Page 1
Osborne plans further £12billion welfare cuts Housing Benefit for under-25s again targeted
Rent collection 2
Rents receivable 5
Housing / neighbourhood management 6
Social impact 7
Environmental sustainability 8
Care and support 9
Health and safety 10
Human resources 11
HRS Review No. 51 — February 2014 — Housing and HR
Page 2
2
Rent collection A couple of recent pieces of research illustrate the
deterioration in rent collection since the advent of welfare
reform and the consequential effect of action being taken
against the tenants that may ultimately result in eviction.
The direct impact is illustrated by The tipping point, a
report published by HouseMark in November, which showed
that the proportion of rent collected by almost 200 social
landlords across the UK had fallen from 99.5% in the first
quarter of 2012/13 to 98.9% in the first half of 2013/14.
Arrears in the worst quartile increased from 3.8% in 2012/13
to 4.0% in the first six months of 2013/13, rising to 5.0% for
landlords with more than 10,000 properties. Another adverse
factor was geography, with landlords in the worst quartile in
the North of England having rent collection rates of just over
95% compared with between 97% and 98% in the rest of the
country.
The consequences are shown by a survey of 113 social
landlords by Inside Housing, revealing that there were 99,904
Notices of Seeking Possession issued between April and
November 2013, compared with 79,238 issued in the same
period in the previous year. This 26% increase was attributed
to the impact of welfare reform and pressure on the
household budgets of families in work.
A combination of stagnant wages and rising rents has
driven an ever increasing number of families in work to claim
Housing Benefit. According to research by the Real London
Lives project on behalf of the G15 group of housing
associations, only 21% of housing association tenants in
Greater London are unemployed but 60% of them need
Housing Benefit to meet all or part of their rent. 43% of tenants who had suffered
reductions in their benefits as a result of welfare reform described keeping up with
bills as ʺa real struggleʺ compared to 25% across all tenants.
On 10th December, the NHF published Home Truths for 2013/14, a study of the
housing market in England, which showed that the number of employed Housing
Benefit claimants had risen by 104% since 2009. It predicted that the affordability of
housing would continue to decline, with the proportion of disposable income taken
up by rent increasing from 50% to 57% over the next ten years and a 35% rise in
house prices by 2020. It called for resources to be diverted from revenue to capital
subsidy to build “more homes that people can afford.”
The government has suffered some embarrassment with the discovery of a
loophole in the welfare reform legislation, under which tenants who had been living
at the same address and claiming Housing Benefit continuously since before 1st
January 1996 would be exempt from the Reduction in Spare Room Subsidy,
hereinafter referred to as the bedroom tax. The loophole exists because the
legislation refers to the ʺeligible rent,ʺ a term which did not apply prior to 1996 when
previous rules were in force.
With rent collection having become
a critical risk due to welfare reform,
performance in this area should be closely
monitored by the board, with specific data
provided in relation to the collection rates
for tenants affected by the bedroom tax, for
example. It is essential that there is an
ongoing dialogue between the rent
collection team and the tenants involved,
particularly with the advent of Universal
Credit, where a greater number of tenants
will become responsible for making their
own rent payments. This will require a
multi‐faceted approach with, for example,
text messages and social media channels
used to inform younger tenants about their
position and remind them when it is time
to make a payment.
Page 3
3
Estimates of the number of people involved vary from the DWP’s 3,000 to
5,000 up to the 40,000 forecast by consultant, Joe Halewood. The DWP justified its
low estimate of the numbers affected at 3,000 to 5,000, saying it was based upon the
Single Housing Benefit Extract, a data source provided by local authorities which
specifies whether claims have been in place since before 1st January 1996. However,
Sam Lister of the CIH argued that the figure may be higher because of
inconsistencies in data recording by local authorities. He estimated that the figure
would be between 6,250 and 12,500.
On 14th January, Lord Freud told the House of Lords that this loophole would
be closed in March. Meanwhile, Giles Peaker of Anthony Gold Solicitors told Inside
Housing that councils would not automatically be able to recover any Discretionary
Housing Payments (DHPs) to tenants whose Housing Benefit may have been
reduced in error due to the loophole unless they had attached relevant conditions to
the Payments.
