Read the text of this document (22 pages)
Residents’ Services Select Committee – Review of
Homelessness & the Customer Journey
SITE VISITS
As part of the review, site visits to the Contact Centre and to the Housing Reception
Area at the Civic Centre were arranged for Committee Members. Some Members also
participated in unannounced B&B visits alongside the Council’s Counter Fraud Team.
Further to the visits, improvements to the Housing Reception Area were suggested to
make it more welcoming - these included planting, a seating area and a children’s play
area.
MEETING MINUTES
WITNESS SESSION 1 – 13 MARCH 2024
Dan Kennedy (Corporate Director of Central Services), Melissa Blower (Housing
Improvement Programme Manager), Debby Weller (Head of Housing Strategy and
Policy) and Maggie Nelson (Head of Housing Needs) were in attendance to present
the report and answer Members’ questions.
The Corporate Director of Central Services acknowledged that the current situation in
relation to homelessness was extremely challenging. There had been a 27% increase
in demand with 100 people presenting as homeless each week. This wa s primarily
being driven by evictions from private rental accommodation. It was noted that, over
the last five years, there had been an increase in demand but a 41% reduction in
affordable privately rented accommodation supply. The Council’s strategy focus sed
on homelessness prevention and boosting of supply; 500 new homes were to be
purchased and officers were also exploring ways in which they could increase supply
in the private rental sector. The Council was also investing in improved systems and
processes to improve the customer experience.
The Head of Housing Needs addressed the Committee Members and provided an
overview of the customer pathway from start to finish. Members heard that customers
usually approached the Council via the website in the fir st instance by completing an
online form. The information provided was assessed and advice and guidance given
if necessary. If appropriate, the enquiry was then passed to the triage team who
assisted the customer in providing the information required and d etermined which
additional documents needed to be provided. This enabled the team to establish
whether the customer was eligible for assistance; some applicants had limited / no
recourse to public funds. If eligibility was established, the case was assigned to a case
officer.
Once assigned to a case officer, the first stage was prevention; officers tried to
intervene as early as possible e.g. by negotiating with landlords in an attempt to enable
the tenant to stay in their current accommodation. If prevention was unsuccessful, the
next stage was the relief stage at which point alterative accommodation was sought.
A maximum of 56 days was allocated for both the prevention and relief stages of the
process. During the relief stage, advice and guidance was provided to assist the client
in securing accommodation. If they had a priority need for temporary accommodation,
this would be provided. Temporary accommodation for larger families was difficult to
source and very expensive, so these families were sometimes encouraged to remain
in situ for as long as possible i.e. until a bailiff warrant was secured; however, they had
the right to assist on temporary accommodation being provided if they did not wish to
wait.
Once an individual or a family had been placed in temporary accommodation, officers
then tried to secure private rented accommodation for them; affordability was a factor
and the accommodation offered was sometimes out of borough. Once a property had
been secured and the clients had moved in, the duty wa s discharged. If no
accommodation had been organised by day 57 of the relief stage, officers would need
to reach a decision within 15 days as to whether the Council had a longer -term duty
to them.
It was acknowledged that the current situation was challe nging with fewer houses
becoming available. Many landlords were increasing their rents or choosing to sell
their properties. Officers were aware that this was a very stressful situation for people
and tried to be as empathetic as possible.
The Head of Housing Strategy and Policy was in attendance and provided an update
on partnerships around homelessness. Members heard that the Council had a number
of established partnerships with the voluntary sector, particularly with Trinity who
assisted in meeting the needs of rough sleepers. Thames Reach also worked closely
with the Council and helped with outreach projects to identify those who were sleeping
rough at Heathrow and throughout the Borough. Heathrow presented a significant
challenge - Thames Reach worked at the airport and a mental health worker also
visited the airport to assist.
The Committee was informed that first stage accommodation was available at Olympic
House which was managed by Trinity. There were other similar accommodation
options across the borough which offered a lot of support including in relation to the
health aspects associated with rough sleeping – this was mainly funded by CNWL.
The funding was in place until the end of 2025, but it was hoped it would continue
thereafter. Other support for those with drug or alcohol addiction was available through
Arch – Hillingdon; grant funding was also available for this service.
Members heard that the Homelessness Strategy was a statutory 5 -year document
which ran until the end of 2024 and was in the process of being reviewed. It was
anticipated that a draft of the new Strategy would be available in the autumn. There
had been a number of key changes and ‘Project Neptune’ would feed into the new
Strategy. There would be a focus on pr evention and the issue of Autism / ADHD and
the homeless would be explored which had not been included in the past. The current
Strategy would be reviewed over the course of the next few months and the
consultation process would be completed over the summe r. Service users would be
involved in this process to ensure their experience of the customer journey and how
this fed into service provision was included.
Members sought further clarification regarding the current staff training programme
noting that se rvice users often presented with mental health issues, and some
reported that officers were judgemental and lacked empathy. In response to this, it
was confirmed that training was available for all staff. Trauma-informed issues training
was to be introduced in the near future and was booked for 1 May 2024. New training
was also to be introduced in response to new legislation which set out the duty of the
Council in respect of domestic abuse.
In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confir med that, in the past,
customers often had the same case officer throughout the housing process.
Unfortunately, this was no longer the case due to staff turnover and an increase in
case numbers; there was a reliance on technology to ensure cases were effec tively
passed on to new officers.
