05KeyIssues110912 PDF 157 KB - Council meetings

HOUSING SELECT COMMITTEE
Report Title
Housing Key Issues Report
Key Decision No Item No. 5
Ward
Contributors
All
Executive Director for Customer Services
Class Part 1 Date: 11 th September 2012
1 Summary
1.1 Housing Key Issues is a general report that aims to update the Housing Select
Committee on current and new issues important to housing that are not covered in a
separate more detailed report.
2 Completions for 2011/12
2.1 The Lewisham target for completions for the year 2011/12 was 550 affordable units
from all sources (which equated to 50% replacement London Plan target of 1,105).
The total number of new affordable homes built in the borough in 2011/12 was 852,
which exceeds the target by 302 and was the third highest affordable housing
completion figure in the country.
2.2 Although not a target the aim is to achieve 70% of new units as rent (the majority at
target rent) and 30% as intermediate (intermediate rent and shared ownership). The
actual split for 2011/12 was 71% rent and 29% intermediate.
2.3 The performance for the year is summarised below.
Qtr 1
Actual
Qtr 2
Actual
Qtr 3
Actual
Qtr 4
Actual
2011/12
Actual
2011/12
Target
Over target
Total
completions
Total rent
completions
Total intermediate
completions
20 75 111 646 852 550 302
20 49 53 481 603 385 218
0 26 58 165 249 165 84
2.4 The high level of delivery for the Council and its partners stems largely from the
increased grant resources made available after the economic downturn as well as
successful partnership working between the Council and housing associations to
unlock stalled sites at the time.
2.5 Although technical completion was achieved by 31 st March 2012 in accordance with
HCA guidance, handovers were scheduled from April through to June.
2.6 One note of caution is that coming years are likely to see significantly less
affordable housing produced because of the reduction in grant funding available.

2.7 At present we are anticipating 606 new affordable homes in 2012/13 and around
270 in 2013/14.
3 Affordable Rents
3.1 Since January 2012, Registered Provider partners have been advertising properties
at new affordable rent levels. Appendices 1 and 2 show the properties advertised
so far and the result of that letting. Affordable Rent letting will continue to be
monitored and will be discussed and reviewed with registered providers through the
Lewisham Affordable Housing Group and at quarterly liaison meetings.
3.2 The total number of properties let in 2011-12 was 22 and 52 up to the 24 th June in
this financial year, totalling 74. Assuming that the average total number of lettings
in Lewisham annually is around 1200, and properties have been let on an affordable
rent basis for approximately half a year, this would equate to 12.3% of available
properties.
3.3 Table 1 (Appendix 1) shows how many properties were advertised in 2011/12 with
an affordable rent. Table 2 (Appendix 2) shows how many properties have been
advertised in 2012/13 up to 24 th June 2012. So far, only one person refusing a
property has given the reason as the rent being too high. As the year progresses
more information will become available and will be monitored.
3.4 Tables 1 and 2 also reflect the RP’s calculation in relation to rents as a percentage
of the local market rent which can change for each post code area.
3.5 A recent discussion with the Greater London Authority (GLA) has highlighted that
there is no easy way to fairly analyse this data at present. The South East London
Housing Partnership are working with the GLA and CORE to suggest a monitoring
process. There are a number of data sources that could be considered for a
comparison. The GLA Rents Map is based on a sample of private tenancies
created in the previous 12 months, and refreshed on a monthly basis. Rightmove is
used to produce a regular Housing Market Trends bulletin for the sub region, and is
based on advertised rents rather than achieved rents.
3.6 Affordability
3.7 The Council’s agreed position in April 2011 was:
• Ideally, no rents to be set at 80% of market rent or higher than LHA levels;
• A cap on percentage of household net disposable income spent on rent at 30%-
40% on new developments;
• Corresponding restrictions on the amount of disposal income spent on rents for
affordable rented re-lets, and agreement between the Borough and the housing
provider on the percentage that would be included in the higher rent framework.
3.8 Translating this position into practice is complex however the following approach
has proved helpful:
3.8.1 The Universal Credit (UC) cap figure should be used as the income level. Currently
the UC cap is £500 p.w. (£26k pa). 40% of this figure, i.e. £200 p.w. would be the
maximum affordable rent level acceptable based on today’s figures.
• Of the affordable rents advertised reported to date 2 properties in 11/12
exceeded £200pw and 1 in 12/13.