The government has maintained that the availability of DHPs will alleviate
any serious hardship arising from the implementation of welfare reform and has
increased resources in this area, with an additional £40imillion being made available
in both 2014‐15 and 2015‐16. However, some councils are applying strict conditions
to these Payments even though their budgets are underspent, for example North
Lincolnshire Council has refused to make DHPs to people who smoke or have
satellite television. In response to this, Scunthorpe MP Nic Dakin called in December
for a debate in the House of Commons “about how councils are supporting or are
not supporting people hit by the bedroom tax.”
A number of legal challenges continue to be made against the bedroom tax,
particularly in cases involving people with disabilities. Under the current
Regulations relating to under occupancy, only the person whose name is on the
tenancy agreement can claim an extra room for an overnight carer. However, in
December, a tribunal ruled that a deduction from Housing Benefit on the grounds of
under occupancy for a tenant living in a three‐bedroom property whose disabled
daughter requires overnight care amounted to disability discrimination. The
decision does not set a legal precedent but
further challenges to bedroom tax decisions
are likely in relation to similar cases.
The impact of welfare reform on
disabled people was the subject of a report
published by Habinteg Housing
Association, a specialist provider for people
with physical disabilities, on 3rd December.
According to What price independent lives?
only one‐third of its disabled tenants had
been exempted from the bedroom tax, with
56% of tenants living in wheelchair standard
properties not having been exempted. A
shortage of accessible properties mean that
downsizing is not a realistic option for many
Habinteg tenants.
It is interesting to consider the
poorer performance of larger landlords in
the HouseMark study. This seems to
indicate that a closer relationship with the
tenants is likely to result in a higher
proportion of rent being collected. While
larger landlords may have greater financial
capacity to absorb greater arrears and bad
debts, these issues also affect tenants,
creating stress and damaging their credit
record, so more resources and a more
active approach may be needed.
You should take steps to identify
any tenants who may benefit from the “pre
1996” loophole and to provide them with
support to claim any arrears of benefit due
to them, as well as supporting tenants
whose income has been cut by welfare
reform to claim Discretionary Housing
Payments where appropriate. It will be
beneficial to maintain a close dialogue with
the relevant local authorities to understand
and influence their priorities for the DHPs
and to provide appropriate information
and guidance to tenants. It may also be
possible to share information with the local
Job Centre in order to identify any tenants
affected by benefit sanctions, so that they
can be informed that they need to renew
their claims for Housing Benefit.
Page 4
4
Meanwhile, Inside Housing reported
in December that ʺslower than expectedʺ
progress was being made in delivering
Lord Freud’s pledge to protect all
vulnerable and disabled people from the
effects of welfare reform. Residents in
supported housing are currently only
exempt from the majority of the changes if
the landlord is also the care / support
provider. It is understood that there are
many technical difficulties of definition to
be overcome.
Another impact of a harsher
approach to welfare has been an increase
in the proportion of claimants of Job
Seekers Allowance being given sanctions
for failing to comply with the terms.
According to Inside Housing, the
proportion of Job Seekers Allowance
claimants receiving a sanction has increased from 2.60% between 2000 and 2010
to 4.35% currently. When sanctions are applied, this causes a change in
circumstances that may require the claimant to reapply for Housing Benefit,
although they may not be aware of this at the time. As a result, some landlords
have reported an increase in rent arrears as a result of Housing Benefit being
stopped as a result of sanctions being applied to other benefits.
Issues of communication and information sharing have also arisen in the
pilot areas for Universal Credit. Speaking at the Social Housing conference in
November, Ian Munro of New Charter Housing Trust, whose patch includes one
of the pilot areas, said that a lack of information from the DWP about which of its
tenants were claiming Universal Credit was hampering its rent collection efforts.
It now appears clear that the timetable for the roll‐out of the Universal
Credit system by 2017 will not be met. Lord Freud told a Local Government
Association event on 12th December that the roll‐out would take ʺas much time
as it takes,ʺ while warning against implementing the new system in a hurry in
order to meet the original timescale.
Looking to the future, we can expect further reductions in welfare if the
Conservatives were to be successful in the 2015 General Election. On 6th
January, George Osborne revealed a plan to reduce the cost of welfare by a
further £12ibillion in the first two years of the next parliament. He suggested
that this could be achieved by removing the entitlement to Housing Benefit from
under‐25s and by charging a market rent to social housing tenants earning more
than £60,000 a year. However, it is estimated that these two measures would
save no more than £2ibillion, while many under‐25s claiming Housing Benefit
are themselves parents so it may be difficult to cut the benefits of these claimants
without damaging the welfare of their children. It is hard to see how the
remaining £10ibillion will be found, given that the Prime Minister has given a
guarantee to pensioners that they will not be targeted.
