Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paul Walmsley.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of any interests.

To confirm the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Select Move meeting held on 7 November 2013 (enclosed)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Select Move meeting held on 7 November 2013 be held as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

The group with receive a presentation at the meeting on the findings of the two surveys that were recently undertaken by Select Move applicants and tenants that have recently been housed through the Select Move process..

The Task Group had requested for two surveys to be undertaken for current applicants of the Select Move lettings partnership and those applicants that had recently been housed by the process.

The two surveys were sent out with and equality form and return pre-paid envelope in the week commencing 18 November with a deadline of the 20 December given for their completed submission. Surveys send out to current applicants totalled 1,369, with 228 (16.7%) being returned. 376 surveys were sent out to customers that had been rehoused in the last six months, with 71 (18.9%) being returned.

Most characteristics roughly matched profiles of those surveyed except age profile and those with disabilities. Older age ranges over represented increasing through 40s, 50 and over 60’s. Weighting applied based on ages for comparison purposes but only had an significant impact on one question, so un-weighted data was used. 60.1% of respondents were female and 39.9% male, although 37.8% of main applicants in Chorley are male.

Interestingly the percentage of people that considered that they have a disability was 37.5%, which was significantly higher compared to the 7.1% on the housing register. Over half the people with a disability indicated ‘co-ordination, dexterity or mobility’, and almost 3 in 10 indicated ‘mental health’.

Most people indicated that they had found out about Select Move by word of mouth either by a friend or family member, council or housing association staff as opposed to via the internet.  Even though the Select Move was an online process, a high volume of people still preferred to complete a paper application form. The majority of people found the application process easy to apply, however, 13.9% did find it difficult, stating internet access and complexity and length of form as the main reasons for those difficulties. It was important to note that it was predominately older people who found it difficult.

Members discussed the difficulties with the language barrier that many BME applicants found when applying online as there did not appear to be any provision for people who could not read English. Although, the mosque was used as a central location for help and advice, there were many people in the community who did not attend the mosque, in particular other religions and women, who were actually the biggest % of gender applying in the first place. It was explained that language line is still in use at the Council offices and arrangement can always be made to translate the paper application form into other languages by request.

Nearly everyone (88.2%) who responded indicated that a photograph of the property on the advert was important when deciding on which properties to bid on. Members felt that some of the reasons given as to why they were not included were not acceptable as the reasons as to why the property was empty did not need to be advertised.

72.1% of people that had been recently housed stated that they had bid upon a property on a weekly basis with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.SM.24

The Group were provided with an update on those applicants who had been verified as having a local connection to Chorley in line the recent changes to the policy. In order to transfer current applicants within the Select Move scheme, applicants were contacted twice by letter that detailed the changes, along with a mini application to complete and return. A pre-paid envelope was enclosed to assist the applicants in returning their application.

Each banding was than reviewed by officers in December 13, to identify those households that had not responded, were currently a live case with housing options or/and in temporary accommodation,

All the Partner Organisations had dealt with their own lists using the same process at the Council, which had been agreed at the Steering Group. To understand the accurate picture of applicants who had a local connection to Chorley, Members were provided with tabled analysis of all the partners showing both bedroom need and banding assessment.

All the partners, including the Council have seen a reduction in the number of applicants on the waiting list. Chorley Council’s managed cases have reduced from 767 to 286.

All applicants who did had not responded to the re-assessment had been cancelled and would not be able to make further bids on properties, they would however be re-instated should they contact the Council or other partners, providing they meet the new policy criteria.

It was AGREED that the Council would monitor the downward trend on the waiting list in relation to the local connection policy.

The Task Group met with those customers that had indicated a wish to speak with Councillors about their experiences in relation to the Select Move processes. Members of the housing team were also available to take down any details relating to specific issues of concern.

Lack of communication seems to be an overriding factor in many of the issues that were raised. Customers reported incidences of documentation going missing on more than one occasion and the absence of clear and correct advice from staff of registered social providers, particularly in relation to Select Move policy. Even though the process had been made easier by only having to apply once with one partner, each partner still appeared to have their own allocation policies which made it confusing to the customer.

Applicants also reported being subjected to poor customer service from the registered providers, including rude staff and were often made to feel inferior because they were apply for social housing. Most people still felt that there was a stigma attached to ‘applying for a council house’, and were often labelled or categorised unfairly.

Customers were aware that properties had become empty and yet were let without any advertisement on Select Move, citing examples. This confirmed that the process of direct matching takes place ‘behind the scenes’ and although it may be done fairly and consistently, the lack of transparency promotes the theory that preferential treatment is given, leading many applicants  feeling disengaged and a lack of confidence in the scheme.

There also appeared to be evidence of vulnerable applicants not being supported enough through the process and it was felt that additional signposting was needed for customers along with the necessary training for staff.

There was also evidence that customers had applied to Select Move and as a result of regular bidding in person at local offices, had been successful in obtaining a property. As a result they were very happy with their experience of the scheme and the outcome.