Housing Monthly Diary Archive

Community Care

Return To The HMD Archive Index

February 1998
Support for Home Improvement Agencies

Housing Minister Hilary Armstrong announced details of a £5.2 million funding package to benefit a record number of Home Improvement Agencies, including 20 being offered Government support for the first time. A further 43 Agencies would receive additional finance in 1998, bringing the number funded to 163.

Speaking at a housing conference in Bradford, the Housing Minister emphasised the Government's commitment to helping elderly and disabled people to stay in their own homes. In particular, the Minister was keen to encourage those agencies which have the financial backing and support of their local authority and she expected that even greater emphasis would be placed on this in future years.

May 1998
The Role of Housing in Community Care

A new report from the Audit Commission concluded that housing services are a key part of care in the community and there were many success stories to tell, but the current system was still failing to meet the needs of many vulnerable individuals.

Over 1.3 million tenants and owner-occupiers benefit from housing-related community care services at a cost to the public purse of over £2 billion. Services range from the provision of accommodation to offering practical help for tenants in council properties or improvements to the homes of older people. Some authorities are meeting needs and delivering high quality services, whereas others are not. Many housing authorities are struggling to cope with changing and rising demand and the current system is under considerable strain and urgent reform is required.

Problems identified in the report include:

• Many people are placed in unsuitable housing or do not receive the practical help that they need to cope with everyday living. Some vulnerable tenants abandon their tenancies because of avoidable problems, such as neighbour disputes and rent arrears. The consequences can be costly and the money would have been better spent on effective prevention actions.

• Frail older people or those with disabilities wait unnecessarily for up to two years for routine improvements to their homes, such as stair lifts or wheelchair ramps.

• Whilst the country's 530,000 units of specialised accommodation, such as sheltered housing for older people, are a vital resource, many councils have difficult to let sheltered housing and in some areas there is insufficient supported housing for other vulnerable groups.

• Some councils do not have comprehensive records of individuals' needs and are often poorly informed about the supported and sheltered housing provided in their area. This limits their ability to organise their resources effectively to match people's needs.

• The social housing stock has reduced in the last 15 years by 1 million homes and much of the remaining stock is of poor quality and in many areas unsuitable for vulnerable people.

The report also identifies current examples of good practice, including:

• The use of early intervention to help vulnerable people before problems get out of hand.

• Flexible use of specialised housing to meet changes in demand, such as developing very sheltered housing to replace residential care and decommissioning outdated sheltered housing units.

• Prioritising property improvement to reduce delay for the people in most need.

• Working closely with users and carers to ensure that the needs of the local community are understood and that performance targets are set.

The report calls for a number of policy changes at national level, including:

• Ensuring that Government departments work together to achieve the aims of community care and that there is clarity about who does what.

• Targeting funds where they are most needed and helping authorities to direct funding towards economic and effective preventative support.

• Regulating the standards of care and support, to protect the most vulnerable.

Home Alone: The Role of Housing in Community Care: Audit Commission applications: Tel. 0800 502 030: £20.

November 1998
Mortgage Rescue for HIV/Aids Sufferers

North British HA launched a London-based pilot project, seeking to extend its established Mortgage Rescue Scheme to people living with HIV/Aids. The pilot scheme sought to address both financial and care needs in one package.

The scheme responded to the needs of those homeowners who had adapted their accommodation to help them manage and made arrangements to receive care at home. For others facing repossession, the involvement of a housing association was an ideal opportunity to address the issues of adapting their home and organising care. For both groups, mortgage rescue meant avoiding the stress of moving home.

During the pilot, cases would be referred via specialist agencies providing housing advice to people living with HIV/Aids. In addition to the usual assessment - including a detailed interview with the household on such issues as benefit entitlement, budgeting, housing options, etc, and a full property survey - the household's accessibility and care need would be investigated. A package would then be put together to tie in with the purchase of the property by the Association.

The pilot project was being evaluated by the University of Salford, to assess its impact and applicability to other groups facing chronic illness.

