesn’t choose is the landlord. In situations where the landlord is not providing adequate
upkeep on the property, carrying out repairs when needed, or replacing items, the household then has to
wait until evicted. The process of waiting for eviction prolongs the experience of bad housing for
households.
The results from the interviews and the postal survey show that lack of heating and hot water and the
landlord’s recalcitrant attitude towards getting these facilities repaired were the main issues with a
landlord.
Landlord checks The lack of scrutiny about landlords or further education of landlords should be looked into. There are
issues, as one scheme provider confirmed – reference checks on landlords is difficult because often this
is the first time they have rented. What is kept in many boroughs is a list of landlords that a borough will
not work with. One occasion a placement was made against better judgement:
The landlord was really really very bad. Housing department had talk us ‘be careful with the landlord – he has a bad reputation’. This turned into a big problem, he came round at 7.00am, and wouldn’t repair anything, - and there was no glass in the window for 3 months in winter. He sold the house before the contract finished. With no notice ‘ I want to take my furniture’ [fridge, sofa, bed]. He said get the new landlord to give you one. …violence, beat me three times. The landlord was mad – the police arrested him. The police had been round before asking about him – the Council knew it! (23254)
One tenant had moved in to a 1-bedroomed property that was quite spacious when he moved in. By the
end of the year the landlord had converted that space into 4 flats, and the original tenant was paying all
the bills because supply wasn’t separated. The council had found him another property …
Inventory Things that weren’t there that should have been, things the landlord had been told to do that weren’t
adequately checked, furniture not provided that the inventory said it was - all these things result in added
hassle for the household, but there was not direct correlation between this and settledness. One tenant
had moved into her property on Christmas Eve, and there was no furniture even though the council and
the landlord had agreed there would be, no light, no heat, and no beds. It was Christmas and everything
was closed.
Tenancy Deposit Scheme
The deposit protection scheme set up and brought in practise in April 2007 is obviously a favourable
move for tenants’, but not
47
Landlords asked about the Tenancy Deposit scheme were all …..
London Landlords Accreditation Scheme The London Landlord Accreditation Scheme9 has the right idea, and is recommended by the WLHP in
their plan10:
- The LLAS is founded on the belief that the more knowledge and awareness landlords have
regarding the key property management issues, the more likely it is that their properties will be
maintained to a higher standard, their tenants' safety and health will be improved and, perhaps of
equal importance to landlords, their businesses will be better protected against falling foul of the
complex laws surrounding the letting of residential properties.
To date, participation in the scheme in the West London boroughs is:
Borough Size of private sector11 Number of LLAS landlords12
% registered
Brent 183 Ealing 104 Hammersmith and Fulham 164 Harrow 45 Hillingdon 142 Hounslow 74 Kensington and Chelsea 81
The LLAS was approached for comment about borough practices that lead to higher number registering
with the scheme:
The boroughs that have higher numbers of accredited landlords actively promotes LLAS, through landlord forums, landlord events, encourage landlords to attend the development courses, hosting the LLAS courses in their area etc. Some local authorities have also secure funding which they use to pay for their landlords to attend the development courses. A number of local authorities have policies in place which are favourable to accredited landlords, for example some local authorities will only give grants to accredited landlords to help them bring empty properties back into use, energy efficiency grants, grants to bring properties up to standard etc. Most local authorities will give discounts to accredited landlords for HMO licensing etc.
Recommendation: That more landlords join the accreditation scheme
Landlords are motivated by money. WLHP could offer to pay a contribution towards the £75.00 fee for
every landlord that is accredited in return for a 2 year lease for a household. That’s 2 years of
guaranteed income for a landlord and a commitment to a code of conduct from that Landlord.
Interestingly, on the scheme detail provided by the borough, RBKC indicate that all Landlords must be
accredited before being accepted on to the scheme. The figures in the above table do not support this
claim.
9 www.londonlandlords.org.uk 10 WLHP housing plan …. Check reference 11 Census 2001 data 12 LLAS data
48
Décor and furnishing For many of the tenants, the properties had been freshly painted when they moved in, and this meant that
very little had to be done and the place felt like home as soon as they moved in. For others, the property
need some work, and the landlord was willing for the tenants to paint inside the house – which they
inevitably did, and then the house felt like home. Tenants in these situations generally felt settled.
Settledness Landlords are in a position to contribute to the feeling of settledness in the tenants. If landlords are easily
contactable, respond to requests, and made sure that there is a level of understanding about the duration
of the tenancy then the tenants feel easier about the tenancy.
As recipients of housing benefit, the choice of properties available for these clients is definitely restricted.
Finding a property to let creates stress, and can result (but not often) in a choice that would normally have
been taken up. There is a chance that properties that are taken further away than subjects preferred
would result in less settledness, but that wasn’t always the situation. However, time may change the way
they would answer that question. Travelling 2.5 hours on 3 buses daily would take its toll on a person’s
attitude.
The flip side to this scenario is that the Landlord also holds the power to evict a tenant for no reason by
serving 2 months notice. Some tenants felt that if they asked for too much, or contact the landlord
unduly, this would bring an unfavourable outcome for themselves:
46267 had called and sent a text to the landlord about the lack of a current contract but had had no
response. She was now worried about the fact that it meant the tenancy might be coming to an end.
However, she also didn’t want to harass the landlord, to pursue the issue further, or to rock the boat in
case it prompted the landlord to not renew the tenancy so carried on being worried.
Recommendation: A recently published CAB report calls for support to the recommended changes to
the legislation regarding Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions to prevent them being used in retaliation against a
tenant.
Interview results: tenants comments about Landlords The landlord is fine …. He called me and came for a visit after 6 months, and is very happy. He never disturbs me, he just gave me his phone number. I haven’t needed anything fixed yet ….(93149)
Everything works. I’ve only had one problem, when the heating went, and that was in the winter, but my landlady, I phoned her up, and next day the guy was out fixed it. I mean my landlady is brilliant. She is always updating me. I mean if she goes away she normally sends me a letter saying these are the numbers you will need if anything goes wrong, like with the electric (45858)
The landlord is in Spain, he likes me and my partner. It’s so nice, if something not works, LL calls me, I spend £50-60, another man pay me back! (58211)
The landlord is great. When the boiler went I phoned up and told him we had no heating. He got one of his blokes to come over, I was 1 night and 1 day without heating. When the cooker packed-up up, he replaced it the next day. [when he was repairing the boiler] he came round and sits and played play-
49
station with my son. (80331)
Interviews with landlords and the services they provide The results of the telephone surveys with landlords were to be expected, and in part a reflection of the
way that the questionnaire was structured:
- All landlords felt they know about tenancy agreements, safety standards, ending tenancies,
- All landlord felt the deal with repairs within appropriate time frames
- Very few (10%) landlords knew a little about the LHA and the benefit reform
Finding landlords at the available rent levels for inclusion was difficult. The boroughs of Hammersmith &
Fulham and Hillingdon the rent caps are too low for the price of accommodation on the market. Brent and
Harrow were very easy to get a sufficient sample of Landlords. In all boroughs except Brent finding 3 bed
properties within the housing benefit rent cap was difficult - very few were advertised and even fewer in
the relevant price range.
Barriers to working with the council
For all of the landlords involved in the telephone interviews, the barriers to working with the council all
centre around money:
- Housing Benefit takes too long to process
- The time taken to organise the rent level and the deposit payment meant income lost through the
void period, and opportunity to accept another tenant who has the deposit and rent check already
made out. One landlord had offered her property to the council but they wouldn’t inspect it until a
tenant wanted to live there, and then there would be a further delay before benefit payment to the
landlord was sorted. She advertised on a website and got a tenant, the deposit, and the rent in
advance within a week of advertising.
- Landlords do not consider housing benefit to be a stable source for rent payment. In assessing
the financial security of prospective tenants, landlords consider a self-employed person to be
more financially stable and capable of regular rent payments than the multi-million pound
organisation that is the DWP. This marketing angle needs to be pushed before the introduction
of Local Housing Allowance.
- While there was evidence of the theory that housing benefit recipients will damage properties,
this issue is that the insurance and/or the deposit money provided by councils does not
adequately cover the cost of repairing the damage done. For small landlords that were most
often providing services in their spare time, repairing the damage meant lost working time at the
other jobs, their own time spent cleaning and repairing, and the money went to replacement of
50
whitewear / furniture. For large landlords, the money did not adequately cover contract cleaners
and replacement items.