We will continue to update you on the
progress with legal challenges to the various
aspects of welfare reform and on the attempts
to provide an exemption for people living in
supported housing, so that you can update
your procedures and advise tenants
accordingly.
The implementation of Universal
Credit creates problems for landlords as they
will not get advance warning of when payment
of Housing Benefit from the local authority
will cease, with the tenant becoming
responsible for paying the rent in full. A twin‐
track approach will be required, with general
information provided to tenants in advance of
the change and a very quick response once
payments stop being received from the local
authority.
The plans for further welfare cuts are of
concern. It would be useful as part of scenario
planning to assess the impact of further
reductions in welfare, including a withdrawal
of Housing Benefit from tenants under 25 and,
possibly, an extension of the bedroom tax to
older people.
Lord Freud, left, with Mark Henderson of Home Group
Page 5
5
To date, Affordable Rent tenancies have taken up a minority of new
lettings, although this position is expected to change with the more stringent
requirements attached to the 2015/18 Affordable Homes Programme.
According to an analysis by Social Housing, the average net rent for general
needs social housing in 2012/13 varied from £74.53 in the North East of
England to £110.84 in Greater London, while average Affordable Rent levels
by region varied from £87.07 in the North East to £156.92 in London. There
were 29,973 lettings at Affordable Rent in 2012/13, 17% of the general needs
total of 178,374.
We can now be fairly certain that social housing rent levels will
increase by CPI + 1% from April 2015, although with no further movement
towards Target Rents during the term of the tenancy. These proposals were
confirmed in a consultation paper, Rents for Social Housing from 2015‐16,
issued by the DCLG on 31st October. Rents will be allowed to increase to the
Target Rent on reletting. The consultation asks whether rent caps, which
may reduce the rent below the Target Rent in some circumstances, should be
removed or should change their indexation from RPI + 1% to CPI + 1.5%.
In addition, the consultation included proposals for implementing the
pay‐to‐stay policy, in which households with a taxable income of more than
£60,000 per year should be charged a market rent. The government intends
to legislate to require tenants earning above the threshold to declare this to
their landlord. It also proposed giving landlords the option to retain the
historic grant in the property provided that the additional capacity generated
is spent on affordable housing. The consultation closed on 24th December.
In terms of predicting the level of rent increase in April of next year,
CPI inflation fell to 2.0% in December, the lowest level for four years. It is
expected to rise slightly during 2014, with HM Treasury’s median forecast for
CPI at the end of the year being 2.3%. It would therefore be reasonably
prudent to plan for a rent increase in 2015 of 3.0%.
According to the London Housing Strategy, published by the Mayor of
London on 26th November, half of the new
affordable rented homes to be built in the capital
between 2015 and 2018 will be at around social
rent levels. This will be financed by letting the
remainder at closer to the 80% of market rent
ceiling, rather than the current average of
around 65% of market rent. Housing
associations will be able to market 25% of
Affordable Rent homes to people not on the
waiting list because this level of rent may not be
affordable to low income households. This twin‐
track approach was not followed by the HCA in
relation to the rest of the country, with the
2015/18 Affordable Homes Programme
prospectus declaring that “Social rent provision
will only be supported in very limited
circumstances.”
Associations considering whether to take
part in the 2015/18 Affordable Homes Programme
face a fundamental decision about the strategy for
growth, rents and business mix, since participants
will be expected to implement a much greater level
of conversions from social rent to Affordable Rent,
as well as committing to an increase in the rate of
development for sale (both LCHO and full market
sale) and disposals of existing stock. This goes to
the heart of what kind of organisation you want to
be and how you see your communities developing
over the next few years.
Whatever you decide about that, if you have
a material number of tenancies with rents below
target, your rental income and therefore
development capacity will be reduced by the loss of
the additional £2 or so per week of rent increase
from 2015. Your financial plan should by now
have been revised to take account of this, although
prudent associations may already have been
planning for a rent increase of less than CPI + 1%.
Developing associations in London will, in
effect, be serving two different markets from 2015
and will need to consider how these two business
streams will be managed. Will a higher level of
services be provided to those paying the Affordable
Rent and will social rent tenancies be on a fixed‐
term basis so that tenants whose circumstances
improve can be moved to Affordable Rent in the
future?