Members sought further clarity regarding the 56-day relief stage of the process. It was
confirmed that, if a suitable property were secured, it would be offered to the family in
question. The family was not obliged to acc ept the property but, if they chose not to,
the Council’s duty would be discharged at that point. The customer could request an
independent review and a decision would be taken independently – a further 56 days
were allocated for this process. Should the C ouncil’s original decision be upheld, its
duty would be discharged at that point. However, if the Council’s decision were
overturned, the family would be offered an alternative property in due course.
With regard to accountability, the Committee was advi sed that officers were
responsible for ensuring all the necessary information was on file. Senior officers
carried out quality assurance checks and met with officers once a month to review
their caseload and address any concerns.
Members expressed concer n regarding the mental health and wellbeing of officers
who were often overloaded with work. It was acknowledged that it was a very stressful
role - some officers had previously had up to 100 open cases which was
unmanageable. 5 new officers had been recru ited to assist and 150 cases had been
transferred across to said officers. Staff wellbeing was taken seriously, and extra
support was available if needed.
In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confirmed that an out of hours
housing service was available. It was acknowledged that not all people wanted to /
were able to apply for housing assistance online. If necessary, those who presented
in person were directed to support services who could assist them in registering online.
Information was also available in other languages. It was confirmed that those who
were granted leave to remain were given 28 days’ notice then received an eviction
letter which only allowed them one week to vacate their premises. Housing officers
were working with the Home Office and it had recently been agreed that the 28 -day
letter would be accepted as notice giving local authorities more time to find appropriate
accommodation. It was acknowledged that the situation in relation to single people
was particularly ch allenging as they often did not have a priority need for
accommodation.
Councillors enquired whether the IT systems currently in place were fit for purpose
and asked how the expectations of clients were managed. In response to this, the
Head of Housing Needs recognised that some people thought it was better to present
as homeless rather than waiting for a Council property. This was never a good idea.
Officers always tried to manage the expectations of customers and ensured they fully
understood the proces s. In terms of the IT systems, Members were informed that
Locata was currently used for housing allocations and Jigsaw for homeless
applications. From April 2024, the current Jigsaw system would be changing to a
Locata-based system thereby enabling the two systems to work together more
efficiently. It was confirmed that the new systems would enable officers to drill further
into the data to establish patterns and take a more proactive approach. Complaints
data would also be used to drive improvements, infor m training and improve
communication.
Members requested a presentation on the new systems as this would be
beneficial.
In terms of acquiring new properties, the Corporate Director of Central Services
confirmed that all options were being considered and speed was of the essence.
During the first year of a 3 -year programme, it would be necessary to purchase
property directly, but it was important to ensure that this process did not end up
triggering homelessness. If landlords had empty properties or a por tfolio to sell, the
Council may consider such purchases where appropriate. All options were being
considered to boost supply including private rentals of reasonable quality. The social
sector was also being explored. The Council would also ensure it achiev ed the
maximum possible in terms of grant funding.
With regard to temporary accommodation, it was recognised that people were
sometimes housed in an overcrowded situation for a while due to a lack of available
accommodation. If the temporary accommodation provided was not acceptable, action
would be taken and the customer would be removed.
Councillors noted that the standard of accommodation provided by private landlords
was often unacceptable. A charter was proposed to ensure properties were fully and
appropriately vetted. It was suggested that properties should be inspected by other
parties to ensure they met the required standard.
At the request of Members, it was agreed that the Head of Housing Needs would
prepare a step-by-step summary of the homelessness process which would be
circulated to the Select Committee.
It was suggested that a visit to the contact centre would be beneficial to enable
Members to better understand the process and see firsthand how officers
interacted with other departments across the Council when handling housing -
related calls.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the evidence
heard at the witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the
context of its review of homelessness and the customer journey in Hillingdon.
WITNESS SESSION 2 – 16 APRIL 2024
The Committee held its second witness session relating to its review of homelessness
and the customer experience and heard from Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of
Central Services, and from Carys Hedley representing a partner organisation, Trinity.
The Corporate Director of Central Services began by discussing the challen ges local
authorities faced regarding homelessness, highlighting a reduction in private rental
accommodation, and increasing unaffordability. He emphasised the difficulty for non -
priority individuals, often single people, to access affordable housing and the Council’s
reliance on the voluntary sector i.e. organisations such as Trinity and Thames Reach
for support. The Select Committee heard that the Council had been working
successfully in partnership with Trinity for a number of years.
Carys Hedley, Direc tor of Services at Trinity, addressed the Select Committee
detailing Trinity’s provision of 231 supported spaces and 41 long -term unsupported
accommodation places in Hillingdon. She mentioned the support offered to families
fleeing war and the reconnection service available to assist with tenancy sustainment.
Members heard that Trinity worked closely with the Council and most of the referrals
they received came from the local authority. Trinity had been experiencing
considerable challenges in recent years, particularly in relation to Local Housing
Allowance (LHA) rates. It was now cheaper for people to stay in Trinity accommodation
than move into the private rental sector. This was having a significant impact, and the
service was becoming stagnant; people w ere ready to move on but were unable to
afford private rentals therefore had nowhere to go. At times, people were offered
accommodation outside of the Borough, but they were often reluctant to move away
from a familiar area and their support network in Hil lingdon. Another concern raised
related to the pressure from the number of families and single homeless individuals
housed in hotels.
The Select Committee was informed that the current supported housing offered
floating support but did not have staff on s ite full time. Many of the referrals received
were from those with complex needs including drug, alcohol and mental health needs.
Trinity therefore planned to create a new service offering a specialist housing
programme with full-time live-in support, in addition to the supported housing currently
provided. However, it was acknowledged that this was extremely challenging given
the lack of housing stock in the Borough.
