31/07/2017
Housing
Group
Directors’
Steering
Choice Based Lettings
Report by:
Nick Day
Date:
21 April 2005
Contact
Officer:
Beatrice Maunder
Telephone:
020 7934 9718
Summary:
Item
no:
Job
title:
Emai
l:
3
Head of Performance
and
Sub-Regional
Issues
[email protected]
The draft London Housing Strategy includes an
objective of setting up a pan London Choice and Mobility
scheme. This builds on ODPM targets for all Councils to
introduce CBL by 2010. The ALG is working with boroughs
and other stakeholders to ensure that the strategy
better reflects how Choice and Mobility is being taken
forward.
This report summarises progress on pan London Choice and
Mobility, and in particular the actions agreed at the
last CBL Steering Group meeting held on 16th March 2005.
Recommendations: Directors are recommended to:
1. Note:
 The revised version of the draft briefing note for
members (Appendix 2) which will be circulated after
an election to Directors (for onward distribution
to members) and to London MPs (by ALG) (paragraph
3.1)
 The CBL Steering Group met on 16 March 2005 and
will meet bi-monthly in future (paragraphs 2.12.2). The minutes and action points agreed at the
16 March meeting are attached (Appendix 3).
 The next Steering Group meeting will be held on 11th
May 2005 at 2.30pm at ALG offices (paragraph 2.6).
2 Comment on:






The draft vision statement circulated to the CBL
Steering Group (Appendix 1), which will form the
basis of the ALG submission for the LHS.
After
collating
views
from
non-CBL
boroughs
regarding the earlier target date of 2007/08, ALG
proposes
the
Steering
Group
adopt
a
target
applicable to 90% of boroughs instead of all
boroughs (paragraph 2.4).
The LHF summary paper suggesting models and
processes for achieving the vision (paragraph 2.5,
Appendix 4)
Items for the agenda at the next CBL steering Group
on 11 May (paragraph 2.6)
The proposed ALG CBL and Mobility event for
officers and members to be held later this year
(paragraph 3.2).
The draft brief for the research on the “Impact of
CBL on homelessness” (Appendix 5)
1
Introduction
1.1 We have previously reported progress on pan-London CBL to the
Housing Directors’ Meeting on 21 January and 11 March, and to
the Housing Directors’ Steering Group on 23 February.
2
London CBL and Mobility Steering Group and Project Board
2.1 The second meeting of the CBL and Mobility Steering Group took
place on 16 March.
There was again some discussion around
the most appropriate scope of a pan-London scheme. The
position of boroughs was reflected by representatives from ALG
and boroughs. In particular, that boroughs continue to play a
leading role in implementing Choice and Mobility; that
increasing Choice for tenants of Social Housing is to be
welcomed; that the existing successful CBL and Mobility
schemes should continue; that participation in a more
comprehensive London Choice and Mobility scheme should be
voluntary; and that the scope of a scheme must take into
account Boroughs’ need to fulfil their statutory housing
duties and respond to changes in demand.
2.2 A number of actions were agreed at the meeting:

ALG to circulate to Steering Group members a draft Vision
for pan-London Choice and Mobility (attached at Appendix 1)

Charlotte Graves of LHF to take forward work in relation to
I.T. systems and feed back from meetings with technical
staff.

Updated paper on options for taking CBL and Mobility forward
to be circulated by LHF (attached at Appendix 4).

ALG to develop and implement its research proposals (impact
on homelessness and motivators for mobility attached at
Appendix 5)