3.8.2 Registered providers should aim for affordable rents no higher than £140 p.w. (i.e.
40% of £350) for one bed properties.
• 9 properties were advertised in 11/12 with rents in access of £140pw and in
12/13 there have been 4 to date.
3.8.3 Rents should not be above local housing allowance (LHA) levels (see Appendix 3).
• In 2011/12 no properties exceeded the LHA rate and in 2012/13 1 has to
date.
3.8.4 Rents should be set in such a way to ensure that they will not breach the LHA level
or UC cap in the future.
3.9 The discussion around affordability is ongoing with Registered Providers.
4 Decent Homes
4.1 Following the Greater London Authority (GLA) taking on the housing role for
London, the London office of the Homes and Communities Agency now forms part
of the GLA’s Housing and Land Directorate. The requirements of the GLA differ
from the HCA and boroughs were asked to sign a contract for year 2 of the Decent
Homes funding, despite not having to do this for year 1. The documents were
scrutinised by officers, signed by the Head of Resources and sealed by legal. The
contract was returned on 1 st June 2012 for the GLA to sign and return a copy to the
Council.
4.2 Requirements of the contract include reporting to the GLA on the following events:
• disposal of more than 499 Relevant Dwellings;
• Any material deviation or amendment to the proposals set out in the submission;
• Any application under Section 27 (to delegate housing management functions);
• Any delay in delivery of the programme.
5 Right to Buy
5.1 A report was taken to Mayor and Cabinet on 30 th May 2012 outlining the
Governments changes to the scheme and details of the agreement to be signed by
councils wanting the option to utilise the receipts for new homes.
5.2 It was agreed at Mayor and Cabinet to sign the Retention Agreement, however the
Council maintains the option of not retaining receipts in any particular quarter and
no interest is payable if payment is made to the Secretary of State by the due date
for each relevant quarter.
5.3 On the 12 th March the Government published its response to the consultation.
Contained within the document was notification that the Government would be
introducing a £75,000 cap rather than a £50,000.
5.4 In response to concerns raised by local authorities, the Government extended the
period for investment of the proceeds from 2 years to 3. The Agreement therefore
recognises that new homes cannot realistically be completed within 3 years, but that
the local authority should incur expenditure of no more than 30% of the
development costs of new homes within that time period.

5.5 An authority can either deliver the new homes directly, via an RP, or a mix of both.
However if an RP is delivering the homes then they commit to the match funding
(the 70%). The Guidance issued indicates the Government’s preference that new
homes are let at the new affordable rent levels, however where the Council is
building directly the rents are at the Council’s discretion. In theory, if the Council
opts to build, the rents could be set at social rent levels, but consideration should be
given to the financial viability of any proposals and the input of a minimum of 70% of
the costs by Lewisham.
5.6 Where a local authority chooses to work with an RP rents will be set in line with the
new affordable rent model. While this does not necessarily mean that all rents
should be set at 80% of market rent, the DCLG will expect that rents are maximised
to optimise the investment potential.
5.7 Local authorities can only retain receipts after the Government assumed income
from projected RTB sales has been achieved. This is agreed through the self
financing settlement. For the financial year 2012/13, 15 RTB sales have been
estimated.
5.8 As at the end of July 2012, 197 RTB1 forms have been sent by Lewisham Homes to
potential applicants, and 84 received (58 were received in 2011/12 as a whole).
5.9 Receipts which have not been used in accordance with the Retention Agreement
are required to be returned to DCLG with interest. Interest will be charged at 4%
above the base rate on a day to day basis compounded. The interest rate has been
set at a deliberately high rate in order to encourage local authorities to invest more
in replacement stock. The rate is specifically designed to discourage local
authorities from retaining receipts until such time that they are required to surrender
them.
6 Recent Consultations
6.1 Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) 2012
6.2 The Department for Communities and Local Government consulted in May 2012 on
the content of the proposed order to set out the circumstances in which
accommodation used for the purposes of the private rented sector offer, to end the
main homelessness duty, will not be regarded as ‘suitable’. They also asked our
views on how best to strengthen requirements in relation to location and suitability
when local authorities secure accommodation for the use of households owed
duties under homelessness legislation.
6.3 Lewisham was clear in the response that it is currently carefully considering
whether, when and how to implement the power to discharge the homelessness
duty into the private rented sector. Before implementing any provisions consultation
will be undertaken, we will be developing policy recommendations for consideration
by members and incorporating this work into our Homelessness Strategy. We
would expect any guidelines or guidance to ensure protection for households placed
within the sector whilst minimising any additional financial costs to local authorities.
6.4 A copy of the response can be found at Appendix 4.
6.5 Pay to Stay
6.6 The government believes that there is no justification for very high earners to be
benefitting from significant annual housing subsidies. The consultation follows on
from the Government’s strategy 'Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for

