Calling on Sussex Members of Parliament to ensure letting agents are required by law to belong to an ombudsman scheme

On Tuesday, the House of Commons is discussing an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Bill.  If approved, the changes would see letting agents required by law to belong to an ombudsman scheme. I have written to the six Members of Parliament in the areas in which BHT works, to encourage them to support the amendment.  The MP’s are Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye), Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne), Norman Baker (Lewes), Simon Kirby (Brighton Kemptown), Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion), and Mike Weatherley (Hove).

Since 2008 estate agents have been required by law to be part of an approved redress scheme, but letting agents are not.

The Property Ombudsman received more than 8,000 complaints about letting agents from landlords and tenants in 2012 – an increase of 9% on the previous year.  Yet only 12 prosecutions were carried out last year by trading standards teams in 20 of the biggest councils in England, Scotland and Wales.

Baroness Hayter has said: “Legislation already requires estate agents to be part of an ombudsman scheme. What this amendment would do is extend that so that letting agents would also have to be members of an ombudsman scheme.  At the moment anybody could set up as a letting agent. They don’t have to promise to give minimum standards to the tenants or to the landlords.”

A spokesman from the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “People living in private rented homes should be treated fairly and honestly, but we want to avoid excessive red tape that would push up the cost of rents and reduce choice for tenants.  The first priority must be to make sure that landlords and tenants are well informed and empowered to exercise their rights. Agents are subject to consumer protection laws and dissatisfied customers can report bad practice to local trading standards officers.”

My concern is that with changes to Legal Aid, specifically the reduction in what we can do under legal help, as well as a reduction in the numbers we can assist, it is unlikely that tenants will have the necessary power to exercise their rights.

Landlords, too, do not get a fair deal from letting agents.  The Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA), the leading trade body, has said it was disappointed by the low numbers being prosecuted and that if there was seen to be a robust procedure then that in itself would be a deterrent.

The Housing Minister has said he is not keen on new regulations, but I understand that he has said he is open to debate.  I have urged the six MP’s to support the amendment on Tuesday.

Southdowns Court, Saltdean – update April 2012

Tonight my colleague Kevin Day and I attended, by invitation, the AGM of the Saltdean Residents’ Association to provide an update on Southdowns Court, a block of flats that BHT recently leased from a private landlord.

There has been great concern in the neighbourhood with different rumours doing the rounds about who was to be housed at Southdowns Court.  The rumours (at least the ones I heard) included that we were planning to use Southdowns Court as a bail hostel and a hostel for young men under the age of 21.

At a public meeting in March, organised by the ward councillors and the local MP, Simon Kirby, I tried to reassure neighbours that we were planning to use Southdowns Court to house people who needed housing simply because of a shortage of affordable housing.

Tonight I was able to tell the Residents’ Association that the first 17 residents moved in at the beginning of April.  One is in her 20’s, two in their 30’s , nine in their 40’s, four in their 50’s and one in his 60’s. 

We have experienced some teething problems – difficulties in getting the bins emptied.  We have ordered three 1100 litre wheelie bins at a cost of £1,500.  The property has experience fly-tipping which has been dealt with and a sofa dumped on the embankment is to be removed.

Residents had two concerns: the need for washing lines and a resident of Southdowns Court parking his car outside a neighbouring property. These will be adressed.

I hope that neighbours are happy that BHT has been true to the assurances given, and that we have responded to all representations made.

I was very touched by the round of applause Kevin and I received as we left the meeting tonight and for the kind words of the SRA chair, Laurence O’Connor, who has diligently represented the views of his members throughout the last couple of months.

You can read more about Southdowns Court on the Saltdean Residents’ Association website and the assurances I have given on my blog here, here and here.

Southdown Court: reflections from yesterday’s public meetings

Yesterday, with my colleague Phil Oakley, I attended a couple of meetings of residents in Saltdean who are concerned about BHT’s plans for Southdown Court. The meetings were called by Simon Kirby MP and attended by Councillors Mary Mears and Lynda Hyde. Unfortunately, Councillor David Smith was unable to attend.

What was most impressive about the meetings was the display of the strength of community that exists in Saltdean, the measured way that most raised their questions, and the respectful manner in which they listened to the answers.

I hope that we were able to reassure residents, although I recognise that there are some people who are so anxious that nothing would have reassured them. I hope that, in time, they will come to recognise that their fears were unfounded. And then there were one or two comments that were clearly not representative of the people of Saltdean.