For those landlords that do work with councils, there were no major barriers to working with the councils
or housing the recipients of benefit because the rent was paid regularly. Some landlords had suffered
abandonment of their property, and their experiences were the same as the above barrier regarding
cleaning and repairs. There was however an accompanying sense of frustration at the lack of support for
landlords by the council in these situations.
The most attractive aspect of renting to this client group for these landlords was the fact that perceived
need was greater and therefore the desire to stay put was greater and this intern meant a secure monthly
payment of rent for the landlord for a great period of time. This is based on a perceived desire to keep
children in the same school predominantly. This theory needs to developed into a practise of sharing the
intended duration of a tenancy with the tenants: most of the tenants think the landlord is going to pull out
of the tenancy and most of the landlords think that the tenants will stay there for a long time. Landlords
should be encouraged to share their expectations about the term that households are likely to occupy the
property with the tenants.
Some landlords had had experiences to the contrary, but better data about abandonment of properties
will allow the councils to negate this bad press with prospective landlords.
Life after living in a direct letting Nearly everyone involved in the tenant interviews that had moved out of a DL property named the
Landlord as the reason. Greater emphasis on the LLAS would go a long way to addressing the issues
that these tenants raised.
The landlord was a nightmare, from the day we moved in till the day we moved out, he was a nightmare from start to finish. …the reason we moved out were that he decided he wouldn’t renew the tenancy, and he was increasing the rent by £25/month, and he wanted references, he wasn’t another £300 to the deposit, and a guarantor. (33342)
Any great level of help from her, it was a fight to the death to get it sorted. – The tenant spent 3 years marking improvements to the DL property, but the Landlady wouldn’t do anything herself. She left the property. (00648)
She would come all the time to inspect. [I] hated the landlord, she took a long to sort things out – the house had bedbugs and it took ages for her to get rid of them, the washing machine was old and she didn’t want to replace it, and the floor in the bedroom and kitchen wasn’t right. …She really got on my nerves and I wanted to get out. (38597)
Deposit Protection Scheme
Where tenants had to provide their own deposit to the landlord for lets, there was concern about the
security of that money. One subject said the following:
Sometimes I think that’s how they do it, they furnish the place with cheap furniture that breaks easily and
51
you know with the kids and everything, and then the Landlord then just keeps the deposit….(38597)
Very little was known by tenants about the Deposit Protection scheme launched by the government in
April 2007, set up to hold deposit money independent of both the landlord and the tenant. Importantly,
tenants need to be assured that deposit money is their own unless the landlord suffers financial loss,
predominantly damage to the property, unpaid rent, missing items, and cleaning. Also, that the landlord
cannot keep the deposit for normal wear and tear.
Recommendation: The scheme was introduced on April 6th, and deposits paid before that date will not
be covered. Tenants that pay their own deposit should be made aware that the protection will start at the
time of signing a renewal.
Sources of information: the following website offers good independent advice
http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-7507.cfm
Landlords on the other hand weren’t so happy about the introduction of the deposit protection scheme,
and an insurance based scheme will cost the Landlord a fee. Offering a deposit guarantee scheme is
one way to avoid the landlord having to protect the deposit money.
52
Local Housing Allowance
One issue that was raised during talks with borough officers was periods of payment for local housing
allowance (LHA) for this client group. Currently, housing benefit is paid to the landlord (in most cases) at
4 week intervals. Paid 4 weeks in arrears, the landlord has to withstand both being out of pocket and the
rent paid at intervals not aligned with the calendar month. For some landlords, there will be days during
the year that the monthly mortgage payments leave their bank account before the payment of benefit into
the account.
These timing issues will also occur for tenants: tenants receive the LHA in 2-weekly or 4-weekly intervals
during the year, but make rent payments on a calendar month. Potentially, automatic payments from a
tenant’s bank account will not be processed because of unavailable funds, leaving the tenant in rent
arrears. This increases the money management skills required of households that would, in many cases,
have otherwise been deemed homeless and vulnerable.
Housing Benefit Regulation 92 states the following in reference to the frequency of payment of a rent
allowance:
“92 – (1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation any rent allowance other than a payment made in accordance with regulation 91(2), or (3), or 93 (time and manner of payment, payment on account of rent allowance) shall be paid at intervals of 2 or 4 weeks or one month or, with the consent of the person entitled, at intervals greater than one month.”13
The Statutory Instrument issued (2007 No. 000, The Social Security (Local Housing Allowance and
information Sharing Consequential Provisions Regulations 2007) regarding the implementation of LHA
payments that makes no change to the above regulation.
For the financial safety of tenants, setting up payments of LHA at calendar month intervals to coincide
with rent payments is the most desirable interval. Currently, most software systems built for the
administration of benefit payments are not set up to do so and will require some pressure to amend the
systems.
Recommendation: A report highlighting the possible protection of rent payment via this proposed
administrative change should be presented to the London HB Managers meeting in September via Ian
Jones (020 7934 9639, [email protected]), including some investigation into the costs
associated with the recommended functionality changes.
13 www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20060213.htm#92
53
CHAPTER 14: QUALIFYING OFFERS
There were 4 cases of the acceptance of qualifying offers by homeless applicants in temporary
accommodation. The sample is small, but the indications give every reason for concern at the way
qualifying offers are being presented. The information is also not representative of all West London
boroughs, and the recommendations for qualifying offers should be taken as a guide.
Case study: Recollections of the pathway into a DL by one interviewee 80331’s husband who had been emotionally abusive towards her and her 2 children, left the family house and she started to get her life back together – her health improved, the children started to do better at school and didn’t worry about her so much. The, about 9 months later, her husband returned. After a couple of months she knew that she had to get out, so she went to the council for some advice and assistance.
Eventually she went into temporary accommodation but paid the rent herself (£1300 per month), working 50 hours weeks at the [place of employment] she had been at for 21 years.
After 2 years in that TA, she was approached by the council saying that they would no longer keep her in the TA, and gave her 3 options:
- go into bed & breakfast - go elsewhere without borough assistance - go into a finders fee property immediately.
She went to look at a property and took it immediately because she was so scared and anxious that the council would withdraw the borough’s offer of assistance. While she signed up the tenancy and related paperwork, the new landlord told her to apply for housing benefit (HB) the first she had heard of HB
Communication None of the interview subjects that had accepted a qualifying offer mentioned the fact that they waived
their right to a permanent tenancy and accepted the private sector option voluntarily. Ultimately the
boroughs making Qualifying Offers would not attempt to trick tenants, or seek an outcome that was not
fully voluntary as per the legislative requirements. Therefore, there are two issues in the experiences as
reported in the interviews that were qualifying offers:
i. why do these tenants not recall the information that was shared with them at the time
ii. what would they have chosen had it been put to them clearly
Why do tenants not recall the information that was shared with them at the time? Clearly more effort and different approaches need to be put into presenting the case to homeless tenants.
Withholding information, or not seeking confirmation of the understanding is illegal when making
qualifying offers, but it is also necessary for general applicants as well. The fact that applicants are
seeking a permanent tenancy is no surprise to any operating scheme officer, therefore the point of
waiving their right to a social tenancy needs to be clearly put.
54
In checking the case notes of some of the applicants, there was no note on file about the information
shared. Indeed, one letter to the applicant in temporary accommodation that was sighted set out clearly
that she had one option: accept a DL scheme placement. There is a clear risk associated with not
presenting the options to a household in an open and informative manner, and one that any lobbying
organisation, such as Shelter, would readily take up.
Would the tenants have chosen the private sector over a 5 year wait in TA? Yes and No. Applicants have different reasons behind the different choices as well. A young applicant
would have stayed in TA for the permanent tenancy … but she had not experienced stability and security
in a home for at least 10 years. Her experience of good housing is limited, and so quality and location of
a council home would not factor as highly as in her desire for security.
Older applicants would have exercised their financial freedom in search of a good property in the private
sector, one that was beneficial to children’s schooling, work, and a healthy family life.
Recommendation: These finding are based on very few interviews with households accepting qualifying
offers and therefore need to be taken as an indication only. Further work targeting the practise of making
qualifying offers needs to be done, and relatively soon. If Qualifying Offers are going to be utilised in
meeting the Temporary Accommodation target by 2010, then boroughs need information to guard against
retribution based on the involuntary nature of accepting qualifying offers that this report highlights.
Boroughs need good practice guidance to ensure that any offers made are genuinely chosen by the
households.
55
CHAPTER 15: WHO BENEFITS? There are two distinct groups of households in direct let properties in the private sector that were
interviewed during this research in terms of assessing the success of a scheme:
1 households that required a stable platform from which to regain a ‘home’
2 households that didn’t have a sense of stability previously
For these groups the outcome, or the result of their private tenancy, was markedly different.