England' published in Nov 2011. It seeks views on whether higher income social
housing tenants should be charged higher/market rents when occupying social
housing even taking into account the case in favour of a mix of incomes in the
sector. The aim is to ensure that the limited supply of stock is used by people who
need it most and not by people who could afford to rent or buy in the private sector.
6.7 The government's rental policy statements have the status of non-statutory
guidance so in effect Local Authorities have the flexibility to set rents at another
level. RPs are subject to regulatory controls and it would need direction from the
Secretary of State to the Social Housing Regulator to amend its standard on rent
and this would be subject to statutory consultation.
6.8 The consultation considers different thresholds at which tenants might be charged
higher rents: £60,000, £80,000 or £100,000. It proposes publishing supplementary
guidance to allow landlords to charge higher rents as soon as possible after the
consultation deadline, but notes the more complex rules around allowing housing
associations to do the same. It proposes, in the meantime, that landlords should
charge 80% of market rents and then charge full market rents to higher income
tenants as soon as possible.
6.9 The consultation notes the lack of legal basis to require tenants’ rent disclosure, and
the need for primary legislation to allow this.
6.10 London Councils have circulated a briefing note raising the issues to be considered
by London as a whole and have similar concerns to those emerging in Lewisham:
• Social rent is referred to by the government as a subsidy when in fact it is
not a direct cost to the taxpayer and social housing is actually self funding in
the long term;
• Will the proposal be cost effective? Landlords will need to resource a new
policy setting an income level, and its implementation for what may
potentially be a small number of households identified. There are some 3.8
million social housing households in England, and the consultation suggests
that, at most, only 6,000 of these earn above £100,000 and only 34,000 earn
above £60,000. These represent, respectively, less than 0.2 per cent and
less than 1 per cent of the total number of households in England’s social
housing;
• The consultation doesn’t provide clarity over what it considers to be a market
rent (if that is the higher rent to be charged). The £60,000 threshold also
conflicts with the minimum threshold in London for government funded
affordable home ownership schemes which is £74,000;
• As mentioned in the consultation this new policy could result in a
disincentive to work, especially if the tenant is on the margins of the
threshold.
6.11 The closing date for responses is 12 th September 2012.
7 Disposal of expensive homes
7.1 The Policy Exchange, the national ‘think tank’, have published a report that
suggests that landlords should sell off their most expensive homes and reinvest the
money into new development. They anticipate that by selling properties in high
value areas as they become vacant could help to generate cash to fund 170,000
new homes nationally.

7.2 The report, published on the 20 th August 2012, suggests that the public does not
support social housing in these areas.
7.3 The report recognises that London has the highest proportion of above average
value homes (30.7% of the housing stock).
7.4 The National Housing Federation have raised a number of concerns with regard to
the reports findings, most fundamentally that the proposals could result in the
cleansing of low income households from high value areas. They also make the
point that there isn’t the market for these homes at the moment.
7.5 The Mayor’s Housing Commission in 2000 identified two areas of the borough
where the tenure mix could be considered an issue – New Cross, Deptford,
Bellingham and Downham. Since then, through planning policy and regeneration
schemes, the tenure mixes have been addressed to some degree and officers will
be considering the impact of this proposal, if it is accepted and promoted by the
government, will have on these areas as to sell or deliver less affordable homes in
the higher value areas will essentially mean delivering more in others.
8 Update on voids
8.1 It has been agreed that the work to bring back into use the 6 housing voids is to be
undertaken by Lewisham Homes. Officers are in the process of transferring the
Community Services house to Customer Services so that it can be used as housing
and form part of the same work programme.
8.2 A project brief has been drafted to maximise the benefits of bringing these
properties back into use and will include the following project objectives:
• take the required legal action to secure the vacant possession of all seven
properties in line with the refurbishment timetable to enable the refurbishment
works to commence;
• undertake works to the properties identified through the Property Techtonics
survey commissioned by LH to bring all seven properties up to the Lewisham
Homes Decent Homes Standard so they can be advertised and let to residents
in housing need from the Council’s HomeSearch Housing Register;
• undertake a survey of the Community Services property to ensure that this
property is included in the portfolio of homes to be refurbished, liaising
effectively with the Council to transfer this property from the Council’s CYP
Directorate’s ownership to the HRA under management of Lewisham Homes;
• develop and deliver an apprenticeship and regeneration training scheme, using
local labour, that refurbishes the properties up to the required letting standard
arranged through a competitive process and inviting a range of organisations
that work locally to bid. It is envisaged that apprentices will be used on all
properties but this may change depending on the nature and extent of the works
and the final agreement reached with the trainee provider organisation and the
Council.
9 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 This report is intended to inform members of current issues and, therefore, has no
direct financial implications.
9.2 The financial implications of each issue will be considered in specific reports as
matters progress.