ALG to identify areas needing resources

Agreement that members of the Steering Group will not
discuss pan-London CBL and Mobility with the media without
an agreed approach and message by the Steering Group
2.3 The draft vision is likely to inform revised text in the
London Housing Strategy about CBL.
2.4 ALG trawled for views, especially from non-CBL boroughs, about
the proposed LHS target date of 2007/08 for all boroughs to
operate CBL systems. Due to problems identified by non stock
holding boroughs, ALG has proposed amending the earlier target
date suggested by the Steering Group to apply to 90% of
boroughs, rather than all boroughs. Further work needs to be
undertaken to identify the issues for LSVT boroughs. Comments
are sought from Directors.
2.5 The LHF paper, which outlined the options for achieving the
vision as recommended by the Project Board at the meeting of
28th February, was not discussed at the Steering Group
meeting. The group agreed to defer discussion until the next
meeting to allow LHF to refine their paper, for participants
to absorb the information and to enable discussion by the sub
regions.
Comments are sought from Directors on the proposed
options (attached at Appendix 4). ALG will circulate to subregional coordinators to obtain comments from sub-regional
boroughs.
2.6 The next Steering Group meeting will be held on 11th May 2005
at 2.30pm at ALG offices. Directors are asked to suggest
agenda items for the next meeting.
3
Communication Strategy
3.1 The draft briefing paper has been re-worked to reflect
comments made by Housing Directors and Housing Steering Group
Executive. It is attached for information (Appendix 2).
Councillors have requested ALG delay its circulation to
Housing Directors, for onward distribution to local members,
until after the general election on 5th May when ALG will
distribute it to all London MPs.
3.2 ALG propose to host an event around Choice and Mobility later
this year for both officers and members. The purpose of the
event is to raise the level of understanding of CBL amongst
members generally and in particular for officers and members
of non-CBL boroughs. It is proposed that the event include
presentations of existing “sub regional” CBL schemes.
Directors are asked to make suggestions on the content and
format of the event.
4
Equalities Implications
4.1 CBL and Mobility has a potential range of implications for
people from BME and minority communities, as it could have a
radical impact on which households successfully apply for
social housing. The GLA is undertaking an Equalities Impact
Assessment on the 2005 London Housing Strategy. Pan London
CBL and Mobility would require a similar exercise
APPENDIX 1
Pan London CBL and Mobility
Draft Vision
To maximise Choice for tenants in the social housing sector and provide the
same opportunities for Mobility for social housing tenants as that already
exercised by home owners and those in the private rented sector.
To work towards developing a pan London Choice & Mobility scheme in the
three stages set out below to enable social housing tenants to exercise the
choice to move within and between borough boundaries.
Note: The extent to which Choice & Mobility is developed will be dependant
upon resources available and an understanding of how CBL schemes impact
on homelessness, the ability of boroughs to reduce the use of temporary
accommodation, and the relationship between Mobility and meeting the
needs of diverse communities and supporting vulnerable groups.
STAGE 1
EITHER: By 2007/08 all council and RSL tenants in London will be able to
participate in a CBL scheme in all boroughs. To this end all boroughs to
introduce or join an existing “sub regional” scheme with all RSLs to
participate in those schemes.
OR: By 2007/08 all council and RSL tenants in 90% of boroughs in London
will be able to participate in a CBL scheme. To this end 90% of boroughs to
introduce or join an existing “sub regional” scheme with all RSLs to
participate in those schemes.
STAGE 2
EITHER: By 2007/08 all council and RSL tenants in London will be able to
participate in a CBL scheme, which includes new properties produced
through schemes funded on a sub regional and/or regional basis. To this
end all boroughs and RSLs to participate in sub regional and regional
nomination agreements for sub regional and regional funded new supply, and
to establish sub regional/regional arrangements for advertising new
properties.
OR: By 2007/08 all council and RSL tenants in 90% of boroughs in London
will be able to participate in a CBL scheme, which includes new properties
produced through schemes funded on a sub regional and/or regional basis.
To this end 90% of boroughs and all RSLs to participate in sub regional and
regional nomination agreements for sub regional and regional funded new
supply, and to establish sub regional/regional arrangements for advertising
new supply.
STAGE 3
Further develop the Choice and Mobility opportunities available to council
and RSL tenants by incorporating a proportion of re-lets from boroughs and
RSLs (figure to be agreed but not more than 5% initially). The target date will
be agreed following the completion of research into the impact of a panLondon CBL scheme on Homelessness and Temporary Accommodation.
Principles
The principles of a pan-London Choice Based Lettings (CBL) and Mobility
scheme:

to be fair and transparent and user-friendly

to be accessible to all, including BME communities and vulnerable
members of society

to increase tenants’ options for voluntary moves between boroughs,
sub-regions and across London, as well as to other regions through
connections with agencies such as moveUK

to offer tenants Choice and Mobility for a proportion of re-lets of
existing Local Authority and RSL properties, as well as for lettings of
new-build properties from regional strategic development sites

to enable customers to understand better their options and realistic
housing prospects

to empower individuals to exercise housing choice about their home
and where it is located

to create sustainable communities, both in existing communities, and
new communities particularly in major developments