Councillors sought further clarification regarding the nature of the specialist housing
offer. It was explained that the plan was for this housing to assist in addressing the
need for supported housing with on -site support for individuals with complex needs,
including drug, alcohol, and mental health issues.
Members enquired about the impact of other boroughs placing residents in Hillingdon
and vice versa. It was confirmed that Trinity prioritised Hillingdon residents but
sometimes accepted others due to lack of suitable referrals. The difficulty in
encouraging residents to accept housing offers outside their familiar borough was also
highlighted.
The Select Committee sought to understand the processes of working with the Council
and how to improve them. The strong relationship between Trinity and the rough
sleeper team was highlighted but it wa s noted that there were challenges such as
perceived lack of empathy from housing officers, communication issues, and the
intimidating environment of the Civic Centre. A rotating system for housing officers to
avoid burnout, retraining on language used wit h clients, and creating a more
welcoming environment at the Civic Centre were suggested. It was noted that a rota
system to ensure housing officers were not always working in a client-facing role would
be beneficial. It was also recommended that staff receive further training regarding the
use of appropriate language when dealing with people seeking housing support; these
individuals were often in a desperate situation, and it was very difficult for them to hear
that they were not considered a priority.
Members acknowledged the need for better systems and technology for case
handovers and welcomed suggestions for improving the Civic Centre environment.
The Director of Services at Trinity recommended that security staff be trained to be
more approachable and friendly when clients presented for support with housing
matters. It was suggested that plants would make the environment appear more
welcoming as would smiling friendly staff. A family-friendly environment with sofas and
toys for the children was also suggested.
The Select Committee sought further information regarding the support for tenants to
sustain tenancies. The importance of correct referrals in the first place and
comprehensive support to assist clients to live independently and prevent a cycle o f
homelessness was affirmed.
In response to Members’ concerns regarding safeguarding young people, it was
confirmed that Trinity conducted individual risk assessments and worked closely with
local services to ensure support and safety. If young people were considered too high
risk, it was unfortunately not possible to provide housing for them.
Councillors enquired about the impact of asylum seekers in hotels on homelessness.
Members heard that Trinity predicted worsening conditions due to quick eviction
notices from hotels which was adding to the street homelessness problem. It was
noted that the Home Office’s strategy to accelerate asylum claims had led to a high
number of single, non-priority individuals needing housing.
Members addressed the empathy fac tor and staff turnover in housing teams. To
safeguard the mental health of staff, the Director of Services at Trinity recommended
well-being measures, such as regular team meetings where staff could discuss difficult
cases, flexible working hours, ‘double up working’ for challenging cases, away days,
regular annual leave, and enforced rest periods to ensure staff members got the
respite they needed.
The Corporate Director acknowledged the challenge for officers of not having
immediate housing solutions for evicted individuals and emphasised the need for a
strong prevention strategy and a healthy supply of affordable housing. The Council
was working towards this, but it was proving very challenging. With regard to support
for officers, Members were informed that the Council had invested more resources to
create a wellbeing room for staff. Case work support supervision had also been
introduced. Improvements were being made but there was still a long way to go. It was
confirmed that workforce planning and devel opment was a key part of future plans,
but it was acknowledged that recruiting and retaining staff was challenging.
Councillors discussed the mental health of housing staff and the “perfect storm” of
reliance on affordable private rented accommodation. The Corporate Director agreed
on the importance of good communication and outlined plans to improve customer
experience and engagement. It was noted that residents often had to call up
repeatedly to request an update on their housing case which was frustrati ng and
upsetting. The Council was working to address this – one possible solution would be
for housing officers to provide residents with a weekly update. It was acknowledged
that there was room for improvement, but plans were in place to achieve this.
Members raised concerns regarding the lack of empathy and judgmental behaviour of
housing staff towards clients, particularly those facing domestic abuse. It was
suggested that training should include input from clients themselves to help staff
understand and respect the experiences of those they served.
In response to this, Trinity highlighted the benefits of hiring staff with lived experiences
to ensure non -judgmental treatment. Members were informed that Trinity gathered
feedback from residents through annual surveys to improve services and training,
stressing fair and respectful treatment for all.
Members sought further clarification regarding the selection process for social
prescribers for the July witness session, noting an apparent unexpected choice in the
scoping report. It was confirmed that Democratic Services would follow this up and
respond on this matter outside of the meeting.
The Chair concluded the session by thanking the attendees, with the discussion
underscoring the importance of empat hy, understanding, and client feedback in
addressing homelessness.
RESOLVED:
That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the evidence heard at the
witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the context of its
review of Homelessness and the Customer Journey in Hillingdon.
WITNESS SESSION 3 – 13 JUNE 2024
Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Central Services, introduced the item and invited
colleagues from P3 and Thames Reach to share their experiences and perspectives
on homelessness.
Thames Reach
Sophie Murray, Lead Manager of the Hillingdon Thames Reach Outreach Team,
addressed the Committee Members confirming that Thames Reach worked closely
with Council Housing officers.
Ms Murray outlined the team’s work with the Rough Sleeper team within Hillingdon
Council, their response to support rough sleepers, and their collaboration with
agencies such as ARCH (Addiction, Recovery, Community Hillingdon Service), RAMP
(Refugee Asylum and Migration Policy project) and mental health teams. The
challenges faced, including a lack of options for accommodation and the high support
needs of many rough sleepers, were highlighted.