January 2000
Care and Repair Lose Contract

Housing Minister, Nick Raynsford, appointed Collective Enterprises Limited to serve as the national co-ordinating body for Home Improvement Agencies, which help elderly, disabled and vulnerable people remain independent in their own homes. The appointment is for four years from 1st April 2000 and remains subject to detailed contract negotiations. The

Home Improvement Agency (HIA) movement started in the 1970s and grew through the 1980s with Government encouragement. HIAs are small, non-profit-making bodies managed locally. There are now about 200 HIAs in England, of which 184 receive Exchequer support. Their main functions are:

• To help elderly, disabled and vulnerable people to remain independent in their own homes by identifying necessary repairs and improvements, finding suitable tradesmen and ensuring the work is properly carried out.

• To help people to access public resources for private sector renewal, including disabled facilities grants, where available.

• To help people make use of other sources of funding through information on loans, insurance and equity release.

Care and Repair England was first appointed on 1st April 1991, with grant support, to co- ordinate and develop the HIA initiative in England. On 1st April 1995, it was appointed for a further five years to 31st March 2000.

The Public Accounts Committee noted that, when the Department advertised the contract in 1995, Care and Repair England was the only organisation to submit a tender. The Committee recommended - that the Department look again at the scope for generating more competition when this contract comes up for renewal in 2000.

The Department invited Care and Repair England and Collective Enterprises Limited to submit tenders after considering the expressions of interest received from several organisations in response to its advertisements.

January 2000
Ombudsman: Failure to Resolve Responsibility Issue

Complaint Details

The complainant is profoundly physically disabled. In 1993, Surrey County Council found him a place in a nursing home within Lambeth LBC and his place has been part-funded by a health authority ever since. Lambeth Social Services assessed the complainant in January 1996, concluding that, with sufficient assistance, he would be capable of living in the community.

However, in November 1996, the Lambeth Social Services file was closed, in the belief that Surrey CC was responsible for the complainant's community care.

The complainant applied for housing to Lambeth Housing Department in September 1996 but his application was not assessed by an occupational therapist, as it should have been. It was not until after the Ombudsman had received his complaint in June 1998 that this error was noticed. In June 1998, the complainant again approached Lambeth Social Services.

The Council subsequently agreed to accept responsibility for his community care, despite considering that this responsibility might well lie elsewhere.

Findings

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly's report criticises Lambeth Council for its failure to resolve which authority was responsible for the complainant's care needs, when it was made aware of his situation in 1996, and its failure to deal properly with his application for housing. Because of this, the complainant has probably had to remain in the nursing home for longer than necessary. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council should pay the complainant £1,500.

Investigation Nos. 98/A/1322 & 2859 (Lambeth LBC).

February 2000
Ombudsman: Errors in Housing Mentally Ill Man

Complaint Details

The complainant has mental health problems and a history of attempting suicide. In 1993, he became the tenant of a Council flat in the London Borough of Barnet.

In January 1996, the complainant received a Notice of Seeking Possession from the Council, because of his rent arrears, and, in March, the Council informed him by letter that they would be applying for a Possession Order.

The Council obtained the Order in July and the complainant was evicted in September 1996. He went to live with his parents in Kingston, because he was unable to cope with living in Council bed and breakfast accommodation, due to his illness.

In February 1997, the Council agreed that it owed him a duty under the homeless provisions of the Housing Act 1985 and could probably have offered him a flat within a few days but the complainant no longer wished to be rehoused in Barnet. The Council was unsuccessful in nominating him for housing in other London boroughs.

In June 1997, the complainant asked Kingston LBC to house him and in March 1998, Kingston Council accepted a duty to do so.

Findings

Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly's report criticises Barnet Council for failing to follow its own procedures in March and July 1996, in order to ensure that the complainant's difficulties and the risk of his eviction were properly notified to the Social Services department for their consideration. The report comments that this failure was the probable cause of the complainant’s eviction.

The report also concludes that - had the complainant received proper support from Social Services, he might have been able to pay off his arrears, avoided falling into further arrears and been able to remain in his flat in Barnet. He would also have been spared prolonged distress and worry.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council should pay the complainant £1,250 compensation.

Investigation No. 98/A/0280 (Barnet LBC).

Return To The HMD Archive Index