1 Households that required a platform from which to regain a ‘home’ For this group of tenants, the direct let had been a successful scheme. Predominantly, the length of time
since they had last been in settled accommodation had been short, and they had moved into a direct let
from a family home, either theirs (i.e. through marriage or cohabitation) or their parents. They were
working previously, or at least already recognised their need to work in the future and in doing so were
willing to start or were currently n training.
The children of these households were continuing their established schooling. Their health, (accepting
they had suffered the stress of leaving their family home), had managed to improve as they settled into
the direct let tenancy. This group of tenants also had established a good relationship with their landlord
and were willing to put into their home a certain effort and financial resource that helped them transform
the house into a ‘home’ as well as personalise the home to become their ‘own’ i.e., they decorated and
painted where allowed, they bought their own furniture where possible, and repaired small things as
required in the property. Markedly, they were close to not only their support groups such as family, but
they also maintained a lot of their friends and activities from their earlier settled lives – they continued
going to their place of worship, and kept up with their activities and hobbies such as swimming for
example. Predominantly, these tenants took up the scheme having left their husband or wife, or left the
family home because of a pregnancy. The age of the recipients was most likely to be above 25.
2 Other households For this group of tenants, there was not a sense of ‘resettledness’ about their lives. Their sense of
stability would ideally come to them from a permanent tenancy, and their goal for such a tenancy dictates
their level of overall satisfaction with their tenancy in the private sector. This group can be further split
into two:
A households that for medical reasons are unable to work, take up training, or increase their level of
income
B those that could work or enter training, but the expense of where they are living creates a barrier
to starting work or training.
56
Those that are unable to work focussed on the duration of their tenancies. The fact that the landlord
could at any time decide to take the property back and evict the household determined the unsettled
nature of the tenancies. (This is in opposition to the first group of households who saw this fact as
something that was part of the nature of private rented, and would simply get another property when that
time came, but its worth noting that in most cases they also didn’t expect the landlord to do so because of
conversations they had had with the landlord. Indications had been given that the landlord was quite
happy for this tenancy to run for quite some time). The nature of this was compounded by the fact that
their circumstances would change – children would leave home and HB levels would mean that the
tenants would be moved to a more appropriate sized accommodation (determined by price), and the
sense of creating a home where they currently are can seem futile. On top of this the process of a
tenancy ending is not conducive to resettling these households – the practise of Advice teams
recommending that households stay where they are until the landlord has issued notice of repossession,
obtained a court order, and then sent a bailiff warrant, for the households then to return to the options
team and at the last minute alternative accommodation is found for them – adds to the housing trauma.
Direct lets and Benefit dependency For the second group, the system itself created the barrier to working and/or training. The level of rent
charged for the properties that these households were in was at such a high level that to become better
off, or increase their quality of life, was out of reach because of their potential earning power and the
amount of loss via benefit tapers. Essentially, these households were very aware of the arguments that
have been presented time and time again about the rate at which benefits taper with income. For them
the reality is paying around £700 - £1300 per month in rent at a time when part-time work will not bring in
that amount, and the costs of childcare outweigh the benefits of working full-time just to pay the rent. This
is in opposition to the first group of households, for whom working had enabled them to become better off.
Their salary level allowed them to increase their quality of life working either part-time or full time. In
many chances the childcare had been worked out within the family, and this was also true for households
in training.
The end of the tenancy for both these groups (A and B), was perceived to be solely determined by the
landlord. Either the tenants perceive themselves to be ‘stuck’ in the privately rented accommodation or at
the mercy of the landlord’s decision. The point being that neither of the groups were aware of their own
ability to decide the future for themselves.
Tenants are not ‘stuck’ in properties of high rent – but the choice to move somewhere with lower rent, that
would enable them to earn enough money to part pay for it themselves, and increase their financial
wellbeing is lost to them and comes with a move away from their current support system of family and
friends. This is affected by the age of the children first and foremost, but goes hand in hand with the age
of the adults. Little children and younger parents seek the support of the family and would choose to stay
in a location near to their own parents – or rather, a move away from their own parents is less likely. As
the families grow up, the need for immediate support is decreased, and a move based on different needs,
such as financial independence, is more likely.
57
For the other group of tenants – those that think they are subject to the decisions of the landlord, the fact
that they themselves know little about ending a tenancy increases the feeling that they will be the victim of
a landlord’s decision. In reality, a tenant deciding that he or she wants to end the tenancy and move to
another property, should be cost neutral to the borough running a rent deposit scheme providing the
property is well maintained and the new property is at a comparable rent level. The borough can pay the
rent deposit on the second property, the tenant informs HB of a change in address, and the borough
reclaims the deposit from the first property. Aside from some administration costs, this would be a cost
neutral move. This doesn’t work for Finders Fee schemes though – there needs to be some protocol set
so that landlords received one payment maximum for finders fee, as a new landlord comes on board they
are paid a finders fee, but perhaps some effort is made to assist a landlord to prepare his/her property for
a new household under a direct let scheme, such as cleaning costs, redecoration costs, or repair work.
This will keep the number of landlords willing to work with boroughs high enough and increasing, to assist
boroughs is offering a homelessness prevention scheme.
What is better: Finders fee vs. Rent Deposit scheme
Note to self: set out the arguments for and against FF:
- stigma of having buy a landlord to accept HB recipients as tenants
- empowering LL … no evidence of them seeking Fees from more than one authority, but it is a risk
associated
- FF as a top up where the PTD doesn’t match what the landlord was expecting to get for the
property
- Competition with your neighbouring authorities only results in the scheme being more expensive
for yourselves, artificially inflating the market for the LL
- H&F does not pay portfolio landlords the incentives if they have 6 properties on the DL scheme
already
Running a Finders Fee where a ‘reward’ is paid to landlords for accepting tenants who have applied for
assistance and are on HB further contributes to the stigma of HB recipients. It depicts a situation where
landlords have to be ‘bought’ in order to accept people who require council assistance.
Care must also be taken, that finders fee does not creates a perverse incentive to evict tenants, and allow
the landlord to be in a position to accept another finders fee. While there is no evidence of this in the
current study, the power is given to the landlords.
If the borough pays or guarantees the deposit to the landlord or to the deposit protection fund, the tenants
would be empowered and not the landlords. Stipulations could be made, i.e. provided that the property is
kept in good condition and the return of the deposit is guaranteed, that the choice to place that returned
deposit on another property remains with the tenant.
58
A move towards empowering the tenants with this choice should be developed further. Tenants should
be allowed to take their deposit funds to any property – down size, or upsize, with or without the councils
help. The money should only be returned to the council if the family leaves private rented
accommodation.
Recommendation: there are clearly different levels of available properties in each of the boroughs, and
so the practices employed in offering properties to tenants differ. Given the priority of the choice agenda,
some joint working in order to offer more properties would benefit the clients. Further work could agree a
protocol for placing within the sub-region utilising a combination of a deposit guarantee scheme and
finder’s fee scheme.
59
CHAPTER 16: COMMUNICATION
There is evidence of large gaps in the scope, quality and timeliness of communication among the
landlords, boroughs, and tenants that covers the areas of setting up of tenancies, tenant expectations of
management support and expectations during a tenancy, and ending tenancies.
Boroughs websites actually have downloadable leaflets available for landlords about how to get their
property on the scheme, particularly setting out what the requirements are to be accepted. The same
information for the tenant is not provided in the homelessness options section for tenants hoping to take
up a tenancy in the private sector as a solution to their housing need.
What the scheme offers …exactly how are the options being put to the families, particularly those in TA? A tenant’s knowledge of
a scheme:
I didn’t know nothing about it (91451)
I didn’t know I was going to loose my priority in Band C by taking this scheme up. They should have made that clear. Had I known I would have stayed in TA rather than spend 5 years moving from place to place in private rented sector. (And what would you choice have been if your wait in TA was going to be 5 years?) Well, I would have taken the private landlords I suppose. (30696)
I was in TA, and I got a letter that said the rent on the TA was too much, and that one option was the finders fees scheme. Within a week of that letter they offered me [property]. I didn’t have an option to look into finder’s fee. But I know that [the council] do not have a responsibility to me as landlord, now that they have found me somewhere to live (57518)
I am not sure what Finders Fee is – they don’t give you any information (90623)
They didn’t explain to me that that means that you put yourself at the bottom of the housing list. Taking [a private tenancy] could put me back at square 1 and not able to work. My landlord might want the house back again. More detail about this sort of thing should have been given. This is a really stressful long route to take. (30696)
Nobody explained it was just for a year! I signed it because I didn’t know (80085)
Empowering Tenants Achieving some degree of economic freedom through housing benefit does not mean that tenants have to
accept the poorest quality accommodation that is available on the rental market. Borough policies and
practices should not effectively unintentionally (or intentionally) reward poor quality landlords with
continued tenancies as well as the secure income stream that lets of this nature (very often based on a
‘safe’ housing benefit income stream) provides – there is a clear evidence that there is a need to increase
awareness among tenants about what should be prompting them to hand in their notice and take steps to
find an alternative flat.