I will formally respond to the petition organised by and presented to me by Simon Doyle in the next few days.

Elsewhere on this blog (here and here) I have posted information about Southdown Court. In this post I will focus on two areas of learning for me:

• that I underestimated the very strong sense of community in Saltdean (that does not exist in many other areas where we work);
• that I need to review the balance between the need for information and the right of our tenants to privacy and anonymity.

Residents are very proud of their community and understandably want what is best for themselves, their families, and their neighbours.

When we decided to take on a 10 year lease for Southdown Court we assumed that this would go ahead without comment from neighbours, in the same way as all similar leases have gone ahead without comment elsewhere in Brighton and Hove, Eastbourne and Hastings.

How wrong I was! It is a sign of the strong sense of community that neighbours talk to neighbours, and residents to councillors. I actually welcome that. It culminated in Simon Kirby, together with the ward councillors, calling yesterday’s meetings. Phil and I were very happy to attend and we are willingly to attend future meetings if they are called. BHT will remain in touch with the LAT and resident association. Hopefully this is the start of healthy engagement between BHT, residents and their representatives, and in due course our tenants in Southdown Court.

Several residents felt that BHT should have been proactive in distributing leaflets in the neighbourhood about our plans. Some felt that we have been secretive about our plans.

We haven’t attempted to be secretive. We had simply assumed that there was no need to be public about our plans because what we are intending to do at Southdown Court is simple and straightforward – provide housing to men and women in housing need because of the shortage of housing. Our tenants could be the sons and daughters, or brothers and sisters of existing residents of Saltdean. No planning permission is required for a change in use since there is to be no change in use. This was helpfully clarified by Councillor Hyde.

There is a balance to be struck between the privacy and anonymity of our future tenants and the concerns of neighbours.

With the wonderful benefit of hindsight, would I have approached the situation differently? Yes. I would have engaged with the three ward councillors earlier, informing them of our plans and providing reassurances to any concerns that they might have had. They would then have been in a position, when approached by residents, to say that Southdown Court was being brought back in to use as housing.

Should BHT have put out a leaflet to neighbours explaining our plans. No, I don’t think we should have since we are not proposing something out of the ordinary. We will simply be providing housing in a residential area.

So thank you to all those who attended yesterday’s meetings, and for your questions, no matter how challenging. Thank you, also, to Mary Mears and Lynda Hyde for their attendance and robust comments on behalf of their constituent. And finally a thank you to Simon Kirby for organising the meeting.

Southdown Court: responding to issues raised by local residents

I have been asked some questions about BHT’s plans for Southdown Court. I have drafted a note for the local MP, Simon Kirby, as preparation for the public meeting due to be held tomorrow. Click here for further information regarding the meeting.

The current use for the property is C3 (general housing without care or support). No change of use for Southdown Court is being proposed and, therefore, there is no need for formal consultation with local residents.

BHT has acquired many similar properties over the past year, although not many are of the size of Southdown Court. They have been opened and are running without any problems. We assumed the same would be the case with Southdown Court. With hindsight, I can see that, given its size and history, we would have been well advised to have engaged at an early stage with the local Member of Parliament and ward Councillors.

Residents of Southdown Court will be men and women in housing need because of the shortage of affordable housing. Because this is accommodation in the private rented sector with no funding coming from the local authority, the City Council has no say in who should be accommodated here. However, BHT is committed to helping to meet local housing need. We will only house people at Southdown Court who have a local connection to Brighton and Hove, including those who may have been born and brought up in Saltdean and whose families live locally.

Should the local authority have a say in who should be accommodated, it would be people who are assessed as being in priority need. Because of the nature of accommodation, designed for single person occupancy, it would be likely that those in priority need would have a vulnerability such as alcohol and drug addiction, mental ill-health, offending, etc. Referrals will come from our PRS Solutions service, the advice centre in Queens Road, Brighton, and self referrals.

BHT operates a number of specialist services for men and women with alcohol, drug and mental health problems. We are well-known for success in running these services. Less known is that we are also a relatively large landlord operating in Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings where we provide general needs housing in the same way as any other social landlord, local authority or, for that matter, private landlords. We are not known for this because these properties are well-managed and do not attract any publicity, positive or negative.

We will only house people at Southdown Court who we assess as having no specific support needs and who are able to maintain a tenancy.