P3
Zara Street (Operations Manager of the Hillingdon Thames Reach Outreach Team)
Laura Lawson and Nicola Tallon were in attendance representing P3. Members heard
that P3 provided support to young people and families. The Committee was informed
that P3 ran four services from the Navigator Centre, including a housing advice
service, a floating support service for looked after children and care experienced
young people, a well -being project for e arly intervention prevention, and move -on
properties. They also ran a family advice service for families with a child aged 5 and
under. P3 highlighted their previous work with the Council and their current
collaborations with various partners within the Bo rough. The challenges faced in
moving young people on to appropriate accommodation were highlighted.
P3 discussed their supported accommodation services, which included four units for
16 to 25-year-olds who had previously been in care. They highlighted the challenges
of moving young people on to appropriate accommodation due the limited supply of
affordable move -on housing, making it difficult to find suitable accommodation for
these individuals.
It was noted that everyone involved in providing accommodation was currently facing
difficulties. The high cost of private sector rents and the Council’s struggle to find
private landlords willing to accept homeless individuals were identified as significant
issues. The consensus was that all parties were currently stuck with limited resources
and options in addressing homelessness.
Members sought further clarification regarding the improvements needed in the
Housing Department to enhance the experience for both workers and clients. In
response, the emphasis was placed on the importance of communication. It was noted
that case work changes within the housing department sometimes occurred without
the knowledge of partnership workers. The need for a platform where everyone could
communicate was highlighted, given the numerous services within the Borough and
the housing linked to them.
The communication with the robust sleeper pathway was praised, but it was pointed
out that some people P3 worked with ended up sleeping rough because their
applications with the Council’s Homelessness Prevention Team had found they were
not in priority need for housing assistance.
Members heard that, when people approached the Housing Department at the Civic
Centre, it was extremely challenging for officers due to the high level of homelessness
demand presenting to the Council. P3 reported that, when they contacted
homelessness prevention officers, they did not always receive a timely response. It
was felt that more time and patience should be spent with people, especially those
with language barriers, trauma, and PTSD, to help them understand their situation
better. The hope was expressed that the risk of rough sleeping could be reduced or at
least prevented differently. It was confirmed that P3 had previously provided the
Housing Team at the Council with a list of suggestions as to how the service could be
improved.
In respect of families with young children, Members enquired how a balance could be
achieved between building trust with parents while addressing the needs of the young person.
Members also sought clarity as to how officers worked with local residents to alleviate
concerns about housing placements. In response to this, P3 emphasised the importance of
communication, regular support visits, and ensuring appropriate accommodation for those
transitioning from homelessness. They confirmed that their role primarily involved pr oviding
advice and guidance rather than directly offering housing.
In response to further questions from the Committee it was acknowledged that some homeless
people did not want to be helped. In such cases it was important to be patient, build up trust
and proceed very slowly. Asylum seekers and immigration cases were often reluctant to engage
with services due to concerns regarding their immigration status. With this entrenched cohort
of people, Thames Reach sometimes linked up with other charities such as St Mungo’s.
In terms of communication, P3 confirmed that they had an excellent relationship with partners
such as Thames Reach, and the YMCA but would like to receive a quicker response from the
Council. Thames Reach could not make referrals to the YMC A but worked closely with P3
and Trinity. Communication with the Council was a lengthy process.
Members heard that, following a referral to the Council, P3 continued to work with individuals
from start to finish especially if the case was complex. They k ept cases open and checked in
on a monthly basis to ensure individuals had everything they needed. Thames Reach advised
Members that, once a referral had been made to the Council, they continued to assist individuals
in maintaining their tenancies by offer ing support with finances, mental health, grants etc.
Wrap around care was provided until the cases were ready to be closed.
It was confirmed that communication between the Council and P3 had been much
easier when P3 had been co-located in the Civic Centre. This was no longer the case
and all decisions in relation to offers of accommodation now had to be referred to the
Head of Service. It was felt that there was sometimes a lack of consistency in
information being given by officers.
Members enquired whether all partners had access to a central database system. It
was reported that Thames Reach had their own database for rough sleepers but could
not access Hillingdon’s systems. It was commented by P3 that Hillingdon’s previous
case work database was not very user-friendly (the case work system changed on 1st
April). Direct access to a central portal which linked all the records together would be
welcomed by P3 but may not work for Thames Reach. P3 suggested that there should
be one point of contact at the Council to deal with P3 and young people. There were
a number of agency staff at present - improved structure and better communication
was suggested. Thames Reach did not feel a central database was necessary
provided that housing officers answered their requests for information in a timely way.
It was reported that monthly catch-up meetings at the Civic Centre would be helpful.
In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that Trinity had
low, medium and high -level support units. It was reported that Trinity struggled to
purchase stock and the YMCA only had one low support block. Members heard that
Thames Reach could refer to P3 and the Council but not to the YMCA. Most of the
people Thames Reach worked with were high need, but th e vast majority
(approximately 90%) were deemed non -priority although they often had alcohol or
drug issues.
Members sought further clarification regarding the suggestions sent to the Council by
P3. It was confirmed that these related to caseload, supervision, holistic approach etc.
Many of the suggestions had been taken on board within the current improvement plan
for the service . P3’s delivery model had changed to incorporate some of them e.g.
floating support and partnership working.
Members sought the opinion of P3 regarding the banding systems used by the
Council. In response to this, P3 confirmed that they did not use the Locata system. It
was recognised that it was a constant battle for staff in lettings to keep abreast of all
the current inform ation. Each case had to be assessed carefully hence time frames
were long.
