Voices for Fair Social Housing: Unpacking Committee Dialogue
Part 1 - Amy White's Quest for Transparency
Amy White, representing the challenges faced by individuals placed out of their local area, passionately articulated the profound impact on mental health and well-being. As someone with lived experience, her question resonated deeply, shedding light on the urgent need for policy reforms. Chair Gill Williams acknowledged the issue but left systemic challenges unaddressed.
Amy White’s Concerns: “After being placed out of area for nearly five years away from family and friends, it’s lonely and detrimental to mental health when you rely strongly on help from others who still live in Brighton. I strongly agree with prioritising households who have been placed out of area in long-term temporary accommodation, who have a local connection for over five years, to band A or higher priority bidding. How have you considered or prioritised households who are placed out of area with a local connection who have needs to come back to the area?”
Gill Williams’s Response: “Thank you, Amy. So unfortunately, the lack of available temporary accommodation in the city means some households do have to be placed outside. We don’t want to do this. This is the last resort for us. But unfortunately, there is a lack of available suitable housing. Geographical TA placement is not linked to priority need for housing. Where houses are placed in TA outside of Brighton & Hove, there will be circumstances where they may be prioritised to be transferred to TA within the city when this becomes available. Now, this is an opportunity for you to take part in our consultation, Amy, and I hope you do…”
Amy’s Supplementary Question: “In terms of the household successfully winning properties on Home Move, I feel like there needs to be more transparency and consistent information given to service users on who’s successful by bidding priority date and band. For service users, it feels like housing officers or office staff could manipulate the results in favor of certain households to win certain properties. They only show a selected few on the end of the property list at the minute. Having the winning band and priority day on show next to previous bids would give service users more clarity on their bidding positions. How can this effectively and consistently be done?”
Gill Williams’s Response: “Thank you, Amy. That’s a really important point actually, and I think this should be part of our consultation. So I hope that you will add that to the consultation process. One of the aims of this new allocation policy is to do just that. I agree with you. There should be more transparency and there should be more consistency, and that information should be more available. So I certainly will be working towards that. Thank you so much for your questions, Amy. Very valuable.”
Housing Allocation Policy Review: Concerns on Band Start Date Policy and Invasive Surveys Raised
Part 2 - Nichola Woolven's Plea for Equal Opportunity
Nichola Woolven of Home Move Action Group:
“I’d like to question the fairness of changing the Band start date policy within the home move bidding system. For instance, a family of six has been part of the system since 2005, initially in Band D, later upgraded to Band C with a new start date of 2015. This shift resulted in them losing 10 years of bidding, creating an unfair disadvantage compared to others in the same Banding. Despite their 18-year involvement, the adjusted banding start date reduces their effective bidding time to only 8 years. Could the committee review and rectify this policy for equal opportunity within the home move bidding system?”
Gill Williams, Chair of Housing & New Homes Committee:
“Thank you for your question Nicola And as you may have heard already we are going to be looking at the housing allocation policy review And beginning a consultation on that if agreed today So I really hope that you will take part in that consultation And provide us with your experience and your recommendations Would you like to ask a supplementary question?”
Nichola Woolven of Home Move Action Group:
“Yes please In respect to the bird flats at the top of Whitehawk and the so-called 10 year survey and residents cannot recall them being done before in such an invasive manner Communication from the council had stated moving residents out of their homes was temporary Yet many have been rehoused permanently into homes many of which have not been on Home Move As a resident in the bird flats with concerning cracks in walls and ceilings which many other residents have also reported can the council please clarify and be transparent as to why this year’s so-called 10 year check is so invasive
Martin Reid Assistant Director Housing & Neighbourhoods Answered:
“We are presenting our third report to members today concerning new regulatory and legislative requirements. This includes the Building Safety Act, which mandates more invasive surveys on what we refer to as large panel system blocks. This requirement encompasses the five blocks in North Whitehawk. Councillors have been advised by General Government that these surveys are necessary to ensure compliance with building safety regulations.
I apologise if residents feel there has been inadequate communication. We have reached out to residents in some of the North Whitehawk blocks to arrange moves in order to access empty homes for these surveys. Typically, we need three empty homes per block, but in four of the five North Whitehawk blocks, we haven’t been able to secure enough empty homes through our usual property turnover. This prompted us to send letters to residents requesting temporary moves. However, we plan to revisit North Whitehawk residents, both in writing and in person if necessary, to provide a clearer explanation.