Rents receivable
Identical homes may be let at very different rents under the Affordable Homes Programme
Page 6
6
It is now unlikely that the new
legal framework for responding to anti‐
social behaviour will be substantially
altered from the current draft of the Bill.
This gives associations an opportunity to
begin revising policies and procedures
ahead of the implementation of the new
regime, although these will not be able to
be finalised until the Bill is on the Statute
Book.
Local Enterprise Partnerships are
playing an increasingly important role in
the sphere in which housing associations
operate and members are encouraged to
develop their links with these
organisations. Among other things this
may improve the chances of gaining access
to funding streams, such as the EU
cohesion funding, which could be used to
improve the sustainability of communities.
Associations are being encouraged
to take a more active approach to asset
management in order to improve value for
money and generate more financial
capacity. As the First Ark case illustrates,
there may also be social reasons to change
the tenure of a unit from social rent to sale,
in order to increase the proportion of
households in work in the area and raise
the level of economic activity. In general
you should be routinely identifying units
that are difficult to let and coming up with
a strategy for tackling this, which may
involve marketing, redevelopment or
disposal.
The legal framework for tackling anti‐social behaviour is being changed by
the Anti‐Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill, which passed its Third Reading in
the House of Lords on 27th January. During the Lords’ consideration of the Bill two
significant amendments were put forward in relation to the power of social
landlords to issue injunctions following anti‐social behaviour.
An amendment tabled by Lord Dear would have raised the threshold before
which injunctions could be issued to behaviour causing “harassment alarm and
distress” and only if proved beyond reasonable doubt. This was described by the
CIH as ʺcatastrophicʺ because victims may be too intimidated to give evidence.
Another amendment to the Bill, providing a lower threshold for anti‐social
behaviour injunctions for social tenants, was tabled on 18th December. This lowered
the threshold in relation to social housing tenants to ʺconduct capable of causing
nuisance or annoyanceʺ The lower threshold would retain the status quo for social
landlords, although it was criticised in some quarters for creating a two‐tier system
and for treating social tenants as ʺthird‐class citizens.ʺ
Eventually a compromise was reached in which the lower threshold could be
applied in relation to the occupation of residential premises of whatever tenure,
although only social, as opposed to private, landlords will be able to apply for these
injunctions.
Areas suffering from anti‐social behaviour could benefit from the 10.3ibillion
Euros of EU cohesion policy funding allocated to the UK, which is channelled
through Local Enterprise Partnerships. According to Cecodhas Housing Europe, this
funding should be ʺvery positiveʺ for social landlords, but lack of awareness and
historically low levels of take‐up could mean that this is an opportunity missed.
In some areas dominated by the social housing tenure, the sustainability of
the neighbourhood could be improved by increasing the number of owner‐
occupiers, particularly where some homes are difficult to let. In November, First Ark
was reported to be in the process of selling two larger properties, both of which had
been empty for more than a year, to first‐time buyers. The sale will be at a discount
of 25% as compared with the market value, but this will be reduced on a sliding scale
if the house is sold within five years. Part of the motivation for the sales is to create
more sustainable, mixed‐tenure communities, while the number of empty properties
owned by the Group had increased from 37 to 103 since the advent of the bedroom
tax.
Housing and neighbourhood management
Page 7
7
As charitable and / or social
purpose organisations working mainly
with people on low incomes, we suggest
that housing associations should have a
specific strategy on tackling poverty,
particularly as the burden of reducing the
government’s deficit has fallen particularly
hard on the poor. This would cover
ensuring that people are able to maximise
their income, in the short term through
claiming all of the benefits to which they
are entitled, in the longer term through
training in skills for employment etc. It
would also encompass the organisation’s
relationships with food banks and credit
unions, along with measures being taken
to reduce fuel costs, including collective
switching, as well as retrofitting to
improve insulation.
As in the case of Family Mosaic, a
policy of reducing poverty could lead to
changes in asset management strategy,
disposing of older expensive‐to‐heat
properties in favour of new homes built to
the latest environmental standards.