10 LEGAL & HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
10.1 There are no additional legal and human rights implications arising for this
information report.
11 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
11.1 There are no specific equality implications for this report as it’s an information report and
refers to other reports that, where necessary, will have an Equalities Analysis
Assessment.
12 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
12.1 There are no specific crime and disorder implications.
13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
13.1 There are no specific environmental implications.
14 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION AND REPORT ORIGINATOR
If you have any queries relating to this report please contact Louise Spires (Strategy, Policy
and Development Manager) on x46649

APPENDIX 1
Table 1 – Rents as advertised 2011/12
Landlord Address Post Code Rent % of
Local
Market
Rent
Bed
Size
Floor
Level
No.
Bids
Amicus Horizon Southbrook Road, Lee SE12 8LQ £120.46 60% 1 Ground 121
Amicus Horizon
Admiralty Close, Reginald
Square SE8 4SS £113.54
60%
1 2nd 183
Amicus Horizon Jodane Street, Deptford SE8 398 £200.08 60% 2 Ground 474
Amicus Horizon Wynell Road, Forest Hill SE23 2LN £136.38
60%
2 Ground 313
Amicus Horizon
Admiralty Close, Reginald
Square SE8 4SS £155.77
60%
2 2nd 132
Amicus Horizon Deptford Broadway, Deptford SE8 4PA £162.69 60% 2 2nd 155
Amicus Horizon Nursery Close, Brockley SE4 1DR £173.08 60% 2 Ground 549
Amicus Horizon Perry Vale, Forest Hill SE23 2LR £181.38 60% 2 Ground 331
Amicus Horizon Harcourt Road, Brockley SE4 2AJ £146.08 60% 2 1st floor 274
Hexagon Blythe Vale, Catford SE6 4NP £156.50 80% 1 1st 526
Hexagon Stanstead Road, Forest Hill SE23 1HY £173.07 80% 2 Ground 467
Hexagon Avon Road, Brockley SE4 1QQ £209.90 80% 2 1st floor 376
Riverside Nita Court, Burnt Ash Hill SE12 0LJ £112.37 TBC 1 2nd floor 91
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 Ground 232
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 Ground 125
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 2nd 479
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 Ground 154
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 2nd 128
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 1st 126
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 2nd 123
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £144.00 78% 1 1st 123
Viridian Sangley Road, Catford SE6 2DT £165.00 78% 2 1st 433