The assessment as to whether someone is able to maintain a tendency is made by staff who are very experience of working within the private rented sector. It is in nobody’s interest to accommodate someone who will cause a disturbance to their immediate neighbours in Southdown Court, within the immediate neighbourhood, or for us as the landlord. We are committed to creating successful tenancies for people who will respect the property, pay their rent, and report repairs at the earliest possible time. We have no interest in providing accommodation for people who will not respect the property or pay their rent.

The question has been asked whether the residents will be supported and whether this will be by a 24-hour staff team comprising managers and support workers, and whether there will be an on-call system. The answer is no to all these questions. This is not supported housing. It is general needs housing. Landlords in the social and private rented sectors do not provide support for their tenants in ordinary housing such as this.

While I understand the concerns of neighbours, I hope that we will be able to reassure them. I would ask neighbours to ask questions, no matter how challenging, and listen to the answers given.

Reassuring residents about our plans for Southdown Court, Saltdean

This coming Saturday (25th February at 12 noon), together with my colleague Phil Oakley, who is responsible for all our private rented sector housing, I will be meeting with residents of Saltdean who have some concerns about our acquisition of Southdown Court.

The meeting has been called by Simon Kirby MP together with Rottingdean Coastal councillors, Mary Mears, Lynda Hyde and David Smith.

Click here for further information regarding the meeting.

I can understand that residents might be concerned if some of the rumours that have been circulated were true. However, I can reassure residents and their representatives that Southdown Court will be used to accommodate local people who are in housing need simply because of the shortage of housing. We will have assessed all residents as being able to maintain a tendency. We have never had any plans to run the premises as a bail hostel nor will we use it as one of our specialist services for people with alcohol, drug or mental health problems.

Those to be accommodated here could well be the sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of those already living in Saltdean.

I think we can be criticised for not having communicated better with local representatives at an earlier stage but this was not considered since the accommodation to be provided here will be so mainstream similar to that provided by any other landlord.

I look forward to the meeting and hope that we can reassure residents about our plans.

The Big Alcohol Debate is essential for a healthy and happy Brighton and Hove

I am delighted that a wide-ranging debate on alcohol and its impact on Brighton andHoveis to take place between now and the new year.

The Big Alcohol Debate is long overdue.  I have previously posted statistics and comments on this issue, and it is worth repeating some that were printed in today’s Argus in an excellent centre page spread by Siobhan Ryan.

• Men lose on average 12.3 months of life due to alcohol while women lose on average 5.6 months;
• Male deaths directly due to alcohol are 23.7 per 100,000 of the population, for women it is 9.5 per 100,000;
• There are 689.3 male alcohol-specific hospital admissions per 100,000 and 333.5 female admissions;
• There are 9.2 alcohol-related recorded crimes for every 1,000 people in the City.

Dr. Tom Scanlon, Brighton and Hove’s Director of Public Health, said: “We have raised concerns in the past on regular occasions in terms of deaths and illnesses linked to alcohol, and the noise and the nuisance and the crime.

“We are basically asking everyone what they think about alcohol in the city and what they would do about it.  The idea is to build up a picture of what exactly is going on.  Some may say nothing needs to be done, some may say lots needs to be done.  Some may say fewer off-licences are needed and there should be an extension of the cumulative impact zone to make it more difficult to open up licensed premises,  Or maybe we should be focusing on something else?”

My personal view is that the situation has become substantially worse in the City following the liberalisation of licensing laws by the previous government.  There is a direct correlation between the ease of supply and harmful use and addiction.

There are many good people in Brighton and Hove seeking to do something about the problems caused by alcohol to individuals, families, the community and the economy of Brighton andHove.  But they have both hands tied behind their backs by current legislation.  The outcome I am hoping to see from the Big Alcohol Debate is that our three members of parliament, Simon Kirby, Caroline Lucas and Mike Weatherley, unite to put pressure on the government to bring in sensible licensing laws that allow local councils, the police and magistrates to bring in and/or enforce proper restrictions on the availability of alcohol.  That would be a good example of localism.

(An aside: In welcoming the Big Alcohol Debate I have been tweeting one concern – the Debate promotes a website Think Drink Drugs that fails to mention abstinence-based services in Brighton and Hove.  I have been raising this as a concern since I first heard about the Big Alcohol Debate but, as yet, abstinence-based services remain excluded from where people can get help.  It is not the only example of where this happens.  I have asked whether excluding such services is policy or attitudinal.  I await an answer but will continue tweeting about it until a more balanced approach is used by the City Council and Health Promotion).