The life chances of young people
can be dramatically affected by the quality
of education. Not all associations will
wish to become sponsors of local schools
but there should be an understanding of
how well the secondary schools in
particular are performing and links
developed so that the organisations can
work together for the maximum social
impact
Food banks
As noted elsewhere in this HRS Review, the finances of people on low
incomes, which would account for the majority of tenants in social housing, are
being squeezed because prices are rising faster than wages. This effect is
exacerbated because the cost of essential items such as food and fuel has been rising
faster than the overall Consumer Prices Index, which only increased by 2.0% in the
year to December. The Statistical Bulletin accompanying this result noted that
inflation for food and non‐alcoholic beverages had outstripped overall inflation in
each of the last eight years, although the inflation rate for this segment fell to 1.9% in
December, having peaked at 4.6% in April and 4.3% in September. The inflation
rate for domestic fuel rose from 3.4% to 3.7% in December, owing to large increases
in the prices of electricity and gas. We therefore expect tackling fuel and food
poverty to be high on the agenda of social landlords for the foreseeable future.
The impact of fuel poverty is a concern to Family Mosaic, which owns a
number of Victorian and Edwardian houses in Conservation Areas. These are
expensive to heat but difficult to insulate because they are of solid wall construction
and permission to fit external insulation would be difficult to obtain. Accordingly,
the association is reported to be considering either selling these properties or
converting them to market rent, with affordable homes being provided in
alternative properties that are cheaper to run.
Looking at the longer term prospects for a neighbourhood will take into
account the educational achievements of the children in the area as they move into
adult life. The need to improve the effectiveness of local schools has led some
housing associations to get directly involved in the management of existing
institutions or even establishing new ones. Improvements in the quality of local
schools could also have the benefit of increasing the value of the association’s
properties in the area. New Charter Housing Trust in one such association,
sponsoring one primary and two secondary schools in Greater Manchester. In
November, New Charter was reported to be considering establishing a free school
to help young people in its area to study for vocational qualifications rather than
traditional academic subjects.
New Charter is also involved in supporting victims of domestic violence,
having taken the Tameside‐based Family Support Charity into the group.
However, the Charity still faces a funding gap of £55,000 and will in future only be
able to serve New Charter tenants unless it is successful in securing additional
funds.
Social impact
Page 8
8
The strategy for tackling poverty,
introduced on page 7, should also consider
the impact of high‐interest loans on the
tenant population, signposting more
affordable alternatives such as credit
unions. Links should be forged with other
local organisations working to support
people on low incomes, for example in
providing access to bank accounts and
other areas of financial inclusion.
Retrofitting is likely to form an
important part of your strategy in tackling
fuel poverty. The funding arrangements
for such programmes are complex and you
should consider a range of alternatives
before proceeding, balancing the risks and
rewards of each within your overall risk
capacity and appetite. As this government
has shown more than once in this area,
there is a risk that any government
subsidies involved may be reduced or
withdrawn, so an appropriate mitigation
plan should be drawn up if the
organisation is seeking to take advantage
of one of the government schemes.
On page 7 we noted the impact of increases in the cost of
household fuel on the disposable income of tenants. These costs may be
reduced by improving energy efficiency but this leads to higher bills in the
short term if the costs are met through levies on household fuel bills. This
led David Cameron to give a pledge to ʺroll backʺ green levies, despite
data published by the ONS on 26th November, showing that there had
been 31,100 ʺexcess winter deathsʺ in England and Wales in 2012/13, a 29%
increase on the previous year.
Fuel poverty affects both the finances and the health of those
affected. According to a survey by Comres for Circle Housing Group, 21%
of adults, around 10imillion people, took out a loan in the last year, of
which around 17% used the loan only to pay their energy bills.
At the same time, Inside Housing reported a large rise in the
number of social housing tenants reporting damp and mould problems,
because rising energy bills had made it more difficult to heat their homes.
Requests for damp and mould inspections in November increased from 19
in 2012 to 76 in 2013 at Aragon Housing Association and from 20 to 40
over the same period at First Ark Group.
Meanwhile, a debate is continuing over the definition of fuel
poverty. On 2nd December, the House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee published its report into Energy Subsidies, criticising the
recent change in this definition. Following work by Sir John Hills,
households in fuel poverty are now defined as those whose fuel costs are above
average and whose residual income after fuel costs is below the poverty line. The
change in definition had reduced the number of fuel poor from 3.2imillion to
2.4imillion but the Committee argued that this change in definition, now
incorporated into the Energy Bill, should not be accepted unless the government
made a commitment to end fuel poverty altogether.