In response to further questions, it was reported that many of the housing officers at
the Council were good at their jobs but there was a lack of consistency. The use of
agency s taff was unsettling for both staff and residents. Young people found it
somewhat of a lottery and reported that staff often failed to call them back. P3
confirmed that, when a staff member left the Council, they usually received a bounce
back email providing an alternative contact. However, it was felt that partners should
be informed of staff changes in advance rather than finding out this way. Councillors
suggested that a Venn diagram of staff should be prepared for professional partners
and updated regul arly. There should be a quality handover of cases when staff
members left the Council to ensure continuity.
The Corporate Director of Central Services acknowledged that the service needed to
continue to improve. An improvement plan incorporating a workfo rce plan and
recruitment campaign was being actively implemented and he would welcome the
opportunity to present the plan and an update to Members at a future meeting of the
Select Committee. It was recognised that some agency staff did an excellent job an d
where under performance was identified this was being addressed. The Corporate
Director of Central Services confirmed that he would spend some time in the contact
centre on a regular basis to listen to residents’ experience.He informed Members that
the case work system for homeless case work had been changed in April. Demand on
the service was relentless with 140 new cases received the previous week; an
increase of approximately 30% on the previous year. Many of those approaching the
Council for help had never been homeless before but had become homeless having
been evicted from privately rental properties. Members heard that the infrastructure
was in place but improvements were underway.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the evidence
heard at the witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the
context of its review of Homelessness and the Customer Journey in Hillingdon.
WITNESS SESSION 4 – 18 JULY 2024
Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Central Services, introduced the item. The Select
Committee heard from Sonia Stewart, Independent Domestic Violence Manager, and
from Sultana Ahmed, Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA).
Sonia Stewart and Sultan a Ahmed addressed the Select Committee providing an
overview of the Hillingdon domestic advocacy service and highlighting its evolution
over the past two years from focusing solely on high-risk victims of domestic abuse to
now supporting victims across all levels of risk.
Members heard that the service now included a floating support side, catering to low
and medium -risk victims, in addition to the high -risk interventions provided by the
Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs). The team comprised 5 IDVAs
and 3 floating support workers, offering both short -term crisis intervention and long -
term support.
Officers raised concerns regarding the approach to housing for victims of domestic
abuse. It was noted that victims presenting to housing were often asked about police
involvement (which formed part of the enquiries the Council made when a victim
approached the Council for assistance), which could influence the support they
received. This was concerning as not all victims may involve the police for va rious
reasons, including threats from the perpetrator.
The Committee heard that the requirement for documentation when seeking housing
support posed a significant challenge for victims fleeing emergency situations. It was
recognised that in such circumsta nces, victims may not have the ability to gather
necessary identification documents, which were crucial for accessing housing support.
The challenges faced by victims of domestic abuse when seeking housing support
were highlighted. Concerns were raised ab out the need to ask about police
involvement, which may not always be present despite the occurrence of domestic
abuse.
It was highlighted that victims fleeing domestic abuse were often offered
accommodation far from their support systems, which could exa cerbate their
vulnerability. The Committee recognised the significant impact of relocating victims
away from their jobs, families, communities, and children's schools, especially when
they or their children had additional complex needs.
Members were infor med that inconsistencies were reported by clients when
approaching housing services for assistance, particularly concerning the advice given
about the possibility of remaining within the Borough. The lack of clarity in policy or
criteria used to determine why some victims stayed in Borough while others were
relocated outside the Borough was highlighted as a matter needing further enquiry.
It was noted that while advising clients, there was a need to manage their expectations
regarding potential housing out comes. However, the inconsistency in the application
of housing policies had led to confusion and the need for correct and effective
guidance.
With regard to the Sanctuary Scheme, officers noted that the scheme assessed
properties to implement additional s ecurity measures for victims of domestic abuse
who wished to remain in their homes. There was a lack of clarity around time frames
for referrals and responses. Automated messages to confirm receipt of referrals and
inform clients of expected contact times would be welcomed.
In terms of staff turnover, the Committee was advised that there was a high turnover
of staff within the housing team. Clients and advocates were not always informed
about staff changes. The importance of consistent communication and up dates for
clients was highlighted. It was noted that some housing officers left their jobs without
informing clients, leading to missed communications and unresolved issues.
In respect of appointments and Housing Reception, officers raised concerns about
victims being turned away if they arrived without an appointment. There was a need
for clear guidance on what reception staff should advise clients. Members heard that
victims arriving at housing reception without an appointment were signposted to main
reception where security could provide immediate assistance and an appointment
made
Officers commented that it was vital to use professional interpreters for clients who did
not speak English rather than relying on family members or children.
In respect of the Housing Reception environment, it was noted that this was not a
welcoming place. Victims were at times obliged to spend the whole day there but there
were no amenities for them and their children such as water, toys, and magazines to
meet clients’ needs. Clients were scared to leave for fear of missing their chance to
speak to someone.
Members were informed that the working relationship with housing officers had
improved since HDAAS had relocated to the Civic Centre. Officers worked proactively
with housing colleagues and were able to communicate directly with housing officers
to address concerns and discuss risks. However, the importance of consistent
communication with housing officers, especially during staff changes was reiterated.
Timely updates on case allocations were essential. At times, officers and clients
received bounced back emails and notifications about staff changes when chasing up
cases which was unhelpful.
With regards to Domestic Abuse training, Members heard that training had been
offered to various departments within the Council but there had been a lack of
response from housing managers. The importance of understanding victims’
perceptions of risk and being supportive and believing their disclosures was
highlighted - victims may be discouraged from seeking help if they felt disbelieved or
unsupported.