The successes of the year past and a major challenge ahead

As we reach the midway point of the year, I have been reflecting on how BHT is doing in what are very testing times. My conclusion is that, overall, BHT is doing well, with excellent services continuing to be provided to clients. We have achieved financial stability, and BHT’s reputation continues to be very positive. There is just one area of serious concern, the future funding of our Legal Services.

A year ago I had ten areas of concern yet, one by one, the challenges facing us have been addressed. The highlights of the year so far include:

our supported housing services, particularly in Brighton and Hove, where the scale of the funding cuts have been limited to just 4.5% over 4 years;

• The women’s counselling service, Threshold, whose future looked bleak until we secured £393,000 from the Big Lottery Fund through its Reaching Communities programme;
• Finding Futures, based in Hastings, has secured £497,000 from the Reaching Communities Programme of the Big Lottery Fund and a new contract with East Sussex County Council;
• First Base Day Centre has undergone a major refurbishment. After twelve months, restoration work to the building, St Stephen’s Hall has been completed and the centre is due to be formally re-opened at an event on Thursday 7 July 2011;
• The Accommodation for Work Project was in the running for the 2011 National Lottery Awards’ “Best Voluntary/Charity Project”. While the project did not make it through to the final round, it was nevertheless well-deserved recognition for this service.

At the beginning of April, BHT left the Affinity Sutton Group The move, which was supported by Affinity Sutton, is designed to allow BHT to thrive as an independent organisation by being ‘fleet of foot’ in responding to new opportunities presenting themselves to us.

One of the most exciting plans we have is to take client involvement to a new level, building on the co-design and co-production of services to spread co-delivery across the organisation. This will include the BHT Intern Programme which is attracting much interest and media coverage.

The main challenge facing BHT is the future of our Legal Services. The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke MP, recently published the Sentencing and Legal Aid Bill that contains proposals to reduce the legal aid budget by £350 million. Much of the work that our three advice centres undertake (in Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings) will no longer attract legal aid funding. In Brighton alone, we are currently funded to take on around 1,400 housing cases. This is expected to drop by more than 500 cases each year. There will no longer be legal aid funding for any welfare benefits work and face to face debt advice will by telephone only, and as with housing, only be available for those at imminent risk of losing their home.

The impact on these cuts will see an increase in homelessness, family breakdown, and general hardship. With the loss of around £0.5 million funding, our advice services will see considerable contraction and, nationwide, there will be a de-skilling of the sector as advisers, with many years experience, will move elsewhere.

BHT has been campaigning hard to oppose the cuts to legal aid and will continue to do so. I would encourage you to write to the five Members of Parliament in the areas where we have advice centres urging them to support funding for independent advice services. The MPs are Simon Kirby (Brighton Kemp Town), Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion), Mike Weatherley (Hove), Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) and Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye).

If you would like to support the campaign to save Legal Aid, please view the short film on the Justice For All website and sign the online petition. The government has listened on a number of issues; there is no reason why they should not listen on this occasion and reverse these measures which will lead to an increase in homelessness along the coastal south east.

Welfare Benefit changes and cuts to Legal Aid are creating a ‘Perfect Storm’

A report by Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) highlights government plans to reform housing benefit will price low-income households out of a third of local authorities in England, pushing them into areas of high unemployment.

This is something BHT has been warning about for many months, and I was on BBC Sussex talking about the issue this morning.

What is happening is that a ‘perfect storm’ is being created, the coming together of several measures that will result in households being forced out of accommodation and high rent areas, with Brighton and Hove being particularly badly hit.

But first the good news. The government is listening. A proposal to reduce housing benefit entitlement by 10% for those who have been on Job Seekers Allowance for 12 months has been withdrawn. What we hope for now is that the government will listen to concerns about the ‘£500 cap’. This cap is the total amount, equivalent to the average household weekly income, that a household can be paid in benefits. The first benefit to be withdrawn will be housing benefit.

This will result in unemployed households having to make difficult decisions about priorities – new shoes for a child or making up the shortfall in rent. We can expect to see rent arrears increasing and, consequentially, an increase in evictions for rent arrears. The duty, and the cost, to house a family with children will then pass to children services of local authorities at a time when cuts are having to be made. This, together with changes to the eligible amount of housing benefit payable, is part of the ‘perfect storm’.