For example work location, quality and speediness of repairs, non-decent living conditions, interference
by landlords, all of these issues have been reported by tenants during this research, yet very few tenants
60
choose or felt able to exercise their right (albeit in a context of extreme insecurity) to move because of
poor landlords.
Although one tenant did (: 00648) she finally gave up on doing everything for her landlord having re-
carpeted the property and taken responsibility for all the repairs. She decided not to re-new her tenancy
with that landlord and found another:
I found [property 2] and went to the council for help, and they refused ‘no, you’ve had had it once, that’s your lot’. I had to beg, steal, and borrow 1 months deposit plus 1 months rent. (00648)
Placing a household at financial risk in such a way increases the likelihood that of a repeat approach to
the Council due to arrears. The financial result generated through no fault of the tenant - they have
effectively been subsidising the management role of the landlord.
Ending tenancies There was evidence in both the interviews and the surveys that there is a desperate need to inform
tenants on how to end tenancies. The fear that sharing this information will cause an increase in tenants
that want to move is probably realistic, but will generally apply to those households that do need to move
because of sub-standard conditions. Boroughs should also be in a position to utilise this process to the
best advantage: that is, if the landlord has been happy with the tenancy, and that condition of the property
is as it was found (or better), and there have been no complaints about the tenants, but a move should
result in:
- placement of another scheme recipient with the existing landlord
- placement of the existing household with another landlord
Knowledge of both the process of ending a tenancy, and that the borough will continue to assist a
household (within reason) will improve the ‘quality ‘ of the resettlement for households on the basis that
it is what happens at the end of their tenancies that causes households the most anxiety. LB Hounslow
make note of this as part of the service on the scheme breakdown, however not enough tenants were
available to be interviewed to ascertain if this created a level of security for the applicants.
The expectation that a landlord will require a property back at some stage is not unrealistic. Mobility
within the private rented sector would show this to be expected, and of benefit to the landlord. Scheme
operators therefore need to address the fact that this characteristic of the private rented sector need not
cause the tenants alarm. If the conditions of continued assistance are made known to the household at
the beginning of the tenancy, then the tenancy will be conducted in a more settled manner by the tenants.
Statistically, sale of the property is estimated at no more than 5% of reasons behind tenancies ending.
This fact needs to be shared among the scheme participants to lessen anxiety.
One fact that creates instability in the tenancies is that where a change of circumstances leads to
entitlement to less housing benefit, then the tenancy will have cause to end unless the household has the
ability to make up the difference.
61
When a tenancy that was facilitated by the scheme came to an end, tenants were told to wait until the
eviction date, and then were housed at the very last minute. Quite rightly, the tenants that had
experienced this situation complained that the council had had months to sort this out, with the result that
the waiting until the last moment resulted in a very stressful (and insecure period) for the household
concerned.
A couple with 2 children have been in their DL for nearly 2 years, and issued notice to quit because the
landlord wanted to move back in. At the time of interviewing the family, they were moving out in 14 days.
Under the councils advice they were staying were they were until evicted. In looking for another property,
they weren’t having any success because agencies won’t accept HB recipients as tenants. (14904)
Signposting sources of information Most of the boroughs offer plenty of support to applicants, from legal advice, private renting options,
mediation, floating support, and indeed access to another tenancy. However, it’s not well signposted and
this needs to be improved and its effectiveness, impact and recognition horizon improved for tenants.
Most of the tenants interviewed didn’t access the support boroughs provide, nor know where to find it.
….The CAB was so helpful, they told me about the bus pass and everything [over 60]. They told me about the pension. (05311)
The CAB wrote a letter to the council informing them of an urgent need to place him in more settled
accommodation because the state of the bed and breakfast he was in was so bad. His health only really
started to improve once he moved out into his first DL property.
For one tenant the landlord of the property she was about to move into was the source of information
about Housing Benefit.
Issues arising
In many instances, when tenants had issues with the property they were living in, they went back to the
council expecting the council to take action. Yet there was only one instance where the council did take
action, and that was to treat a property for bedbugs. Most of the tenants don’t understand the level and
nature of council involvement in the scheme, i.e., a short period of assistance that provides an opportunity
to set up a tenancy. LB Hillingdon helpfully sends a letter to both the tenant and the landlord explaining
that the tenancy is now set up, that each person has a copy of the agreement, and that the agreement is
between the tenant and the landlord (appendix AA). Importantly, it states that the point of contact for
repairs is the landlord and if further assistance is required, then the Housing Options team would be the
next call.
62
There was enough evidence in the other boroughs to suggest that many of the tenants placed in direct
lets believed that the council maintains some responsibility for them as a tenant. Whilst this isn’t totally
incorrect, the tenant/landlord liaison is an important factor in the tenancy and should be encouraged.
Recommendation: Increase and improve information and support signposting for tenants and landlords
about where to go for assistance. Most boroughs operate an advice facility for private sector tenants
within the homelessness prevention or options team - knowledge of this service as well as how, why and
when to access it, and what remedial solutions might be available would assist many of the tenants and
landlords.
A list of estate agents
Many tenants said they were provided with a list of private landlords or estate agents when they first were
recommended to the scheme, but when they contacted those on the list there was nothing available, or
told that HB recipients weren’t accepted.
When a household approaches the council for assistance, time is often a limited resource. Providing the
applicants with a list of estate agents that don’t take HB recipients as a rule, is an unnecessary waste of
time for the applicants, as well as the negative impact it can have on a households who are legitimately
accessing a welfare benefit. Most applicants, will follow the advice of the council to the letter, therefore
giving the applicants a list to start them looking is a good thing, but the list needs to be more appropriate.
For many private renters, the source of new properties is the internet - websites like:
www.rightmove.co.uk www.primelocation.co.uk www.thegumtree.co.uk One tenant said that she didn’t know she could look for a property herself, and so feels that the 2 months
spent in horrible TA waiting for the council to find her a place was unnecessary.
Recommendation: An improved method of assisting applicants into a private property would be to
provide a list of websites, a connection to the internet, and possibly the provision of a free phone to call
local numbers.
Housing Benefit Estate Agents with a flat rule about not renting to HB recipients
Phone interviews with estate agents of this nature, such as those on the list provided by LB Hillingdon
identified a number of reasons behind the rule. Focus on educating landlords and estate agents on the
following areas might increase the available properties in the areas:
The introduction of Local Housing Allowance (LHA) will not alleviate this position as tenants will still have
to provide proof they can afford to pay the rent, probably by way of monthly bank statements which will
clearly state an income received from DWP.
Housing Benefit delays and errors
63
Where HB is not fast tracked, or delays occur, as you can imagine there was evidence of stress caused
by the delay on the head of household. One tenant is LB Hounslow had submitted an application to
change her circumstances when she started work – 3 months earlier. The first application had been lost,
so this was 3 months since the second application forms had been submitted. For the last 4 months the
tenant had been too scared to spend any money that she had earned because she would have to pay
back so much Housing Benefit. Her own crude calculations indicated that she was going to be in a worse
financial position working than she was when relying solely on the benefit system. However, luckily, she
was looking at the long-term gain, and recognised the need to start working part time while her daughter
was younger, and then the plan was to move to full time once her daughter went to secondary school.
This move into part-time work had enabled her to regain her confidence since the split of a violent
marriage and the death of her father. The jump straight into full time work had been an unbearable
thought.
Support If the objective of a prevention scheme is to not increase a furthering need in the households that have
approached the council for assistance, then having some form of contact during the first few months of
their tenancy would allow a better indication of the need level in the first place and how to address that
need? No tenants reported any follow up support that they had had contact with since taking up their
tenancy. Either, it wasn’t offered or provided, or it was but they didn’t realise that it was council
assistance. In one case file (LB Hillingdon) there was a note from a floating support providers re the offer
of support that had been turned down by the tenant.
Locata The amount of knowledge about Locata is varied across the tenants. Some household members bid
every 2 weeks like they are allowed, and look forward to the day this returns them a property.