Rachel Bulley, Social Prescribing Link Worker representing Colne Union PCN, NHS,
addressed the Committee. Rachel began by explaining the concept of PCNs (Primary
Care Networks), which were collections of GP surgeries that worked together within a
network. Colne Union PCN represented the areas of West Drayton and Uxbridge.
There were many social prescribers across the Borough of Hillingdon, each associated
with different PCNs. The organ isation they worked for was called Confederation
Hillingdon, a CIC (Community Interest Company) based around healthcare.
Social prescribing was a relatively new role within the NHS, focusing on the social
elements of a person’s well -being. The NHS had tra ditionally focused on healthcare,
but now there was a comprehensive approach to consider patients’ social, practical,
and well-being needs. Social prescribers received referrals from GPs, reception staff,
and even residents themselves. They assisted with a wide range of issues, including
social isolation, housing problems, debt, finance issues, bereavement, and cancer
care.
Rachel emphasised the importance of social prescribers understanding and being
aware of local support and community services within Hillingdon. Integrated care was
crucial, as gaps in services could lead to patients falling through the cracks and
returning to primary care. Preventative support in primary care was essential to avoid
escalation to secondary care. Social prescribers worked with local authorities, medical
abuse charities, and other organisations to ensure residents were aware of and could
access the services they needed.
Rachel expressed her support for the points raised by Sonia and Sultana regarding
domestic abuse. Althou gh social prescribers did not necessarily deal with domestic
abuse directly, many of the issues raised were relevant to their work.
Members expressed concerns about the experience of victims of domestic abuse
noting that some victims did not feel believed when they presented themselves to the
housing department, which could lead them to return to their perpetrators. Councillors
emphasised the importance of understanding the strength it took for a victim to
disclose their situation and the negative impact of dismissive attitudes from housing
staff. The ongoing effects of domestic abuse, including post -traumatic stress were
highlighted; it was vital that support should not end once a victim left their home.
Officers echoed Members’ concerns. The lack of emp athy and understanding
experienced by some patients in dire situations was noted. Examples of negative
feedback included unsupportive questions about overcrowding. It was explained that
social prescribers often found themselves stuck between patients and housing officers
who did not connect with the humanistic side of patients. However, Rachel also
mentioned that her organisation had been working with the transformation team in the
housing department to bridge the gap between primary care and the local Hous ing
Authority. Initiatives included Brightside Workshops for primary care staff, the potential
creation of a new role within housing to act as a link between patients and housing,
and the development of Q&A leaflets to address common patient questions. Tra ining
for housing staff to improve their understanding and handling of domestic abuse cases
was of paramount importance.
Questions were invited from Members. One Councillor highlighted a concerning issue
that had come to light during their visit to the housing reception / contact centre. They
noted that the housing reception felt like a custody suite and questioned the process
of directing individuals to the security desk. The Councillor expressed concern about
the treatment of domestic abuse victims who p resented at the housing reception
without an appointment, questioning whether they were turned away or advised to go
to the main reception to speak to security. They emphasised the need for clarity on
this process and the training provided to security pers onnel, noting that interactions
with security could be triggering for some victims.
Another Councillor enquired about integrated care within housing, particularly
concerning homelessness caused by drug and alcohol abuse. They asked about the
availability of detox facilities and mental health care services. Officers responded,
explaining that social prescribing in Hillingdon involved referring patients to ARCH, the
main service for addiction support. They acknowledged capacity issues within ARCH
and highlighted the role of mental health practitioners in triaging patients and providing
support in primary or secondary care. They also mentioned ongoing neighbourhood
projects addressing anxiety and depression.
The Committee thanked the officers for their presen tation and acknowledged the
concerns raised about communication and inconsistency of approach. They enquired
about staff turnover and resource availability, asking how the Council could better
support the officers’ work. Officers explained that their service had grown stronger with
additional staff and floating support workers. They shared statistics on high -risk
referrals and emphasised the need for accessible counselling services for domestic
abuse victims. They noted the challenges in finding counselling services due to long
waiting lists.
The discussion continued with a focus on improving communication and coordination.
Officers stressed the importance of having a single point of contact within the domestic
abuse team to streamline communication and red uce the need for constant chasing.
They highlighted the need for clear processes and better understanding of available
schemes, such as the rent deposit scheme and local housing living allowance. Officers
described the difficulties faced by patients in accessing these schemes and the vicious
cycle of requirements and delays.
Councillors sought further clarity regarding the impact of housing issues on residents’
mental health. Officers explained that housing crises significantly affected patients’
mental health, often leading to resistance in accessing mental health services. They
noted the gap between primary and secondary mental health services and the
challenges in supporting patients with situational mental health issues. Officers
emphasised the need for better communication and understanding of processes to
support residents effectively.
Councillors and officers agreed on the importance of clear communication, accessible
support services, and streamlined processes to better serve residents and address
the challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness and related issues.
Councillors sought recommendations from officers regarding improvements to the
service and emphasised the importance of understanding how the service could be
improved.
Officers provided an update on the current progress. They mentioned that, slowly but
surely, improvements were being made, particularly through collaboration with the
transformation team and housing departments. Officers highlighted the involvement of
key individuals, such as Fola and Reginald, in integrating services. They discussed
the potential benefits of having a single point of contact to provide patient support and
information. Officers emphasised the importance of a two -way relationship between
housing officers and their team, where both parties supported each other. They also
mentioned ongoing roadshows aimed at educating residents about housing
expectations and processes. Officers stressed the need for clear communication and
support for residents, avoiding confusing jargon.