to balance the responsibilities of social landlords to people who are
already their tenants and to meet the needs of homeless households
APPENDIX 2
(DRAFT )
BENEFITS OF CHOICE BASED LETTINGS AND MOBILITY
__________________________________________________________________
_I
1.
Introduction
Increasing and expanding Choice is at the centre of government
policy in many fields, including education, health, and housing.
In spring 2002 the Government set a target “that by 2010 all local
authorities will have adopted a Choice Based Lettings (CBL)
system”. ODPM funded a number of pilots for Choice Based Letting
schemes after setting the 2010 target in the Sustainable
Communities plan.
CBL schemes, rather than simply allocating homes to those with the
highest assessed housing need, provide a framework for enabling
tenants to express a preference about where they live.
Many
schemes use a system of bands indicating higher or lower need for
housing; once the applicant knows their band, they become eligible
to “bid” for properties that become vacant.
The key principle
behind CBL is that choices available to private sector occupiers
should be available to tenants of social housing.
The ODPM has also become increasingly keen to encourage greater
Mobility among tenants of social housing. There is a concern that
tenants have been unable to move between boroughs or regions in
the same way as occupiers in other tenures.
Housing Corporation
research in London found that “36% of social tenants, representing
nearly 300,000 households, expressed an intention to move…more
than one in five [of the 300,000] said they would definitely
consider moving to rented accommodation outside London, and a
further one in four would consider it ‘depending on where to’”.1
GLA research uncovered 239,000 expressions of interest in sub
regional moves and a further 39,000 expressions of interest in
moves outside London.
ALG are currently preparing research
projects to better understand the impact of a pan London CBL
scheme on homelessness, as well as the aspirations of tenants and
applicants, and the impact of marketing CBL and mobility and the
development of new sites.
Increasingly, Choice and Mobility have come to be seen by some
stakeholders as being closely linked. This paper explains some of
the background to the Choice and Mobility debate, sets out some of
the progress made by London Boroughs in implementing Choice, and
highlights some of the issues for further consideration.
2.
1
The Choice & Mobility Agenda and Links to Housing Investment
Housing Corporation, Sector Study 39, November 2004
Besides increasing opportunities for tenants of social housing, a
key driver for a pan-London lettings scheme is that regional (panLondon) development sites will deliver large numbers of social
rented homes in coming years.
A system is needed to allocate the
properties between London’s boroughs, all of which should benefit
from this new supply of social housing in helping to meet their
housing need.
The Choice and Mobility agenda is developing rapidly. The Deputy
Prime Minister expressed his desire to develop a national mobility
scheme in his speech at the Labour Party Conference in September
2004.
This commitment was reinforced through ODPM’s Five Year
Housing Plan Sustainable Communities: Homes for All, which
promotes the idea of CBL operating across boundaries on a subregional and regional basis.
This emphasizes the increasing
significance of encouraging Mobility for tenants between areas.
Government
commitment
to
this
is
also
reflected
in
the
announcement of the forthcoming launch of moveUK, a web-based
service
that
will
bring
together
mobility
and
employment
opportunities in one place. The draft London Housing Strategy,
published in November 2004, seeks to “…establish a pan-London CBL
scheme that covers all local authority and RSL properties in
London…”
These
proposals
are
widely
supported
amongst
stakeholders, including ODPM, the Government Office for London,
Greater London Authority, Housing Corporation and London Housing
Federation.
London has made significant progress in developing
mobility and acts as a model for the rest of the country.
CBL
and

Choice - Twenty boroughs operate CBL schemes.
There are
three schemes which operate on a sub-regional basis.

Mobility - Many London boroughs established arrangements with
Councils and RSLs in the North of England through the LAWN
initiative, offering tenants the opportunity to relocate and
obtain better, more suitable housing more quickly than is
possible in London. Boroughs have trialled a small number of
moves across London (ie between boroughs).
3.
Boroughs’ Experience of CBL and Mobility

Twenty boroughs participate in nine CBL schemes in London,
three of which operate broadly within a sub-region.
These
demonstrate
how
Councils
have
worked
successfully,
individually or together, to deliver more choice.

