Agenda item

The Director of Housing submits a report that provides an update on the ‘headline’ Housing Register and Lettings data, relating to Leicester City Council’s Housing Register, for the 2024/2025 financial year.

The Director of Housing submitted a report that provided an update on the ‘headline’ Housing Register and Lettings data, relating to Leicester City Council’s Housing Register, for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Key Points included:

·     There had been a national 3% increase across the households on registers.

·     This was the highest number nationally since 2014. 

·     The average waiting time (nationally) for a suitable let was 2.9 years.

·     In 2024/2025, Leicester’s average wait in Band 1 was 18 months for a 2-bed property, 22 months for a 3-bed property and 25 months for a 4-bed property.  These averages were shorter than the national average.

·     The Housing Register was a register of need rather than a waiting list.  The number on the waiting list was just over 6,000.  This was a reduction of 5% at the same time in the previous year.

·     There had been a reduction in households on the register, but there had been a 7% increase in homeless households.

·     The numbers in Band 1 were 5% higher than the previous year, the numbers in Band 2 were down 1% on the previous year, and the numbers in Band 3 had remained consistent.

·     Overcrowding was the biggest reason for people being on the register; however, there had been a 4% reduction in this since last year.  Work had been done on overcrowding, such as the EasyMove scheme, which involved people exchanging properties for ones that were more mutually suitable.

·     ‘Housing need’ was driven by population growth and socio-economic factors, whereas ‘Housing demand’ was based on where people wanted to live.

·     People could choose which properties they wished to bid on.  People were advised to bid as often and as widely as possible to maximise the chance of being rehoused.

·     The highest housing need was for three-bed properties.

·     Family-sized housing was the most in-demand.

·     The demand for wheelchair accommodation outstripped supply.  It was aimed to source more of this.

·     Those requiring partially adapted accommodation were achieving lets at a higher rate than their representation on the register.

·     The number of lettings in the last 12 months had increased by 13%, largely due to an increase in build schemes.

·     Band 1 had the highest proportion of people achieving lets.  65% of these were homeless or at risk of homelessness.  This was an increase of 12% on the same time in the previous year.

·     New Parks had the most lettings, followed by Belgrave and Rushey Mead.

·     The average waiting times were only a guide and there were many variables on individual cases.

·     The amount of time on the register was dependent on the activity and choices of the applicants.

·     Waiting times had slightly decreased for wheelchair accommodation, and there had been an additional seven lettings to households for this kind of accommodation compared to 2023.24.

·     Leicester Home Choice (our choice-based lettings scheme) was provided with 50% of all available Housing Association properties and this was monitored.

The Commission were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

·       The Allocations Policy served as the rulebook on how to allocate housing fairly and transparently.  Bands were based on priority and did not factor in characteristics such as age or gender.  This policy was published online and accessible by the public.  The approach taken was based on personal circumstances, and if people did not agree with it, they could challenge it.

·       If circumstances changed, people could submit these changes and be reassessed.  Additionally, if people went over the income threshold, they could be updated.

·       The policy was consulted on and reviewed to ensure it was current.

·       Much work had been done on reducing long waiting times.  A housing crisis had been declared, and there were not enough homes to meet needs.  Therefore, schemes of acquisitions had been undertaken.  Additionally, the mutual exchange scheme had been undertaken to help with the suitability of accommodation, and people in private rented accommodation were worked with to ensure that they did not lose priority on the list.  Further work was done on temporary accommodation and homelessness.

·       Preparation work was being done with landlords on the Renters Rights Bill to offer reassurance and to work with them to bring people into the system.

·       Once the bidding cycle opened, there was no preference for those bidding early. Once bids closed, they were then processed into a list based on band and time at which point those who had been on the highest banding that had bid waiting longest were given priority. 

·       The more properties that were bid on, the more opportunities they were to be chosen.

·       In terms of the number of people in need of adapted homes, these people were served better than some other categories. Adapted properties are only available for those with this specific need to bid on. 

·       Families were worked with to adapt the properties they lived in.  Additionally, adapted and adaptable properties were acquired as part of the new-build scheme.

·       When it came to Council land, the council would build a high quota of adaptable/adapted homes in them. 

·       Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Care were worked with to look at the issue holistically.

·       The number of properties from new-build schemes had increased the supply of properties.

·       A report would be brought to the Commission on the Mutual Exchange Swap Scheme.

·       Priority was based on individual circumstances, which was the reason for the banding system.  However, it was recognised that many people were in the same situation, which was why it was based on chronology within the band.  If circumstances changed, it could impact banding, so people needed to update the Council.

·       Case work was all dealt with fairly and transparently, so enquiries would be looked at to see if they required change in banding. Councillors were encouraged to explain the process to residents and to reinforce the message that it was open and transparent alongside the pressures, waits and limited supply of Council Housing.

·       It was suggested that for someone in band 3, it might be better for them to seek accommodation in the private rented sector.

·       In relation to Band 2 those successful was largely age-restricted and sheltered accommodation, because that there was less demand.

·       Care leavers and Looked After Children were worked with closely in order to locate properties, and the Leaving Care Team was worked with to look at sustainable options in the private rented sector.

·       With regard to the EasyMove scheme, people could not be forced to take part, so incentives were needed, such as helping with moving costs, cash incentives, or the possibility of moving to a more preferable area.  It was aimed to look at these on an individual basis and help to overcome barriers. 

·       EasyMove was only a small percentage of the exchanges that occurred.  The Council also facilitated a free online national service on home-swapping that could also go across other local authorities.

AGREED:

1)   That the report be noted.

o   That the comments made by members of this commission to be taken into  account.

Councillor Aqbany left the meeting during the consideration of this item.