Some say that these households will have to move to areas where there is cheaper housing. The Department for Work and Pensions says that it is trying to achieve a “fairer” system. But given that there will not be rented accommodation in the Brighton area that is affordable under the new model (other than social housing and under the new social housing arrangements that soon will not be ‘affordable’) I have to ask if it is fairer to expect households, born and brought up in Brighton, to have to move out of the south east. Children will lose contact with grandparents, have to change schools, lose friends, have their lives really disrupted.

The other key aspect of ‘perfect storm’ is the cuts to legal aid. Going is entitlement to receive legal help for welfare benefit and debt problems, and legal help for housing issues will be limited to avoiding imminent homelessness. Going will be the skilful brokerage between landlords and tenants that seek to mediate solutions acceptable to landlords and affordable to tenants. Greater burdens will be placed on local authorities. The cuts in legal aid will be a short term financial gain for the Treasury but a loss – loss – loss situation for landlords, tenants and local government.

But to finish on a positive note, I am confident that government will continue to listen, and I am full of praise for local MP’s such as Simon Kirby, Mike Weatherley, Caroline Lucas and Amber Rudd who have been raising various issues with Ministers and in the House. There is time for a rethink, although I recognise in testing financial times it will be difficult to make a change, but a change is needed otherwise the cost, financial and human, will be too great.

Housing Benefit reforms will lead to a massive increase in homelessness

Today my colleague John Holmstrom and I have written to the Members of Parliament for the three constituencies in Brighton and Hove, Simon Kirby (Brighton Kemptown0, Dr Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) and Mike Weatherley (Hove) regarding changes to how housing benefit entitlement will be calculated in the years to come.  Here is an extract from our letter:

“We are writing to raise our concerns with you regarding the likelihood of a significant increase in homelessness and rough sleeping in Brighton and Hove as a result of measures announced in Tuesday’s budget.

“Together we have a total of 50 years experience working in Brighton and Hove with men and women who are homeless.  We have an understanding of what works and can recall times, including in the mid 1990’s, when an unintended consequence of a change in Housing Benefit payment levels resulted in a massive exit of private sector landlords and a massive increase in rough sleeping.  We believe that the changes in housing benefit regulation announced in the budget will see a repeat of this.

“There is a great deal of technical information but the bottom line is that changes in Housing Benefit entitlement, if it was implemented today, could see a typical single person over 25 in Brighton living in an average one bedroom flat lose £28.50 from their weekly Job Seekers Allowance.  JSA is currently £64.50 which would leave them with just £36.00 to live on.

“The LHA in Brighton and Hove for a one bed flat is currently £149.59 per week.  The current formula is based on the median rent for such properties in the City.  In future it will be at 30%, not the median, resulting, on a conservative estimate of current market rents, in a weekly reduction in housing benefit eligibility of £15.00 although rents are unlikely to be reduced.  There will be a further reduction for those on Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) for 12 months who would see their entitlement reduced by a further 10% or £13.50 per week. 

“This is bad news all round.  The individual will be left with just £36.00 for food, heat and light, clothing and other essentials, the landlord is likely to see an increase in bad debts, and the local Council will have more people being evicted. 

“Fortunately the most damaging aspect of this change is due to be implemented in 2013, so there is still time for the government to think through the implication of its decision.  The coalition government has pledged to protect the poorest, but this seems to be going against that commitment.

“The economy in the City has remained buoyant in spite of the recession, and people still want to move here.  It remains a ‘landlord market’ in Brighton.  There is no reason why a landlord will drop their rent to £135 and then to £121.50, and there is no commercial interest for landlords to rent to those on benefits given the likelihood of an increase in bad debts.  Most private landlords have just one or two properties and we cannot rely on altruism. They cannot afford it and it does not make commercial sense.

“This issue will particularly affect Brighton and Hove given that we have a very large private rented sector (24%) and a relatively small social sector (less than 15%).  This measure will impact particularly on single households of which, demographically, there is a high proportion in the City.

“We can foresee a return to the position in the mid-1990’s where there was a massive exit of private sector landlords and a massive increase in homelessness and rough sleeping.

“There has been an amazing amount of good partnership working in Brighton and Hove involving organisations such as CRI, Sussex Central YMCA, and BHT.  In particular, Brighton and Hove City Council can take a lot of credit for the steep reduction in homelessness and rough sleeping.  It is a shame that all these achievements may be undermined by these changes”.

 We have urged our representatives to raise these concerns with Ministers.