Agenda item

Purpose: To outline to the Stronger Communities Select Committee the draft recommendations arising from a task group review into the operation of the Council’s Common Housing Register. 

The Committee considered the draft recommendations arising from the task group review into the Council’s Common Housing Register (CHR) (Agenda Item 7).

Recommendation three was queried.  This was for all elected Members to be registered with the Information Commissioner in order to process data as the Council’s registration did not cover Members in their constituency role.  Councillor Alan Law supported this recommendation, but advised that the Council’s current registration would need to be changed.  This would help resolve any data protection concerns.

Councillor Irene Neill referred to a finding of the review which stated that data could be accessed by Ward Members if it was in a constituent’s interest to do so.  Councillor Law acknowledged this view, but referred to another finding which stated that data protection did restrict the use of personal information collected for one purpose being used for another within the Council. 

It was suggested that recommendation three could be amended to reflect whether a change of the Council’s registration would be necessary and Stephen Chard agreed to discuss this with the relevant officer and circulate an amendment if it was felt to be needed. 

Councillor Law then circulated a written submission to the Committee, this requested that recommendations five and six were not forwarded to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) or the Executive.  He also asked that the submission be presented to the OSMC if needed.  Discussion then followed on some of the points made.

Members raised a concern that approximately 50% of those identified as vulnerable were not submitting bids for housing.  Residents might believe they were on the list without being aware of a need to actively bid for a home.  This was the way the Choice Based Letting system operated. 

Councillor Law advised that many of the people identified as vulnerable on the CHR were elderly and would be unable to bid should they be in hospital.  If residents were unaware of the requirement to bid, then this related to a different failing within the system to adequately inform members of the public and consideration could be given to conducting a communications exercise to promote this need. 

The letter sent to residents on the CHR advised them that failure to respond within 28 days meant they would automatically be placed on a removal list.  This list made allowance for a check to be run to assess whether an individual was vulnerable, in which case further work would be done on their application.  Safeguards were in place, but any further efforts to make contact were limited by resources.  This approach was in line with a recommendation of the audit undertaken in March 2010.  If a resident was actively bidding then they would not be sent a letter.  Councillor Neill added that it was likely that a person identified as vulnerable would be accessing some form of support from the Council.  A further view was given that there could be a number of reasons why someone was not bidding and reliance on a single letter was not adequate. 

Councillor Neill went on to say that the resource implications of recommendations five and six were discussed at the meetings and officers were tasked with identifying the impact on financial and human resources.  If this proved to be an issue, then it was suggested that the recommendations could be considered at a convenient time, i.e. to coincide with an upgrade of the Locata system, as recommendations needed to be realistic.  Councillor Law raised the importance of conducting a cost benefit analysis if it was felt that the recommendations were worth pursuing.  Locata held detailed data but it was not identified by Ward, therefore a budget pressure would arise should the recommendations be approved.

Members went on to discuss whether they wished to amend the recommendations.  A view was expressed that it would be preferable to empower Ward Members to assist residents and the Council, and therefore the recommendations should be retained. 

Councillor Law questioned the value of these recommendations and added that people were only removed from the CHR if they were inactive.  If this was the case then it might be that their situation was not serious and their removal would not cause an issue.  People were advised of their removal and would be reinstated at their request without the loss of any points, assuming their circumstances were unchanged.  This included any points that might have accrued in the meantime.  Councillor Neill added that she was fairly confident that those in the most need and at most risk were actively involved. 

Councillor Neill felt that if data could be made accessible to Ward Members relatively easily, then they could offer some basic assistance.  However, additional clarity was needed to assess what the software requirements were and the subsequent resource implications to help inform a decision.  Councillor Law advised that he would be more willing to accept the recommendations if data was easily accessible, but he did not believe this to be the case. 

A view was given that the report should not be subject to significant changes at this stage of the review and Members agreed that the report and its recommendations should be presented to the OSMC for approval without significant amendment.  However, an amendment was agreed to recommendation six to remove the option to conduct a manual data matching exercise as this was felt to be too time consuming. 

An additional sentence was also requested to ensure that the proposed initiatives were accurately investigated and costed, and the impact on resources assessed to help inform a decision. 

RESOLVED that Stephen Chard would investigate whether an amendment was required to recommendation three, would amend recommendation six and add the sentence requested in relation to the implications of the recommendations.  Amended paragraphs would be circulated to the Committee for approval before the report was taken to the OSMC.