Current London CBL schemes
There are currently nine CBL schemes in operation in London, with
20 Boroughs participating.
There are three sub-regional schemes:

East London Lettings Company (ELLC), consists of
boroughs of Redbridge, Waltham Forrest and Newham

Home Connections (North), consists of the boroughs of
Westminster, Camden, Barnet, Islington, Enfield and
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Locata (West), consists of the boroughs
Brent, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Harrow
of
the
Ealing,
There are also six standalone schemes in operation:
 Croydon

Lewisham

Tower Hamlets

Greenwich

Haringey
(recently
Connections)

Sutton
announced
a
merger
with
Home
There are four boroughs due to join existing CBL schemes in 2005:
 LB Barking & Dagenham aim to join ELLC in 2005

LB Hackney aim to join ELLC in 2005

LB Havering aim to join ELLC in 2005

LB Hammersmith and Fulham aim to join LOCATA in 2005.

Some borough schemes have made a start in trialling CBL with
regional Mobility for a limited number of residents – crossLondon moves.

Many boroughs also continue to build on their relationship
with Social Landlords in lower-demand regions to offer their
residents Mobility outside London.

A template for allocating lettings of new-build properties
between boroughs within sub-regions was published in October
2004.
Published jointly by the Housing Corporation, ALG and
London Housing Federation, this set out principles for
allocating new lettings from sub-regional development sites.
Sub-regional
agreements
developed
because
the
Housing
Corporation now allocates funding for affordable Housing
through 5 London sub-regions.

Mobility has been seen as part of the solution to meeting
London’s housing needs for some time.
Boroughs are used to
working collaboratively and using mobility schemes, e.g.
HOMES, Seaside and Countryside Homes, LAWN and HEMS (soon to
be MoveUK).
Most commentators accept the potential benefits of increased
Choice and Mobility for tenants.
However, there are a number of
issues which do need to be considered.
These are being explored
by Boroughs and the ALG.

Boroughs and RSLs are at different stages in implementing
both Choice and Mobility.
A pan-London scheme will need to
be flexible enough to be acceptable to boroughs that are
still working towards the ODPM’s 2010 “Choice” target, while
allowing those that are more advanced to make further
progress if they wish to.

Increasing opportunities for both Choice and Mobility across
London will require significant preparatory work.
It is
important that milestones and deadlines are realistic.

Any pan-London scheme would require resources for development
and operating costs. While it is possible that sub-regional
and other cross-borough schemes may deliver efficiencies in
the longer term, there will be start-up costs.
Boroughs,
RSLs and other stakeholders need to identify these costs and
how they will be met.

There is limited evidence of the factors that lead tenants to
move across borough boundaries, sub-regions, or between
regions.
Boroughs will also need to understand how
increasing options for Mobility will impact on their ability
to continue to respond to local housing need and changing
supply and demand factors.
ALG intends to commission
research into these areas.
4.
Benefits of CBL and Mobility:
Many boroughs have
tangible benefits:
found
that
operating
CBL
schemes
brings

CBL can be less bureaucratic and allows applicants to play a
greater role in selecting their home

More transparent system:
–
Tenants understand CBL better than points systems which
can be perceived as paternalistic and difficult to
understand
–
Tenants develop a better understanding of the pressures
of demand for particular types of properties in
particular areas, and reasons for long waiting times
–
Therefore tenants can make better choices and may
consider more quickly choosing properties in other areas

Tenants can feel better informed through feedback available
on offers and take up

Many Boroughs have experienced a reduction in enquiries and
complaints from tenants when operating CBL
5.

CBL can make it easier for staff
enquiries from housing applicants.

Staff role is more positive, i.e. helping vulnerable and
excluded groups, rather than handling repeated complaints on
the same issues.

Consultation process while developing CBL allows users and
other stakeholders to impact upon the principles and
operation of services

Cost savings brought about in some cases by improved housing
management and improved re-let periods

Mobility to areas of lower demand can help reduce pressures
for Boroughs facing high demand e.g. from Homeless families

Improved access methods via easy to use bidding media and
support systems increases interest in housing from working
households and minority communities