Predominantly however, the tenants interviewed viewed the scheme as useless because their level of
priority (Band D) meant that they were never going to get a property. Some however, are totally in the
dark about the scheme and their own position with regard to the bidding.
30197 – I did register but I’m not sure I am on the list – I don’t think I can be.
80331 – I tried to get on to that, and the site told me I had been banned from Locata
Some tenants have been out to inspect properties, but are generally disappointed with the quality of what
is on offer via the scheme, and the amount of money that it would cost to get a property into good repair.
Recommendation: Regular information about Locata is clearly not reaching some tenants. Applicants
need to be re-informed of the eligibility whenever they move house.
64
REFERENCES:
Busch-Geertsema, V (2005), Does re-housing lead to reintegration? Follow-up studies of re-housed homeless people. Innovation, Vol 18, No 2, 2005. Clarke, M, (2005) ‘Assessing Well-being Using Hierarchical Needs’, United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper No 2005/22 CLG, (2007) The demand for social rented housing, Housing Research Summary Number 236. London; Department for Communities and local Government Crane M, and Warnes, AM, (2005) Responding to the needs of older homeless people, The effectiveness and limitations of British services. Innovation, Vol 18, No 2, 2005. Crew, D, (2007) The tenant’s dilemma – Warning: your home is at risk if you dare complain. Crosby, Formby and District CAB: Citizens Advice Bureau. Dawson, C Dr, (2006), A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 2nd edition, London: How To Books Ltd. DTLR and The Teenage Pregnancy Unit, (2001) Guidelines for good practice in supported accommodation for young parents. London; Crown Copyright Harker, L, (2006) Chance of a lifetime: the impact of bad housing on children’s lives. London: Shelter Netto, G, (2006) Vulnerability to Homelessness, Use of Services and Homelessness Prevention in Black and Minority Ethnic Communities. Housing Studies, Vol 21, No 4, July 2006. Poverty and social exclusion in Britain, 2000, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Social Exclusion Unit (2004) Breaking the Cycle, Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future. London; Crown Copyright Kenway, P and Palmer, G, (2007) Poverty among ethnic groups – how and why does it differ? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 000, The Social Security (Local Housing Allowance and information Sharing Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007 – draft Shelter, (2006), Against the odds: An investigation comparing the lives of Children on either side of Britain’s housing divide. London: Shelter
65
APPENDICES
METHODOLGY
The methodology used in this study includes both quantitative and qualitative approaches:
• Statistical description of use of the private sector by the seven West London boroughs, (household type, ethnic breakdown, area of placement, etc)
• Interviews around tenancies, and the assessment of factors that indicate life chance successes such as work activity, access to health and education services, library and other community involvement, sport and recreation, for example
Phases The project had four main phases -Phase 1- Project design, identification of landlords, managing agents and tenants.
-Phase 2 – A postal survey of tenants and telephone survey of landlords and managing agents.
-Phase 3 – Face to face personal interviews with tenants who are currently living in the private rented sector or have recently left.
-Phase 4 – Data analysis, interpretation and report writing.
• Phase 1 Project design, identification of landlords, managing agents and tenants
• Phase 2 A postal survey of tenants and telephone survey of landlords and managing agents The sustainability of direct lets to households that have sought assistance from a London borough is the primary focus of this research, and as such the information gained from interviews with selected tenants and previous tenants of such schemes has formed the main evidence base of the research and is critical to the development of the research recommendations. The boroughs were asked to supply household information for as many of the cases involved in the research as possible, specifically application details, (name, address, case history, household composition etc) and any relevant file notes, along with some overall statistics and data arising from each boroughs individual use of the scheme. The West London boroughs individually supplied contact details for landlord/agents involved in their respective schemes. A telephone survey was undertaken out with a range of private landlords and managing agents who were identified and selected in phase 1.
• Phase 3 Face to face interviews with tenants who are currently living in the private rented sector or have recently left
Structured interviews were undertaken with tenants in 7 boroughs who were currently living in, or had left, direct lets facilitated by the local authority direct letting scheme. Interviews were predominantly face-to-face, although on rare occurrences phone interviews were necessary (4 phone interviews out of a total 36
66
interviews), interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes. Key variables from the interviews were then analysed and included in this report.
• Phase 4 Data analysis, interpretation and report writing Research project budget There were three main resource strands to this research, London Councils staff time, rewards for households participating in surveys, and borough data entry resources.
• London Councils – The main resource underwriting this project was supplied by the LHUC as a result of the West London housing partnership boroughs pooling their available research days for 2006/07, resulting in 55 days being available to undertake and complete this project.
• Cash prize draw – was put in place for participating households for the postal provide by the
West London boroughs as well as expenses for interview subjects.
• Borough data entry personnel time – resources were provided by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea under the agreement of the project team.
Research project data sources The research used a range of data sets sourced from four sources, specifically:- Table 1: Research project data sources Data source Detail
Individual borough breakdowns of direct letting and finders fee schemes statistical information of placements through direct lettings address lists of tenancies Individual household application details Landlord contact details
West London boroughs
Borough reports on properties Direct letting scheme analysis geographical output with success rates Statistical private sector information comparative property and related social indicator statistics from other sources; GLA, CLG,DWP
London Housing
literature review Individual face to face interviews Private Tenants
postal survey Landlords Individual telephone interviews
Identifying the tenant access route into the private rented sector There are a range of tenant access routes into the private rented sector. Some are based on the level of housing priority, whilst another is whether or not a household has ever approached a council for formal or informal housing assistance. Equally, once access has been gained to the private rented sector the property that will be rented by an individual will be managed either by the private landlord directly (self-managed) or might be managed by the landlord a third party (agency managed)
67
Using a variety of data sources (see the key below) the following matrix maps out the data sources that were used to identify households that have been placed via the following routes into the private rented sector
1 progressed a homelessness application and accepted 2 accepted a homelessness preventative option
1 Private landlord – self-managed properties 2 Private landlord – agency managed properties
Table 2: Matrix for Household selection
Status of household placed in the private rented sector through a direct lettings schemes
Accepted as homeless
Status of household placed in the private rented sector through a direct lettings schemes
Homelessness Prevented
Private Landlords – self-managed
a b Tenancy sustained
Private Landlords – agency managed
c d
Private Landlords – self-managed
e f
Tenancy not sustained
Private Landlords – agency managed
g h
Key- Matrix for household selection data sources:
a) LA HPU b) LA Scheme c) LA HPU d) LA Scheme e) LA HPU, HB records f) LA scheme, HB records g) LA HPU, HB records h) LA scheme, HB records
Deposit scheme tenants postal survey All current placements made via the individual borough direct let schemes were sent a survey to
complete. Translation of the survey was offered by each of the authorities to ensure maximum inclusion.
An incentive of £100 cash prize draw was offered to tenants in order to maximise take up. Boroughs were
responsible for individually administering the survey. The survey response time to complete the survey
was 4 weeks for all boroughs (except Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea tenants
only had three weeks to respond ) with a reminder postcard sent out 1 ½ weeks after the initial survey
was posted, this reminder encouraged tenants to telephone the borough contact should they require a
replacement survey.
68
Promises of confidentiality and how the data would be kept and used were made clear in the cover letter
that accompanied the survey and pre-paid survey return envelope.
The survey concentrated at testing various factors for either tenancy failure or success we gauged
tenants satisfaction with the deposit scheme service, the level and quality of contact with the landlord,
how suitable their home and neighbourhood was for their household needs as well as testing their
knowledge of tenant responsibilities and lastly taking key attributes such as age, ethnicity, household
economic status and household composition. The postal survey is attached in Appendix 1.
Landlord telephone survey Census 2001 (cell SO49:7 landlord or letting agency) provided the numbers of private rented households
in each or the west London boroughs. The numbers represent the complete range of private rented
accommodation. This research was interested only with the affordable end of the market. This was
estimated by crudely aggregating HB rent caps from household size into room size to asses the
maximum HB would pay out. Then using GLA rental data (Nov 2005) for these boroughs the lower end of
the market by room size was identified.
The survey questions concentrate on the level and quality of property management and features of the
homes let. Questions about the tenants were on the length of stay, relationship with the tenants,
experiences of successful or failed tenancies as well as gauging preferences to what tenants they will or
won’t let to. The full survey questions are provided in Appendix 2.
In-depth interviews with tenants Semi structured interviews were conducted to ensure some continuity and consistency among the
subjects. This allows comparison of the data recorded between the groups of tenants. The interview
structure is attached in Appendix 3.