In accordance with David Cameron’s pledge referred to above, the Autumn
Statement, published on 5th December, included a reduction in the cost of the
Energy Companies Obligation (ECO), to reduce average fuel bills by £30 to £35 in
2014. This would be achieved by cutting the Carbon Emissions Reduction Obligation
element by 33%, while the dedicated support under the ECO for low‐income
households was extended from March 2015 to March 2017.
According to a campaign involving around 20 organisations, including the
UK Green Building Council, Sustainable Homes, Greenpeace, and Age UK, these
changes would reduce the number of solid wall homes being insulated from 80,000 a
year to 25,000, with a number of deals for the retrofitting of social homes under
threat. A survey by Inside Housing and Sustainable Homes found that 70% of
landlords with retrofit plans would be either ʺdramaticallyʺ or ʺsignificantlyʺ
affected.
Despite this setback, it may be possible to fund energy efficiency
improvements to social housing through other means. The NHF has proposed
establishing a fund to finance the retrofitting of social housing properties worth at
least £200imillion by combining debt from the European Investment Bank with
grants from the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund,
which are distributed by the 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Environmental sustainability and fuel poverty
Page 9
9
The adverse impact on reputation of
a quality failure in care / support should
not be underestimated. This is
particularly the case in relation to care
services, with the associated formal
inspection process run by the CQC. For
housing‐related support services, the
regulation system is less robust but there
remains the possibility of adverse
publicity, quite apart from the impact on
customers of an inadequate service.
Appropriate assurance systems should be
in place to ensure that the necessary
regulatory requirements are being met and
that the lives of the people receiving these
services are being improved by them,
rather than worsened.
Care and support services require a
substantially different culture from
general needs housing. The ability to
generate a surplus from the activity is
constrained by onerous regulatory and
contractual requirements as well as
substantial reductions in funding streams.
There is also significant competition from
the private sector, all of which would make
it uneconomic to pay staff at the same rates
as the rest of the business. If care / support
is still a material activity, it should be
separated into a specific business stream
with a hard culture in terms of contract
negotiation and compliance, while
retaining a caring approach to the tenants.
Changes in government policy and
funding streams mean that providers are
moving away from local authority‐funded
support services, in favour of partnerships
with the health service, which stands to
benefit the most from the impact of care /
support services in keeping people in their
own homes and out of hospital beds.
Providers can both reduce the cost to the
NHS by moving patients to a care facility
rather than a medical facility, while also
improving their quality of life by enabling
them to stay in their own home or return
more quickly to it..
Care and support The provision of care and support services has significant risks in relation
both to service quality and financial performance. The former can have a serious
impact on the vulnerable people receiving the service as well as an adverse effect on
reputation.
On 29th October, the CQC issued a report on Sue Starkey House, a care home
run by Notting Hill Housing Trust, showing that the home had failed an inspection
undertaken in June and July on all five mandatory grounds (see box). According to
the report:
The provider did not treat people using the service with consideration and respect.
People did not experience care, treatment
and support that met their needs and
protected their rights.
The provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage the
recording of medicines.
People were not protected from unsafe or
unsuitable equipment.
There were not enough suitably qualified
or skilled and experienced staff to meet peopleʹs needs.
Accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.
Financial risks are particularly prevalent in the area of housing‐related
support, with specific Supporting People funding firstly cut and then no longer
separately identified within the overall funding package. In order to free up
resources to maintain other services affected by the austerity programme, some
councils are seeking to transfer the cost of housing‐related support to the Housing
Revenue Account (HRA). For example, Islington Council intends that, from
2016/17, £1.3imillion to provide these services, currently met from the General Fund,
will be switched to the HRA. In order to facilitate this, it also intends, as a short‐term
measure, to defer some interest payments on the HRA.
Despite the risks, some associations consider it part of their mission to deliver
these services and a number are expanding their offer in care and support. This can
be achieved at scale through merger and acquisition activity, such as the purchase,
on 6th September, of Cheltenham‐based domiciliary care provider, Live Well At
Home by Guinness Care and Support. Paul Watson of Guinness said that the
acquisition was ʺpart of our wider growth plans to increase our presence in the
domiciliary care market, recognizing the importance of being able to provide more
people with care in their home, so they can remain independent for longer.ʺ
A promising growth area concerns the provision of services to the NHS,
particularly where this alleviates the problem of bed‐blocking. A consortium
including housing association Midland Heart has won a three‐year contract to
provide a 29‐bed ward for patients due for discharge from the Good Hope Hospital
in Sutton Coldfield and who are in need of additional support before returning
home. The Cedarwood facility, which opened on 24th January, works with patients
requiring help with issues such as gaining confidence in walking and preparing
food. Care and support staff employed by Midland Heart will be on duty 24 hours a
day, with the association said to be in talks about “four or five” similar deals.