Our aim is to conduct these surveys to fulfill our obligations to the regulator and ensure the safety of all our buildings, not just the large panel system blocks. This is a national requirement, not unique to Brighton and Hove. We will endeavor to make further contact with North Whitehawk residents and provide additional information. Additionally, we may arrange a committee meeting to update residents on our progress and offer advice.”
Gill Williams, Chair of Housing & New Homes Committee:
“Thanks Nicola And I was actually at the bird blocks (Tower Blocks in north Whitehawk) last Saturday morning at the Residents Association and there were some issues raised around around this this problem that you just talked about And we are planning to have a meeting there very shortly with Martin and some officers to help explain the situation and what’s going on there And I’ll certainly will be there to help as well So hopefully I’ll see you there Thank you very much for your question Thank you”
Tower Blocks in North Whitehawk, where dozens of residents have reported and provided evidence of large cracks appearing all over their flats. Some residents are being moved out.
Magda's Plea for Vulnerable Families Facing Benefit Caps and Allocation Policy Concerns
Part 3 - Magda's Call for Compassion in Benefit Caps and Allocation Policies
Magda raised concerns about benefit caps and the third-child rule affecting vulnerable families in the private rental sector. She highlighted financial strain due to deductions, impacting the ability to rent, with increased benefits benefiting landlords but leaving capped households with less. Magda stated:
“Many families are facing benefit caps and the third child rule in the private rental sector. They endure financial strain due to deductions from the 22k cap impacting their ability to rent. With local housing authority increases benefiting landlords but leaving capped households with less, the situation raises concerns.
How many benefit-capped households are currently on Home Move awaiting a list? And how can we highlight the urgency to address disproportionate impact on vulnerable families, please?”
Gill Williams responded by expressing her personal opinion that benefit caps and the third-child rule are disgraceful. However, she clarified that the council lacks the power to overturn these rules, as it falls under the government’s jurisdiction. Williams sympathised with those affected and explained that the information on benefit-capped households is not relevant to Homemove applications. She also mentioned exemptions to the benefit cap and encouraged Magda to participate in the consultation. Williams said:
“Thank you for your question. I, for one, do think that benefit caps and the third-child rule are disgraceful, and that can be on record. I’m quite happy for that to be on record. Those are my private thoughts. But I don’t have the power to overturn it, and neither does this council. Unfortunately, that is up to the government, and I hope they do. I really do. So we don’t have that information because that’s not relevant to a Home Move application, I’m sorry to say. There are some exemptions to the benefit cap which can be applied for in certain circumstances, such as access to specific welfare benefits or working family tax credit or by being employed for a certain number of hours, I do believe helps. But that’s as far as we can help, I’m afraid as a council, but have much sympathy for anybody in that position. Please be assured.”
Magda raised concerns about benefit caps and the third-child rule affecting vulnerable families in the private rental sector. She highlighted financial strain due to deductions, impacting the ability to rent, with increased benefits benefiting landlords but leaving capped households with less. Magda stated:
“Many families are facing benefit caps and the third child rule in the private rental sector. They endure financial strain due to deductions from the 22k cap impacting their ability to rent. With local housing authority increases benefiting landlords but leaving capped households with less, the situation raises concerns. How many benefit-capped households are currently on Home Move awaiting a list? And how can we highlight the urgency to address disproportionate impact on vulnerable families, please?”
Gill Williams responded by expressing her personal opinion that benefit caps and the third-child rule are disgraceful. However, she clarified that the council lacks the power to overturn these rules, as it falls under the government’s jurisdiction. Williams sympathised with those affected and explained that the information on benefit-capped households is not relevant to Home Move applications. She also mentioned exemptions to the benefit cap and encouraged Magda to participate in the consultation. Williams said:
“Thank you for your question. I, for one, do think that benefit caps and the third-child rule are disgraceful, and that can be on record. I’m quite happy for that to be on record. Those are my private thoughts. But I don’t have the power to overturn it, and neither does this council. Unfortunately, that is up to the government, and I hope they do. I really do. So we don’t have that information because that’s not relevant to a Home Move application, I’m sorry to say. There are some exemptions to the benefit cap which can be applied for in certain circumstances, such as access to specific welfare benefits or working family tax credit or by being employed for a certain number of hours, I do believe helps. But that’s as far as we can help, I’m afraid as a council, but have much sympathy for anybody in that position. Please be assured.”
Throughout the session, impassioned inquiries and firsthand testimonies shed light on the systemic challenges faced by our community members, from the injustices of benefit caps to the complexities of allocation policies. Each question, each plea for transparency and equity, reverberated with a sense of urgency and a demand for action. To get involved join the Homemove Brighton and Hove Facebook Support Group