The distribution of sustained tenancies to those not sustained tenancies was ideally to be 50:50, however,
in many boroughs that was not achieved because of difficulties locating the households that had moved
on from their placement. Across the seven west London boroughs the distribution of male to female
heads of households, ethnic make up, and household’s size was represented where possible in the
sample.
There were some issues in identifying a representative sample of households that had accepted a
qualifying offer from the local authority because of the lack of placements made in all boroughs except
69
Brent, and lack of resources prevented gathering data in Brent. All information on this group of subjects
is obtained from the few subjects that had accepted a qualifying offer.
The structured interviews recorded some information on scales developed specifically for the purpose,
and some transcribing of the interviews for quotes used in the body of the text. This is a simple recording
method allowed for the direct comparison between the subject on some matters, and allowed for the
freedom of development in others. While this method does force subjects to answer in a certain manner,
there is adequate flexibility within the structure for free expression. At this stage, note taking was relied
upon. All interviews where recorded for verification of quotes.
Restrictions of the research Assessing the amount of change needs to be limited to a set number of structured questions that can
reliably be recorded within the set time for each interview (40 minutes).
The method of identifying subjects excludes a group of households that would add to the understanding
of how direct lets have affected households that required assistance, specifically households who no
longer receive housing benefit. These households fall into two distinct groups:
Those households that are now unknown to a council because:
o they have moved out of the borough, and now receive benefit via another borough, and/or
o they are claiming benefit under a new name
o through administrative error, the household history is not recorded, particularly for those that
have moved from one direct let to another.
Those households who rental status has changed o they are living somewhere rent free – either back with their family or friends, in their own
home, sleeping rough, etc, and/or
o now earning enough money to exhaust the benefit tapers and pay the rent themselves
70
APPENDIX 1: TENANT POSTAL SURVEY The tenant postal survey took place over a four-week period from 23rd June to 21st July. Two mailings
took place (with the exception of Brent who sent out at a later date with a reduced response period, which
possibly explains the low response rate), the initial survey was posted out followed two weeks later with a
reminder postcard. A one prize draw of £100 cash was offered to West London deposit scheme tenants
as an incentive to increase the response rate. All households (100%) who had been housed under the
various West London deposit schemes and were still in a scheme property to the best of the knowledge
of the local authority were sent a questionnaire.
The response rates over boroughs and in total are outlined in the table below.
Table 8: Tenant postal survey - response rates by borough. West London Region (WLR) Local Authority
Number of questionnaires returned
Response rate %
Total deposit scheme placements as of June 06
Brent 47 11% 440 Ealing 81 24% 338 Hammersmith 143 26% 550 Harrow 219 24% 971 Hillingdon 197 30% 663 Hounslow 70 33% 210 RB Kensington & Chelsea 47 47% 100 TOTAL (all WL) 804 *25% 3272
*25% represents a poor response rate. There for results should be treated with caution Table 9: Tenant postal survey - Response rates by gender. Table 10: Tenant postal survey - Response rates by age.
Age range Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 18-24 144 13.6 18.2 18.2 25-44 497 47.0 62.8 80.9 45-64 132 12.5 16.7 97.6 65 or more 19 1.8 2.4 100.0 Total 792 74.9 100.0 Missing no answer 11 1.0 System 254 24.0 Total 265 25.1 Total 1057 100.0
Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household Table 11: Tenant postal survey - Employment status.
71
Employment status Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent not working & not seeking work (of wk age) 266 25.2 35.6 35.6
not working but seeking work (of wk age) 212 20.1 28.3 63.9
retired 18 1.7 2.4 66.3 student/in training 43 4.1 5.7 72.1 working part time (<29 hrs a wk) 124 11.7 16.6 88.6
working full time 85 8.0 11.4 100.0
Valid
Total 748 70.8 100.0 no answer 55 5.2 System 254 24.0
Missing
Total 309 29.2 Total 1057 100.0
Chart 1: Tenant postal survey - Household composition.
-
2 or more people over 60 years of age 1%
Single non-elderly person 8%
2 or more adults, no children 2%
2 or more adults with 1 child 10%
Lone parent with 2 or more children 25%
Lone parent with 1 child 37%
Single person over 60 years of age 2%
2 or more adults with 2 or more children
15%
72
Gender of Household Reference Person (HRP) – WL Region:
Gender
Female: 76% Male: 24%
All 100%
73
Table tt: Condition of the home
Issue Borough Serious problem
%
Slight problem %
Not a problem
% Damp Brent 17.9 14.3 67.9
Ealing 14.3 31.7 54.0 Hammersmith 16.2 23.8 60.0 Harrow 19.0 25.2 55.8
Hillingdon 12.8 26.4 60.8
Hounslow 9.1 38.6 52.3
RB Kensington & Chelsea 5.7 20.0 74.3
Total 14.7 26.1 59.1
Keeping warm Brent 12.1 27.3 60.6
Ealing 18.8 17.2 64.1 Hammersmith 19.2 30.8 50.0 Harrow 23.0 26.7 50.3
Hillingdon 14.6 17.1 68.3
Hounslow 19.3 33.3 47.4
RB Kensington & Chelsea 9.8 19.5 70.7
Total 18.2 24.3 57.5
Keeping cool Brent 15.2 18.2 66.7
Ealing 12.7 14.1 73.2 Hammersmith 13.2 26.4 60.3 Harrow 12.4 18.0 69.7
Hillingdon 8.5 18.9 72.6
Hounslow 15.1 24.5 60.4
RB Kensington & Chelsea 8.7 39.1 52.2
Total 11.7 21.3 67.0
Over-crowding Brent 8.7 4.3 87.0
Ealing 17.2 13.8 69.0 Hammersmith 12.4 15.7 71.9 Harrow 12.9 20.1 66.9
Hillingdon 14.7 11.0 74.3
Hounslow 9.8 12.2 78.0
RB Kensington & Chelsea 13.2 15.8 71.1
Total 13.4 14.7 71.9
74
Issue Borough Serious problem
%
Slight problem %
Not a problem
% Noise Brent 18.2 6.1 75.8
Ealing 18.5 21.5 60.0 Hammersmith 20.0 28.3 51.7 Harrow 15.7 19.3 65.1
Hillingdon 16.1 23.6 60.2
Hounslow 33.3 24.1 42.6
RB Kensington & Chelsea 15.2 32.6 52.2
Total 18.4 22.9 58.65
Poor state of repair Brent 17.9 21.4 60.7
Ealing 21.2 33.3 45.5 Hammersmith 17.1 25.6 57.3 Harrow 15.8 29.9 54.2
Hillingdon 11.3 23.9 64.8
Hounslow 18.5 38.9 42.6
RB Kensington & Chelsea 11.6 27.9 60.5
Total 15.5 28.3 56.2
Safe and Secure Brent 11.8 8.8 79.4
Ealing 12.5 33.3 54.2 Hammersmith 15.0 20.5 64.6 Harrow 14.8 16.5 68.7
Hillingdon 11.4 19.9 68.7
Hounslow 18.3 18.3 63.3
RB Kensington & Chelsea 6.5 13.0 80.4
Total 13.4 19.4 67.2 Reasonably modern facilities Brent 11.8 20.6 67.6
Ealing 12.7 18.3 69.0
Hammersmith 16.3 18.7 65.0
Harrow 12.8 23.5 63.7
Hillingdon 10.7 20.2 69.0
Hounslow 5.6 33.3 61.1
RB Kensington & Chelsea 4.5 31.8 63.6
Total 11.7 22.4 65.8
75
Location of respondee's home relation to amenities
Location in relation to:
Borough Well placed Fairly well placed
Not well placed
Not important
