The Director of Housing submitted a report
following the request at Full Council on 18 September 2025 that
Overview Select Committee consider the Council’s letter to
the Secretary of State, together with his reply, in considering
whether a payment should be made. The
City Mayor’s letter to the Right Honourable Steven Reed MP,
Secretary of State, and the response from Alison McGovern MP,
Minister of State, were appended to the report.
The Chair clarified that the Committee
did not have decision-making power over this issue.
The City Mayor introduced the item and
made the following points:
-
The Council had been clear about the circumstances
that they found themselves in, and in the response from the
Minister it had been recognised that the Council had dealt with
this effectively, noting that the numbers of families in Bed and
Breakfast accommodation had fallen by 94.7% from June 2024 to June
2025 as the result of investment in providing
alternatives.
-
There was no intention on the part of Government to
change the law. The 6-week target had
been set and the Government would not
want to relax that target.
-
The Minister had been clear that the department did
not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigations or how local
authorities choose to respond to their findings.
In discussions with Elected Members,
the following was noted:
-
In response to a question on preventative measures
and the accountability measures in place, it was noted that there
was an aim to provide temporary accommodation that was fit for
purpose. £45m had been invested
in temporary accommodation, providing 350 home units, of which 242
were family homes. Data was being
reviewed, and projections were being looked at to see what more
could be done.
-
Points were raised about the moral principle of the
need to pay compensation, and it was moved to recommend that the
case be settled in full.
-
In response, it was noted that the injustice was
recognised, however, the Ombudsman had recognised that suitable
temporary accommodation had not been available in the City at that time. It was confirmed that there were
now more options available. It was stressed that this was not a
wilful mistake.
-
The point was raised that private accommodation had
been found, but the Council had refused to fund it.
-
It was noted that law was not retrospective and if
Regulations were broken two years ago, even if the Government were
minded to change the regulations, it
would not apply in this case.
-
It
was noted that legislation dated from 2003, and that the housing
crisis had developed and intensified since then, making it
increasingly difficult for the authority to meet those standards.
The request to Government asked them to recognise that the housing
situation today was now very different.
-
It was clarified that the decision on this matter
was an Executive one, which had been taken and published, following
which the Ombudsman had issued a second report which was reported
to Full Council. The Ombudsman was
expecting a final response.
·
It was further noted that
recommendations were not binding on the Executive, but if the
Committee wished to move a recommendation for payment, it would be
a matter for Scrutiny Members.
·
In response to a query from a Young
People’s Council representative regarding vacant housing
lets, it was confirmed that the vacancy rate remained well below
the industry benchmark of 2%, despite Covid-related challenges. A
fuller discussion could be held with the Young People’s
Council and the Housing Scrutiny Commission could also address
queries.
Councillor Kitterick moved that the
Committee recommend that the case be settled in full.
This was seconded by Cllr Porter and
upon being put to the vote the motion was DEFEATED.
AGREED
1) That the report be noted.
2) That comments made by members of this commission to
be taken into account by the lead officers.