APPENDIX 2
Table 2 – Rents as advertised 2012/13
Landlord Address 1 Address 2 Post
Code
Affinity Sutton
Merridale
Rent
% of Local
Market
Rent
Fixed
Term
Length
Bed
Size
No.
Bids
Carston
Close SE12 8TG 177.79 60% None 2 360
Affinity Sutton Leybridge Court Eltham Road SE12 8TQ 180.18 60% None 2 53
Amicus Horizon Admiralty Close Reginald Squ SE8 4SS 128.08 60% 5yrs 1 137
Amicus Horizon Geoffrey Road Brockley SE4 1NT 150.23 60% 5yrs 2 572
Amicus Horizon Admiralty Close Reginald Squ SE8 4SS 148.85 60% None 2 246
Hexagon Akintaro House
Alverton
Street SE8 5PN 173.99 80% None 1 207
Hexagon Sydenham Road Sydenham SE26 5JY 152.82 80% None 1 267
Hexagon Limes Grove Lewisham SE13 6DD 158.34 80% None 1 275
Hexagon Cobbs Court Kirkdale SE26 4BF 124.52 80% None 1 172
Hexagon Marler Road Forest Hill SE23 2AE 194.25 80% None 2 174
Hexagon Marler Road Forest Hill SE23 2AE 194.25 80% None 2 199
Hexagon Kilmorie Road Forest Hill SE23 2ST 220.02 80% None 2 563
L&Q Arran Road Catford SE6 2NN 103.04 60% None 0 247
L&Q Bargery Road Catford SE6 2LW 104.29 60% None 0 206
L&Q Jews Walk Sydenham SE26 6PL 130.64 60% None 0 196
L&Q
Ardgowan Road Catford SE6 1AJ 102.85 60% None 0 137
L&Q
Lewisham
Malling
Park SE13 6QL 130.57 60% None 1 203
L&Q Thornsbeach Road Catford SE6 1EU 130.22 60% None 1 325
L&Q
Hawstead Road Catford SE6 4JL 124.58 60% None 1 206
L&Q
Bollon Court Lupton Close SE12 0DW 124.58 60% None 1 104
L&Q
Woodlands Street Lewisham SE13 6TU 124.58 60% None 1 184
L&Q
Devonshire Road Forest Hill SE23 3LX 132.58 60% None 1 254
L&Q
Lewisham Park Lewisham SE13 6QZ 131.03 60% None 1 264
L&Q
Rosenthal Road Catford SE6 2BY 130.02 60% None 1 238
L&Q
Manor Mount Forest Hill SE23 3PY 130.51 60% None 1 206
L&Q
Sportsbank Street Catford SE6 2EY 128.92 60% None 1 227
L&Q
Slagrove
Towerview
Place SE13 7LN 124.58 60% None 1 210
L&Q Bowness Road Catford SE6 2DG 124.58 60% None 1 217
L&Q
Wickham
Craig Court
Road SE4 1NJ 124.58 60% None 1 168
L&Q
Lupton Close Baring Road SE12 0DR 189.44 60% None 1 187
L&Q
Charminster Road Grove Park SE9 4BU 117.86 60% None 1 297
L&Q Brownhill Road Catford SE6 1AA 124.58 60% None 1 373
L&Q
Albacore Crescent Lewisham SE13 7HW 129.62 60% None 1 351

Landlord Address 1 Address 2 Post
Code
Rent
% of Local
Market
Rent
Fixed
Term
Length
L&Q
Castleton Road Grove Park SE9 4BZ 115.88 60% None 1 294
L&Q
Sydenham
Wirrall House Hill Estate SE26 6AQ 130.43 60% None 1 94
L&Q Hawkins Way Catford SE6 3RT 150.22 60% None 2 240
L&Q
Railway Terrace Ladywell SE13 7XA 150.22 60% None 2 257
L&Q
Davenport Road Catford SE6 2AX 150.22 60% None 2 270
L&Q
Sangley Road Catford SE6 2JP 150.22 60% None 2 142
L&Q
Laleham Road Catford SE6 2JD 150.22 60% None 2 205
L&Q
Woodpecker Mews London SE13 5HE 150.22 60% None 2 124
L&Q
Ennersdale Road London SE13 6JD 150.22 60% None 2 182
L&Q
Bowness Road London SE6 2DG 150.22 60% None 2 133
L&Q
Ashmead Road London SE8 4DY 165.24 60% None 2 99
L&Q
Laleham Road Catford SE6 2AE 150.22 60% None 2 417
L&Q
Sportsbank Street Catford SE6 2EX 156.77 60% None 2 337
L&Q
Devonshire Road Forest Hill SE23 3TH 150.22 60% None 2 326
L&Q
Courthill Road Lewisham SE13 6DW 150.22 60% None 2 453
L&Q
Slagrove
Towerview
Place SE13 7LN 150.22 60% None 2 347
L&Q
Birkhall Road Catford SE6 1TF 155.86 60% None 2 86
L&Q
Owens Way Forest Hill SE23 1RW 158.55 60% None 2 137
Riverside Dianne Court Burnt Ash Hill SE12 0LH 118.67 TBC None 2 205
Bed
Size
No.
Bids