Members thanked the officers for their hard work and acknowledged the importance
of scrutinising the service’s effectiveness. They sought further clarification regarding
the experiences of counterparts in other boroughs and whether ther e were any best
practices that could be adopted.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that housing departments across
different boroughs faced similar issues, particularly in supporting domestic abuse
victims with empathy and without unnece ssary scrutiny. They shared examples of
gatekeeping and the challenges faced by victims in accessing support. Officers
mentioned that colleagues from other boroughs, such as Hounslow, experienced
similar issues. They highlighted the difficulties in signposting clients to other boroughs
for emergency accommodation and the lack of communication and consistency in
support. The Committee was advised of the challenges in accessing refuge spaces
for victims and the need for better coordination.
A representative from the public health team offered to provide data on homelessness
profiles against comparator sites via other boroughs. They mentioned that the Office
for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) held relevant data and could assist the
Committee in understanding the broader context.
Councillors expressed interest in having sight of said data and emphasised the
importance of understanding the current standing to effectively improve the service.
They also enquired about support from other bodies, such as the Greater London
Authority (GLA), and whether additional support had been requested. Officers
acknowledged that they had not asked for additional support from other bodies but
indicated that it might be beneficial.
The Committee enquired about the proc ess of relocating clients out of the Borough
and whether they remained with the service or were transferred to the local authority
in the new area. It was confirmed that clients relocated out of the Borough were
referred to the domestic abuse service in th e new area. If children were involved, a
transfer to the new area’s children social care team would be arranged. Members
heard that some clients returned to their original area due to familiarity and support
networks.
Members raised concerns about the lac k of communication when high -risk cases
moved back to the Borough and the potential gaps in support. They also highlighted
the need for an in -house counselling service for both victims and staff, given the
emotional toll of their work.
In response to this, officers agreed with the need for clinical supervision and support
for team members who regularly dealt with harrowing accounts of violence. They
emphasised the importance of having someone independent to offload to and discuss
their experiences.
Dan Ke nnedy, the Corporate Director of Central Services thanked the Chair and
everyone for their contributions. He provided context on the current tough
environment, noting that the number of housing needs approaches had increased by
about 28% since 2019, with 1 20 to 140 approaches every week. He highlighted the
compounded challenges due to rising mortgage interest rates, increasing rents, and
landlords exiting the market. Mr Kennedy emphasised the support from the Cabinet,
which had invested in acquiring 300 ext ra properties and working with housing
associations to increase housing supply by an additional 300 properties this year
compared to last year, rising to 500 homes over the next three years.
The Corporate Director of Central Services also mentioned that t he changes made
over the last year had reduced the number of placements into temporary
accommodation by 10% compared to the previous year. He stressed the importance
of preventing homelessness to provide stable and secure housing for families, which
lead to better outcomes for children. He noted a 7% drop in the number of households
living in the highest cost temporary accommodation since mid -April, with no families
in commercial hotels and no families with children living in shared accommodation for
more than six weeks.
Mr Kennedy acknowledged the need for consistency and mentioned efforts to
strengthen staff training. He discussed the challenges of handling referrals from other
boroughs and the importance of asking the right questions with empathy. He
expressed the intention to reinstate a model with dedicated officers for domestic abuse
cases to build expertise and empathy. The importance of having champions for other
services, such as hospital discharge, and the need for a triage function to handle cases
effectively was highlighted.
The Committee was appraised of the importance of relationships with private landlords
and the need to increase the supply of private rented sector accommodation. The
Corporate Director recognised the pressure on staff and men tioned efforts to
strengthen welfare arrangements and supervision policies. He discussed the need to
improve communication with residents, including making letters more understandable
and providing clear explanations from housing officers. Moreover, he add ressed the
appointment process for housing needs reception, noting the importance of safety for
staff and the need to improve the system to provide a better customer experience. He
mentioned ongoing work with the corporate management team to make further
improvements.
Officers expressed concern about the low number of domestic abuse referrals from
housing. They questioned whether housing officers were referring victims to domestic
abuse services and children’s social care in the new boroughs when victims moved
out of the Borough. The need for better coordination and communication to ensure
that victims received the necessary support was highlighted.
RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the evidence
heard at the witness session and sought clarification as necessary in the
context of its review of Homelessness and the Customer Journey in Hillingdon.
REVIEW OF HOMELESSNESS AND THE CUSTOMER JOURNEY: UPDATE
FROM COUNCIL OFFICERS ON IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITY – 18 JULY 2024
Dan Kennedy, Corpo rate Director of Central Services, provided an update on the
Housing Improvement Activity Plan to date. He emphasised that the plan addressed
a wide range of issues related to homelessness and the customer journey. The plan
included strategies and policies , workforce planning, and the importance of having
more entry-level roles to build a permanent workforce. The challenges of recruiting
and retaining staff in this area and the need for a ladder of career progression within
local government were highlighted . He also mentioned the importance of customer
care and management supervision and providing support to staff dealing with
traumatic casework.
Members were informed about the housing commissioning plan, which aimed to
increase the number of properties and make the best use of existing housing stock.
This included encouraging under -occupiers, both council tenants and housing
association tenants, to downsize, acquiring more properties, and utilising the private
rented sector. The plan set challenging but achievable targets to meet these goals.
The Select Committee heard that understanding the local housing market and its
pressures was another key area of focus. It was believed that by understanding the
market, the Council could predict and manage it more eff ectively. This included
knowing which private sector landlords were evicting tenants and why and building
relationships with them to prevent evictions. The importance of understanding the cost
of temporary accommodation and prioritising the commissioning o f new properties to
help people move on or prevent homelessness were also emphasised.