CQC inspection standards
Treating people with respect and
involving them in their care
Providing care, treatment and
support that meets people’s needs
Caring for people safely and
protecting them from harm
Staffing
Quality and suitability of
management
Page 10
10
Risk assessment is at the heart of
the health and safety framework and
associations should ensure that they have
comprehensive and up‐to‐date risk
assessments in place in relation to all of
their activities. Clearly, an eviction is a
high risk process because it is away from
the office and because the tenant being
evicted is likely to be extremely stressed.
A specific assessment for each eviction
should be undertaken and recorded,
taking into account all known facts about
the tenant. Police involvement should be
sought where the risk is significant.
We expect associations to have in
place a comprehensive policy and
associated procedures in relation to the
management of asbestos. If considering
taking over the assets and liabilities of
another housing provider, the risk of a
claim for damage caused by asbestos
should be considered. Preferably, this
should remain with the other provider as
part of the terms of the transfer (for
example if it is a local authority).
Otherwise the risk should be assessed and
accounted for in the purchase price.
The initiative of Stockport Homes
illustrates that a material difference to the
probability and impact of accidents can be
made for a relatively low cost. Once
again, partnering with the NHS could
bring in funding to support such an
initiative, since they will benefit in terms
of reduced usage of emergency services.
Front‐line staff face frequent risks to their personal safety and these are greatest
when working out of the office, where it is more difficult to control aggressive and
violent behaviour effectively. This is particularly the case when undertaking an
eviction, which would be a very traumatic experience for the tenant.
We have previously reported on the case of Stephenson, a former tenant of
Metropolitan Housing Trust who shot and wounded a bailiff and a housing officer,
who were evicting him from his property because of rent arrears of £8,000. During
his trial, which took place in January at Blackfriars Crown Court, it emerged that the
landlord had not undertaken an assessment of the risk of violence during the eviction
and that the staff involved did not know that Mr Stephenson was a vulnerable tenant.
The trial concluded on 16th January, with Mr Stephenson being found guilty of
two counts of wounding with intent and possession of firearms with intent to
endanger life. He will be sentenced on 14th March, with the judge indicating that he
faces a prison sentence of at least ten years.
Other safety risks, such as asbestos, are less dramatic in their immediate effect
but can have a devastating affect over the long term. Wendy Gardiner, the widow of
a carpenter who died from asbestos‐related cancer in 2011, is suing the HCA for
compensation because the agency took over the assets and liabilities of the Aycliffe
Development Corporation for whom her husband worked during the 1970s. Mrs
Gardiner claims that her husband lost twenty years of his life from the effects of
working with asbestos, since he was involved in cutting and fitting asbestos sheets for
heater cupboards without proper respiratory equipment.
While the main focus of a
social landlord’s health and
safety management activity
will be on its own staff, there
are also improvements that can
be made in the health and
safety of tenants, by reducing
the severity and likelihood of
accidents that they suffer in
their homes. Following a
programme of installing stair
gates and fire guards in some
of its homes, ALMO Stockport
Homes reported a fall in the
number of hospital admissions
of pre‐school children due to
falls in the home from 71 in
2010/11 to 48 in 2012/13. The
landlord wishes to extend the
programme and is lobbying for
increased funding from the
NHS, which has funded 25% of
the costs of the programme to
date.
Health and Safety
Page 11
11
After a number of years of below‐
inflation wage rises, average earnings are
predicted to increase by 2.2% this year
(the median of HM Treasury’s latest
comparison of independent forecasts),
which is almost in line with the expected
increase in CPI of 2.3%. Housing
associations therefore need to budget for a
higher level of pay increase than has been
given over the past few years.
The pressures on front‐line staff are
undoubtedly increasing and associations
may wish to consider what additional
support can be made available to them.
This might include additional training in
how to cope with aggressive behaviour and
access to counselling services. This may
also be a good time to review safety
procedures around lone working and in
relation to interview rooms.