Doctor Brent 55.6 26.7 11.1 6.7
Ealing 54.4 31.6 13.9 0.0 Hammersmith 62.7 23.9 12.7 0.7 Harrow 50.0 36.2 10.5 3.3
Hillingdon 51.0 36.1 10.3 2.6
Hounslow 50.7 31.3 14.9 3.0
RB Kensington & Chelsea 76.1 23.9 0.0 0.0
Total 54.9 31.8 11.0 2.3
Pharmacy Brent 61.4 29.5 4.5 4.5
Ealing 60.8 31.6 7.6 0.0 Hammersmith 69.3 24.1 5.8 0.7 Harrow 67.6 25.7 6.2 0.5
Hillingdon 69.8 25.0 3.6 1.6
Hounslow 62.1 22.7 12.1 3.0
RB Kensington & Chelsea 76.6 21.3 2.1 0.0
Total 67.5 25.5 5.8 1.2
Work Brent 24.0 12.0 8.0 56.0
Ealing 25.0 20.3 17.2 37.5 Hammersmith 24.5 20.2 12.8 42.6 Harrow 23.4 24.0 21.0 31.7
Hillingdon 20.3 21.6 10.5 47.7
Hounslow 16.3 24.5 16.3 42.9
RB Kensington & Chelsea 33.3 22.2 5.6 38.9
Total 23.0 21.8 14.6 40.6
Public Transport Brent 75.6 17.8 4.4 2.2
Ealing 65.8 25.3 6.3 2.5 Hammersmith 69.6 25.2 4.4 0.7 Harrow 66.5 27.9 4.7 0.9
Hillingdon 69.8 24.0 3.6 2.6
Hounslow 62.3 29.0 7.2 1.4
RB Kensington & Chelsea 84.8 13.0 2.2 0.0
Total 69.0 24.8 4.6 1.5
76
Table tt: location of the home in relation to amenities (cont)
Location in relation to:
Borough Well placed Fairly well placed
Not well placed
Not important
Library Brent 69.2 25.6 2.6 2.6
Ealing 37.7 40.3 15.6 6.5 Hammersmith 49.6 35.7 10.9 3.9 Harrow 51.9 30.7 12.3 5.2
Hillingdon 50.3 32.3 9.7 7.7
Hounslow 54.7 29.7 14.1 1.6
RB Kensington & Chelsea 71.7 21.7 2.2 4.3
Total 52.0 32.0 10.8 5.2
Primary school Brent 50.0 26.3 2.6 21.1
Ealing 56.0 25.3 12.0 6.7 Hammersmith 46.4 27.2 15.2 11.2 Harrow 44.7 32.2 10.1 13.1
Hillingdon 50.3 28.0 8.5 13.2
Hounslow 50.8 23.7 5.1 20.3
RB Kensington & Chelsea 47.6 19.0 4.8 28.6
Total 48.6 27.8 9.6 14.0 Secondary school Brent 40.0 22.9 8.6 28.6
Ealing 30.6 29.2 22.2 18.1 Hammersmith 27.9 27.9 18.0 26.2 Harrow 33.3 33.8 12.8 20.0
Hillingdon 35.3 28.3 13.6 22.8
Hounslow 27.6 39.7 12.1 20.7
RB Kensington & Chelsea 27.3 22.7 11.4 38.6
Total 32.1 30.1 14.5 23.2
Play areas Brent 43.9 14.6 29.3 12.2
Ealing 36.8 34.2 22.4 6.6 Hammersmith 46.5 30.2 14.0 9.3 Harrow 40.5 30.2 19.5 9.8
Hillingdon 44.7 28.4 19.5 7.4
Hounslow 34.4 24.6 23.0 18.0
RB Kensington & Chelsea 46.5 25.6 9.3 18.6
Total 62.3 28.9 8.0 0.9
77
Table tt: location of the home in relation to amenities (cont)
Location in relation to:
Borough Well placed Fairly well placed
Not well placed
Not important
Shops Brent 70.5 20.5 4.5 4.5
Ealing 61.6 26.0 11.0 1.4 Hammersmith 65.0 25.5 9.5 0.0 Harrow 57.5 33.8 7.7 1.0
Hillingdon 62.6 30.5 6.3 0.5
Hounslow 53.6 31.9 13.0 1.4
RB Kensington & Chelsea 80.4 17.4 2.2 0.0
Total 62.3 28.9 8.0 0.9 Family and friends Brent 33.3 33.3 20.5 12.8
Ealing 23.6 29.2 33.3 13.9 Hammersmith 22.7 34.8 34.8 7.6 Harrow 25.6 42.9 24.6 6.9
Hillingdon 28.0 34.9 29.0 8.1
Hounslow 26.2 37.7 32.8 3.3
RB Kensington & Chelsea 47.7 34.1 9.1 9.1
Total 27.3 36.6 28.0 8.1
Banks Brent 56.8 29.5 11.4 2.3
Ealing 39.7 34.6 23.1 2.6 Hammersmith 40.9 34.1 22.7 2.3 Harrow 41.2 44.1 12.8 1.9
Hillingdon 41.6 32.6 23.2 2.6
Hounslow 40.3 29.9 28.4 1.5
RB Kensington & Chelsea 68.9 22.2 6.7 2.2
Total 43.5 35.2 19.0 2.2
Post office Brent 72.1 18.6 7.0 2.3
Ealing 55.8 32.5 11.7 0.0 Hammersmith 58.1 33.8 8.1 0.0 Harrow 53.6 34.9 10.0 1.4
Hillingdon 61.9 30.2 6.3 1.6
Hounslow 59.1 27.3 13.6 0.0
RB Kensington & Chelsea 77.8 17.8 2.2 2.2
Total 59.6 30.7 8.6 1.0
78
Table tt: location of the home in relation to amenities (cont)
Location in relation to:
Borough Well placed Fairly well placed
Not well placed
Not important
Entertainment / Leisure Brent 37.5 30.0 12.5 20.0
Ealing 20.0 38.7 29.3 12.0 Hammersmith 39.7 33.3 19.0 7.9 Harrow 22.2 42.9 25.6 9.4
Hillingdon 19.4 37.1 36.0 7.5
Hounslow 26.2 31.1 27.9 14.8
RB Kensington & Chelsea 60.0 31.1 2.2 6.7
Total 27.7 37.0 25.5 9.8 Support organisation Brent 26.3 28.9 18.4 26.3
Ealing 13.4 29.9 26.9 29.9 Hammersmith 29.2 26.7 25.0 19.2 Harrow 18.3 37.1 23.7 21.0
Hillingdon 15.0 27.8 33.9 23.3
Hounslow 22.4 27.6 32.8 17.2
RB Kensington & Chelsea 30.2 41.9 9.3 18.6
Total 20.4 31.2 26.4 22.0
79
APPENDIX aa Table 1: Perception of adult necessities and how many people lack them (All figures show % of adult
population) 14
Omnibus survey:
Items considered
Main stage survey:
Items that respondents
Necessary Not necessary Don't have
Don't want
Don't have
Can't afford
Beds and bedding for everyone 95 4 0.2 1
Heating to warm living areas of the home 94 5 0.4 1
Damp-free home 93 6 3 6
Visiting friends or family in hospital 92 7 8 3
Two meals a day 91 9 3 1
Medicines prescribed by doctor 90 9 5 1
Refrigerator 89 11 1 0.1
Fresh fruit and vegetables daily 86 13 7 4
Warm, waterproof coat 85 14 2 4
Replace or repair broken electrical goods 85 14 6 12
Visits to friends or family 84 15 3 2
Celebrations on special occasions such as Christmas 83 16 2 2
Money to keep home in a decent state of decoration 82 17 2 14
Visits to school, e.g. sports day 81 17 33 2
Attending weddings, funerals 80 19 3 3
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day 79 19 4 3
Insurance of contents of dwelling 79 20 5 8
Hobby or leisure activity 78 20 12 7
Washing machine 76 22 3 1
Collect children from school 75 23 36 2
Telephone 71 28 1 1
Appropriate clothes for job interviews 69 28 13 4
Deep freezer/fridge freezer 68 30 3 2
Carpets in living rooms and bedrooms 67 31 2 3
Regular savings (of £10 per month) for rainy days or
retirement
66 32 7 25
Two pairs of all-weather shoes 64 34 4 5
Friends or family round for a meal 64 34 10 6
A small amount of money to spend on self weekly not on
family
59 39 3 13
Television 56 43 1 1
Roast joint/vegetarian equivalent once a week 56 41 11 3
Presents for friends/family once a year 56 42 1 3
A holiday away from home once a year not with relatives 55 43 14 18
Replace worn-out furniture 54 43 6 12
Dictionary 53 44 6 5
An outfit for social occasions 51 46 4 4
New, not second-hand, clothes 48 49 4 5
Attending place of worship 42 55 65 1
Car 38 59 12 10
80
Coach/train fares to visit friends/family quarterly 38 58 49 16
An evening out once a fortnight 37 56 22 15
Dressing gown 34 63 12 6
Having a daily newspaper 30 66 37 4
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly 26 71 20 18
Microwave oven 23 73 16 3
Tumble dryer 20 75 33 7
Going to the pub once a fortnight 20 76 42 10
Video cassette recorder 19 78 7 2
Holidays abroad once a year 19 77 25 27
CD player 12 84 19 7
Home computer 11 85 42 15
Dishwasher 7 88 57 11
Mobile phone 7 88 48 7
Access to the Internet 6 89 54 16
S atellite television 5 90 56 7
Source: Poverty and social exclusion in Britain, 2000, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
81
Appendix 2: borough ethnic groupings Ethnic make-up of West London boroughs: Indian Other Origin African Pakistani Ethnic Not Borough White Caribbean Bangladeshi Origin Known TotalBrent 45 20 28 7 Ealing 59 9 25 7 Hammersmith & Fulham 78 11 4 7 Harrow 59 6 30 5 Hillingdon 79 3 14 4 Hounslow 65 4 25 6 Kensington and Chelsea 79 7 5 9 % 66 9 19 6
Ethnic origin of homelessness acceptances in 2005/06:
Indian Other Origin African Pakistani Ethnic Not
Borough White Caribbean Bangladeshi Origin Known Total