The Corporate Director stressed the need for a proactive approach, building a plan
and investment strategy to create a positive pipeline of housing supply. He also
highlighted the value of strong working relationships within the Council and with other
services, such as Children’s Services and Adult Social Care. Good working
relationships could help prevent homelessness and encourage families to accept
accommodation offers.
Councillors were advised that the biggest challenge was responding to emergency
accommodation needs, which often required finding immediate solutions. Preventing
or avoiding on-the-day presentations was critical.
Councillors noted that since the revie w had started, every witness session had
highlighted that some staff within the housing department lacked empathy. They
enquired if any action was being taken to identify and address these staff members’
communication issues. Members emphasised the importa nce of how questions were
asked and sought clarity on the plan to address this issue.
In response to this, officers acknowledged the concern, agreeing that even one or two
staff members lacking empathy could impact the level of customer care. They
mentioned that communications with staff about expectations had been strengthened.
Managers were shadowing staff during conversations with residents, and the officers
themselves were listening to calls and attending contact centre calls regularly. The
need for empathy and clarity in communication, even when solutions were not readily
available was highlighted. Members heard that individuals who were less helpful had
been identified and the concerns addressed. Training and conversations had been
conducted.
Councillors commented that it would be beneficial for the Committee to hear about
tangible changes over the next few months. They suggested adding a Key
Performance Indicator (KPI) to track improvements in staff empathy and
communication.
Members enquired as to the percentage of properties expected to be lost due to the
right to buy scheme. It was confirmed that approximately 50 properties were lost each
year through right to buy, and this number fluctuated with market conditions. Members
heard that the programme aimed to outpace this loss by targeting family -sized
properties and properties suitable for downsizers.
Councillors raised a case where a resident had to present themselves to the Civic
Centre due to the out -of-hours team lacking correct homeless prevent ion training.
They enquired about the training being offered to the out -of-hours team. In response
to this, it was confirmed that the out -of-hours officers were very experienced officers,
but the particular issue raised was acknowledged. Officers mentioned that they were
reviewing the out -of-hours service ensure a resilient team was in place and ensure
that staff were well -trained and knowledgeable about referral processes and
thresholds.
The Select Committee sought further clarification as to whether the efforts being taken
to reduce the number of homeless families in high -cost temporary accommodation
included asylum seekers who had become homeless after being evicted from hotels.
It was confirmed that Hillingdon had a high number of asylum seekers placed by the
Home Office in the Borough and that officers were lobbying for more time to find
solutions for those leaving hotels. Members were informed that single adults placed
by the Home Office did not attract priority need unless they were vulnerable, but th ey
were offered advice and support to secure their own accommodation. Officers
emphasised the need for more funding to provide support for asylum seekers and
mentioned that they were being proactive in managing expectations and finding
solutions.
Councillors enquired whether the duration of temporary accommodation would
decrease as more houses were bought. The Corporate Director acknowledged the
challenge but stated that increasing the supply of private rented sector
accommodation, social rented affordable housing, and stronger prevention and
mediation efforts would help reduce the number of households in temporary
accommodation. He emphasised the mission to reduce homelessness and move
families out of temporary accommodation as quickly as possible.
In res ponse to questions about outbound functions in workforce planning, it was
explained that outbound functions involved training staff to undertake visits and
engage with residents empathetically. Officers also highlighted the importance of
supporting staff at all stages, providing strong supervision, and ensuring manageable
caseloads to retain staff.
Members sought further clarification regarding the alleged lack of empathy among
some staff members. They acknowledged that asking difficult questions was a
challenging job and that some people may be more or less offended by these
questions. They also noted that the process could be dehumanizing, given the
repetitive exposure to terrible situations. However, Members emphasised the need for
evidence-based retrain ing and enquired if all conversations were recorded so that
managers could review them.
In response to this it was confirmed that not all conversations were recorded.
Nevertheless, managers often supported staff by attending and coaching them before
challenging conversations with residents. The Corporate Director mentioned that
experienced housing officers were paired with less experienced ones to discuss
scenarios and questions that might arise. Staff who needed extra help, due to
complaints or concerns, were supported through training, conversations, and
shadowing if necessary.
Members expressed agreement on the importance of seeing tangible results and
noted that, while the plan contained many good elements, it was unclear what was
already in place and what was planned. They mentioned that the language used in the
plan was somewhat management -oriented and difficult to understand. Councillors
sought clarity on how the plan was translating into tangible outcomes, given that
similar themes were still being reported by witnesses. They also highlighted the
importance of staff support, referencing witness testimony about the need for staff to
have breaks from hearing harrowing stories. Councillors requested more specific
details about staff welfare support in t he plan, emphasising the need to encourage
staff to remain with the Council and continue their valuable work.
RESOLVED: That the Select Committee reviewed and noted the ongoing
improvement works and the improvement this would have on the resident
experience when approaching for housing advice and support.
WITNESS SESSION 5 – 24 SEPTEMBER 2024
Dan Kennedy, Corporate Director of Central Services and Melissa Blower, Housing
Programme Manager, introduced the report on the Select Committee’s ongoing
Review of Homelessness and the Customer Journey. Colleagues from the Citizens
Advice Bureau (CAB) were also in attendance to provide information about the
services provided by CAB and to answer Members’ questions in
Text extracted automatically from the PDF, so layout, tables and images are not shown. Only the start of this long document is shown here. Open the original PDF on LB Hillingdon’s website.