APPENDIX 3
Local Housing Allowance Rates 2012/13
Inner London
£
Shared Accommodation Rate: 86.54
One Bedroom Rate: 184.62
Two Bedroom Rate: 240.00
Three Bedroom Rate: 300.00
Four Bedroom Rate: 392.00
Outer London
£
Shared Accommodation Rate: 78.50
One Bedroom Rate: 150.00
Two Bedroom Rate: 190.38
Three Bedroom Rate: 230.77
Four Bedroom Rate: 300.00

APPENDIX 4
Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 –
Consultation – Lewisham Response
Lewisham is currently carefully considering whether, when and how to
implement the power to discharge the homelessness duty into the private
rented sector. Before implementing any provisions we will be undertaking
consultation, developing policy recommendations for consideration by
members and incorporating this work into our Homelessness Strategy. We
would expect any guidelines or guidance to ensure protection for households
placed within the sector whilst minimising any additional financial costs to
local authorities.
Question 1: Do you agree that these five areas should be important in determining
whether accommodation is to be regarded as not suitable?
Yes we agree that the five areas detailed should be important when determining whether
accommodation is suitable.
Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed requirements as set out in detail above?
Please give details and reasons.
Lewisham wants to see good standard properties used but agrees with the comments in
the consultation document concerning the cost and time for full HHSRS inspections and
feels is would be unrealistic to expect this method of discharge to be effective if the
guidance required EHO inspection. Lewisham in line with most London authorities already
has mechanisms for inspecting and assessing properties for physical condition, health and
safety and management before procuring them and we are pleased that the system being
proposed relies on the local authorities view of condition based on its developed
mechanisms for assessing standards. We think this is a pragmatic and workable approach.
We would want to encourage long term relationships between ourselves and private sector
landlords and between tenants and their landlords. We will continue to promote
membership of the London Landlord Accreditation Scheme as a means of increasing the
professionalism and expertise of landlords we work with. As part of implementing
provisions on discharge we would review our mechanisms for assessing properties and
taking them on in order to ensure they complied with best practice.
Given our commitment only to procure good quality accommodation, we do have some
concern however that the implementation of these provisions needs to be a legally robust
process that minimises the risk of local authorities being embroiled in significant number of
reviews of suitability of accommodation. The guidance and instrument that give effect to
the provisions needs to effectively support this otherwise discharge will be difficult to
implement.
We agree that any licensable HMO properties should be licensed before being taken on.
We also agree that landlord conduct and history is a critical consideration but local
authorities would need to be able to do this without having to undertake lengthy and costly
CRB checks.
We would expect all landlords to provide a written tenancy agreement based on a model
document we provide. Any revisions would need to be reasonable and not unfair contract
terms. As an authority this is already standard practice for private sector leasing or direct
placement schemes. We do not currently operate a deposit based scheme (we use

incentives and rent in advance options). However should we do so in future we would not
welcome regulation on Tenancy Deposit Protection here for the reason stated in the
consultation – it would make it unworkable. However we would commit to checking
retrospectively on this area and discontinuing relationships with landlords who flouted use
of this requirement.
Question 3: Are there any additional elements that should form part of the Order or
any other comments you wish to make?
No.
Question 4: Do you agree that the existing provisions on location and suitability
should be strengthened so that homeless households are placed nearer to home
wherever possible?
Lewisham has always taken the approach that the best response to a family’s needs is to
place them within the local area to minimise disruption to schooling, ensuring family
contacts are maintained etc. Currently the only placements made out of borough are
emergency accommodation (B&B and annexe) on a short term basis and usually in
neighbouring areas or placements based on a need/desire to move elsewhere (domestic
violence/other threat). Lewisham believes that the guidance must contain enough flexibility
to permit boroughs to place households outside of the placing borough if it is right for the
individual household (relocation due to fear of gang persecution, fleeing domestic violence,
or desire for family reconciliation etc). However beyond this the introduction of universal
credit and the “benefits cap” will affect the ability of many boroughs (especially in areas of
high demand and rent levels) to source accommodation that a family can afford within its
district. In cases where a family is dependent on universal credit and the cap makes the
payment inadequate to cover housing costs it has to be an option for the local authority to
consider with the family whether their longer term housing needs are more effectively met
in an area outside the borough and probably London as a whole. It is not reasonable to
house someone in your district if they cannot afford to pay their rent. Lewisham has
considered affordability in relation to affordable housing. In April 2011 our Mayor and
Cabinet agreed that rents should ideally not exceed 60% of market rents and that housing
costs should be no more than 40% of net disposable income.
Lewisham agrees that in moving households we should consider the impact of moving
highly vulnerable households, perhaps with social care or special educational needs, both
in terms of the family and the local district they are moved to. Lewisham would want to
have respect for this issue and take care in placements but the tension between high need
families and the universal credit caps and housing costs must be recognised. We are
concerned that the very families who most need to be placed locally because of their needs
are the ones who may be least able to afford to live here. The government needs to give
consideration to how to assist local authorities to manage this tension in the best interest of
the household.
We agree that should we move households outside of the area we must respect and work
effectively with the area where households are placed, recognising the risks of removing
burden in terms of broader costs. Lewisham already experiences this itself as one of the
more affordable boroughs in London where a significant amount of temporary
accommodation and homeless prevention accommodation is procured by other boroughs
(affecting the council’s ability to fully exploit it own private market). Lewisham is signed up
to the Inter Borough Temporary Accommodation Agreement which outlines the
circumstances when one borough can place a household in TA in another borough.
The extension of these provisions to cover temporary accommodation placement is
unwelcome in light of the considerable difficulties that all London boroughs are having with
procuring sufficient affordable temporary accommodation. This is obviously exacerbated
by the current uncertainty in terms of funding for temporary accommodation in the absence