It is unlikely that housing
associations are participating in the more
unacceptable practices in relation to zero‐
hours contracts but policies and
procedures should be brought forward for
review once the government responds to
the consultation.
The employment market is looking increasingly healthy, with the number of
unemployed people in the UK between September and November down by 167,000
from the previous three months to 2.32 million (7.1%). However, according to the
Statistical Bulletin published by the ONS on 22nd January, average pay rose by only
0.9% in the year to November, compared with the increase in CPI inflation of 2.1%.,
reaching £447 per week excluding bonuses and £475 per week including bonuses. It
appears that many of the new jobs being created are low‐paid and / or part‐time, while
those with existing jobs are receiving increases less than the rate of inflation.
In relation to our own sector, Inside Housingʹs annual survey shows that the
average salaries of front‐line housing staff rose by 1.1% in the year to March 2013 from
£24,350 to £24,621. 41% of staff received no increase whatsoever, while the Consumer
Price Index increased by 2.8% over the same period.
While real incomes are falling, the job of front‐line staff is also becoming more
difficult as customers deal with the effects of the government’s austerity programme.
In January, Straightforward published research on The Impact of Welfare Reform on
Housing Employees, conducted on behalf of the Northern Housing Consortium and
involving the staff of ten social landlords in North West England. 77% of those taking
part in the survey reported that customer interactions had become more challenging
over the last six months, due to welfare reform (specifically under occupancy),
increased workload and customers being more angry, frustrated and upset. 90%
found customers to be in more financial difficulty than 6 months ago. 45% had
experienced customers making suicide threats, with only 25% feeling well equipped to
deal with this.
A number of housing associations providing care / support services are
employing some staff on zero‐hours contracts. A government consultation is currently
under way in relation to these contracts. One of the issues being considered relates to
exclusivity clauses, which prevent the employee from working for another
organisation even though he / she has no guarantee of work under the zero‐hours
contract. There is also concern about a lack of transparency on employment rights
under these contracts. Eugene Wojciechowski, writing in Inside Housing, predicted
that zero‐hours contracts would not be banned outright but that some tightening of
the relevant legislation would take place following the consultation, which ends on
13th March.
4% of housing staff are working on zero‐hours contracts, according to research
by Unison reported in November, while 19% of housing workers said that their pay
had decreased over the past year and 18% said that they were more than £10,000 in
debt, excluding mortgages. Tony Stacey of South Yorkshire Housing Association told
Inside Housing that his association was making mental health and fuel poverty
programmes available to staff as well as residents.
Housing associations have a good track record on equality and diversity and
have performed well over recent years in the annual 100 most gay‐friendly employers
list compiled by Stonewall. According to the latest list, published on 15th January, the
sector now includes the most gay‐friendly employer in Britain, with Gentoo reaching
the number one spot. Other housing associations in the list included St Mungo’s
(11th), Metropolitan (24th), Genesis (45th), Riverside (61st) and Plus Dane Group
(96th).
Human resources
Page 12
Hargreaves Risk and Strategy 48 Broomfield Avenue London N13 4JN Tel: 020 8245 0737
Email: John Hargreaves: [email protected] Chris Mansfield: [email protected] Sharron Preston: [email protected] Website: www.HargreavesRS.co.uk
WELCOME AND SCENE‐SETTING
John Hargreaves, Hargreaves Risk and Strategy
WHAT NEXT FOR THE HOUSING ASSOCIATION SECTOR?
The political, economic, and demographic influences on our environment
Steve Douglas, Altair Ltd
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON STRATEGY AND RISK
A view from three different associations about the issues that they face and how they plan to tackle them
Rosemarie Anderson, Rockingham Forest Housing Association
June Barnes, East Thames Group
Geraldine Howley, Incommunities Group
DEVELOPING THE RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Using risk scenarios in strategic planning
Chris Mansfield, Hargreaves Risk and Strategy
LEARNING THE LESSONS OF THE PAST
How to diversify without getting into financial and / or regulatory difficulties
Sue Harvey, Campbell Tickell
A MARKET‐LED APPROACH TO DIVERSIFICATION
The rewards and risks of involvement in a range of housing markets
Speaker to be confirmed
THE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE APPROACH TO DIVERSIFICATION
Combining business and social objectives for the benefit of local communities
Sinead Butters, Aspire Group
Sessions and speakers for the HRS Conference 27th February, Institute of Directors, London