Brent 19% 43% 12% 11% 15% 100%Ealing 28% 32% 19% 19% 2% 100%Hammersmith & Fulham 62% 40% 22% 16% 11% 100%Harrow 29% 23% 24% 5% 19% 100%Hillingdon 54% 21% 16% 8% 1% 100%Hounslow 47% 19% 23% 8% 3% 100%Kensington and Chelsea 40% 25% 5% 29% 0% 100%
Ethnicity of survey respondents:
Indian Other Origin African Pakistani Ethnic Not
Borough White Caribbean Bangladeshi Origin Known Total
Brent 19 51 15 13 2 100%Ealing 34 33 24 6 4 100%Hammersmith & Fulham 42 30 9 14 5 100%Harrow 37 29 26 7 1 100%Hillingdon 55 15 19 9 1 100%Hounslow 36 27 24 9 4 100%Kensington and Chelsea 57 11 19 11 2 100%
Ethnicity of Interview subjects: Indian Other Origin African Pakistani Ethnic Not Borough White Caribbean Bangladeshi Origin Known TotalTotal 18 2 5 1 % 69 8 19 4
82
Appendix 3: LB Hillingdon letters to tenants and landlords
Middx UB9 3SU 26th November 2006 Dear Ms xxx Welcome to your new home! This is just to confirm that your tenancy agreement is a private agreement with your landlord and is for a minimum of 12 months subject to you abiding by the terms of the agreement and making sure that your rent is paid on time. Even if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit you are still responsible for making sure that all the rent due is paid, so that if there are any problems with your Housing Benefit claim you should check the progress of your claim or enquire about any changes. If your Housing Benefit has not been paid you may telephone the Control Team Tel: 01895 277096 to find out what stage your application is at. If you have queries after the first payment has been made you should contact Housing Benefits Payments Team Tel: 01895 556666. Please remember to quote your claim number if at all possible. You should contact your landlord or his agent if you have a repair problem and make sure that you have a number to contact in an emergency or if they are away. If you need to get in touch with the Council about any tenancy problems you should firstly contact the Housing Advice and Options Team Tel: 01895 250381. We wish you all the best and hope that you will be happy in your new home. Yours sincerely Finders Fee Team
Uxbridge 1 The Lane Ms XXX
83
Date Dear Re: Finders Fee Scheme: Your tenancy arrangements. Thank you for assisting the Council’s nominated tenant. After the tenant has moved in we will process your Finders Fee lump sum, which is a one off non-returnable incentive payment made by the Council in place of a deposit from the tenant. The tenancy is a private agreement between you and the tenant who is still responsible for paying the rent even if in receipt of Housing Benefits. The Housing Benefit claim will be fast tracked through. If the rent is not being paid you should firstly contact the tenant. If the tenant has agreed for any Housing Benefit they are entitled to be paid directly to you and/or has agreed for you to make enquiries, you may contact the Housing Benefit Section directly, quoting the claim number if you have it. If you have already received payments but these have changed you can call 01895 556666 or email [email protected]. If a Housing Benefit payment has not been made you may contact the Control Team on 01895 277096. Please provide your tenant with a telephone contact point in case of emergency repair problems and make sure there is someone to deal with emergency repair requests when you are away. At least two month before the end of the tenancy you should inform the tenant if you wish to extend or terminate the tenancy. The Finders Fee Team cannot become involved in ongoing management issues or end of tenancy arrangements. Many thanks again for letting your property through the council and helping us to house Ms xxx and her family. Yours sincerely, Finders Fee Team
84
Appendix 4: Borough * Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your
household Total
not working & not seeking work (of wk
age)
not working
but seeking work (of wk age) retired student/in training
working part time
(<29 hrs a wk)
working full time
Borough Brent Count 10 16 2 7 5 1 41% within Borough 24.4% 39.0% 4.9% 17.1% 12.2% 2.4% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household 3.8% 7.5% 11.1% 16.3% 4.0% 1.2% 5.5%
Ealing Count 20 22 2 5 12 10 71% within Borough 28.2% 31.0% 2.8% 7.0% 16.9% 14.1% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
7.5% 10.4% 11.1% 11.6% 9.7% 11.8% 9.5%
Hammersmith and fulham
Count 53 39 5 8 14 14 133
% within Borough 39.8% 29.3% 3.8% 6.0% 10.5% 10.5% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
19.9% 18.4% 27.8% 18.6% 11.3% 16.5% 17.8%
Harrow Count 65 54 4 13 46 26 208% within Borough 31.3% 26.0% 1.9% 6.3% 22.1% 12.5% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
24.4% 25.5% 22.2% 30.2% 37.1% 30.6% 27.8%
Hillingdon Count 81 46 0 8 34 17 186% within Borough 43.5% 24.7% .0% 4.3% 18.3% 9.1% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
30.5% 21.7% .0% 18.6% 27.4% 20.0% 24.9%
Hounslow Count 25 25 2 0 6 8 66% within Borough 37.9% 37.9% 3.0% .0% 9.1% 12.1% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
9.4% 11.8% 11.1% .0% 4.8% 9.4% 8.8%
Kensington and Chelsea
Count 12 10 3 2 7 9 43
% within Borough 27.9% 23.3% 7.0% 4.7% 16.3% 20.9% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
4.5% 4.7% 16.7% 4.7% 5.6% 10.6% 5.7%
Total Count 266 212 18 43 124 85 748% within Borough 35.6% 28.3% 2.4% 5.7% 16.6% 11.4% 100.0% % within Which of the following statements best describes the work status of the main income earner in your household
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
85
20 10 6 2 5 4346.5% 23.3% 14.0% 4.7% 11.6% 100.0%
17 29 14 10 9 7921.5% 36.7% 17.7% 12.7% 11.4% 100.0%
39 49 26 13 11 13828.3% 35.5% 18.8% 9.4% 8.0% 100.0%
54 82 45 19 16 21625.0% 38.0% 20.8% 8.8% 7.4% 100.0%
55 74 30 23 13 19528.2% 37.9% 15.4% 11.8% 6.7% 100.0%
15 19 16 11 3 6423.4% 29.7% 25.0% 17.2% 4.7% 100.0%
14 23 7 1 1 4630.4% 50.0% 15.2% 2.2% 2.2% 100.0%
214 286 144 79 58 78127.4% 36.6% 18.4% 10.1% 7.4% 100.0%
Count% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within Borough
Brent
Ealing
Hammersmith andfulham
Harrow
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Kensington and Chelsea
Borough
Total
very satisfied satisfied
neithersatisfied nordissatisfied dissatisfied
verydissatisfied
Thinking about yr household's needs, tell us to what extent you are happywith yr home, and then yr neighbourhood (home)
Total
12 17 6 1 5 4129.3% 41.5% 14.6% 2.4% 12.2% 100.0%
14 36 13 4 10 7718.2% 46.8% 16.9% 5.2% 13.0% 100.0%
34 48 28 12 12 13425.4% 35.8% 20.9% 9.0% 9.0% 100.0%
53 82 41 17 17 21025.2% 39.0% 19.5% 8.1% 8.1% 100.0%
55 75 33 18 12 19328.5% 38.9% 17.1% 9.3% 6.2% 100.0%
15 21 17 8 4 6523.1% 32.3% 26.2% 12.3% 6.2% 100.0%
16 17 11 1 1 4634.8% 37.0% 23.9% 2.2% 2.2% 100.0%
199 296 149 61 61 76626.0% 38.6% 19.5% 8.0% 8.0% 100.0%
Count% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within BoroughCount% within Borough
Brent
Ealing
Hammersmith andfulham
Harrow
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Kensington and Chelsea
Borough
Total
very satisfied satisfied
neithersatisfied nordissatisfied dissatisfied
verydissatisfied
Thinking about yr household's needs, tell us to what extent you are happywith yr home, and then yr neighbourhood (Nhood)
Total