of an announcement from the DWP on temporary accommodation subsidy from April 2013.
An announcement would clearly enable local authorities to plan and respond more
appropriately to this. There is adequate current guidance and case law which effectively
regulates placement for the purposes of temporary accommodation and customers have
the right to review the suitability of any offer.
Question 5: Do you agree that regulations should specify the factors in relation to
location which authorities should take into account when considering the suitability
of accommodation?
Lewisham does not agree that regulations should specify location. However, if the
government is to regulate in relation to the location of placements then Lewisham would
favour the government’s preferred approach – to cover the regulations in secondary
legislation, rather than to require local authorities to use accommodation in the nearest
practicable district. We would want to keep the current regulations as they allow flexibility
within the process, including but not specifying distances from the local area. Given the
affordability concerns raised above the authority needs to have the scope to consider a
range of areas, though clearly recognising placements are best made close to networks
and support.
Question 6: Do you agree that those factors listed above are the ones local
authorities should take into account when considering location?
The factors listed are those that need to be taken into consideration however we would
argue that the existence of these factors when measured against affordability concerns
may leave the council with little choice but to give primary importance to households that
are able to afford their rent costs, as opposed to maintaining close proximity to schools and
doctors for example.
We would be happy to see protocols developed with boroughs where we may place
homeless households in order to respond to their legitimate concerns.
Consultation on the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation)
(England) Order 2012 Impact Assessment
Q1: Do you agree that the above is reasonable and reflects the costs to Local
Authorities from the proposed additional requirements?
Lewisham is of the view that if the approach adopted is “light touch” in as far as inspections
of all properties are not required and landlords will simply be asked to sign a form to
confirm that the property is at the required standard then costs will be kept to a minimum.
Q2 to local authorities: Do you intend to use the new power that will allow local
authorities to end the main homelessness duty with an offer of private rented sector
accommodation, without requiring the applicant's consent? How many homeless
households a year do you estimate you would place in the private rented sector once
the power is commenced?
Lewisham is currently assessing the volume of households for whom discharge could be an
option as part of considering if and how to implement these provisions. Given current
difficulties with procurement in the private sector, apart from through private sector leasing,
it is difficult to see us being able to use this option for large numbers because the
accommodation is not available locally.
Q3: Do you agree that the above is a reasonable assessment of the costs to private
rented Landlords from the proposed additional requirements?

Yes
Q4: to landlords and landlord groups: How far is it reasonable to assume that private
landlords already (a) hold the required paperwork (as outlined above) (b) use written
tenancy agreements with their tenants, homeless or otherwise (c) have a carbon
monoxide alarm installed in their rented property?
Q5: Do you think that these are reflective of the benefits to homeless households of
Option 1?
Yes
Q6: Do you agree that these are reflective of the benefits to private rented
Landlords?
Yes
Q7: Do you agree that the above is reflective of the costs to Local Authorities from
the proposed additional requirements of Option 2?
We are of the view that option 2 would place additional costs on local authorities.
Q8: Do you agree that the above is reflective of the costs to private rented Landlords
from the proposed additional requirements of Option 2?
We believe option 2 would place additional costs on landlords.