Increased Choice and Mobility can contribute to community
cohesion and Sustainable Communities, as more people have the
opportunity to actively decide where they live.
and
members
to
answer
Frequently Asked Questions
Q – What evidence is available regarding the level of demand for
mobility, particularly for moves of longer distances across
London?
A - Housing Corporation research in London found that “36% of
social tenants, representing nearly 300,000 households, expressed
an intention to move…more than one in five [of the 300,000] said
they would definitely consider moving to rented accommodation
outside London, and a further one in four would consider it
‘depending on where to’”.2
GLA research uncovered 239,000
expressions of interest in sub regional moves and a further 39,000
expressions of interest in moves outside London.
However these
responses are based on intentions – not actual choices. ALG will
commission research to investigate the motivators and likely
demand for wider mobility based on real experiences of tenants.
Q- Would Pan-London London CBL and Mobility make it more difficult
for boroughs to meet their statutory homeless responsibilities and
address local housing need?
A- This depends on the scope and operation of any pan-London
scheme. ALG is working actively to ensure a pan London CBL scheme
benefits tenants, by increasing their Choice and Mobility options,
while retaining boroughs’ ability to fulfil their statutory
housing responsibilities. Cross-borough schemes already operating
in London’s sub-regions have increased Choice and Mobility for
2
Housing Corporation, Sector Study 39, November 2004
tenants, while continuing to allow
respond to local needs and concerns.
Q – Are
Mobility?
there
particular
participating
Equalities
issues
with
boroughs
Choice
to
and
A - There are twenty boroughs operating successful CBL schemes in
London.
These have given valuable experience in ensuring the
needs of BME and other minority groups are catered for.
ODPM
research found that only a small number of households needed
intensive support, though CBL schemes do need to set up
appropriate support systems proactively.
Pan-London Mobility may introduce particular issues, for example
for people from black and minority ethnic groups, if they are
expected to move significant distances to new developments where
there is no established minority ethnic population.
ALG wants
appropriate
support
and
infrastructure
(eg
community
and
religious) to be in place in time to address these types of
issues. Further work will also be needed once the shape of a panLondon scheme is clearer (eg an Equalities Impact Assessment).
Q - Will CBL and Mobility
available for local people?
reduce
the
number
of
properties
A – The key barrier preventing people moving is the overall lack
of supply of properties in London not by the allocation operating
system. A pan London Mobility scheme will provide increased
opportunities for tenants for mobility, because boroughs will have
access to nominations for regional development sites.
CBL in
itself will not increase or decrease the number of lettings, but
it does affect they way the available homes are let.
Q - Will CBL and Mobility reduce mean it takes longer to re-let
properties?
A –Most Boroughs operating Choice Based Letting schemes have found
they do not experience significant ongoing problems with “void”
periods. In some cases boroughs have found that CBL schemes have
led to improved turnaround times for voids.
Appendix 3
LONDON CHOICE BASED LETTINGS AND MOBILITY STEERING GROUP
(DRAFT) MINUTES OF MEETING of 16TH MARCH 2005
Present:
Genevieve Macklin (Chairperson)
ALG
Nick Day
ALG
Beatrice Maunder (Minutes)
ALG
Peter Brittain
GOL
Andrew Lock
ODPM
Debra Levinson
Berwyn Kinsey
GLA
LHF
Chris Hampson
Lee Daly
Look Ahead Housing and Care
Innisfree HA
Charlotte Graves
Ealing Family HA
Mike Davis
South West Sub Region
Roy Evans
South West Sub Region
Martin Cheeseman
West Sub Region
Maureen McEleny
East Sub Region
Gareth Hall
East Sub Region
1. Apologies
Corinne Lyons
Alan Benson
GOL
GLA
Steve Douglas
HC
Victor Da Cunha
East Thames HA
Andy Jennings
North Sub Region
Mark Baigent
South East Sub Region
Neil Litherland
Bernadette O’Shea
Mark Baigent
David Woods
North Sub Region
West Sub Region
South East Sub Region
East Sub Region
2. Minutes and Matters Arising

Minutes of meeting of 10 January 2005 agreed.

ALG suggested the minutes and notes of the Project Board
meetings of 31st January and 28th February should be taken as
information as the items are on the agenda.
3. Update on work streams
A. Vision and Business Benefits
ALG circulated an updated Project Board paper. ALG asked for views
about the four suggestive elements for the vision in the paper.
Key discussion points included:

Element one –‘All London boroughs will operate a Choice Based
Lettings system by ‘Target date of 2007/08’
The discussion noted that:

An earlier target date was supported if achievable by nonCBL boroughs, and would underline London’s leading position
on CBL.

The date cannot be imposed on LAs or RSLs.

Two years lead-in time was enough for the pilots so might
be possible for non-CBL boroughs.
Questions were raised about whether ODPM is considering funding
for regional systems.
This could alleviate political and
budgetary concerns.
‘All boroughs & RSLs participate in CBL systems’

The Steering Group encouraged non-CBL boroughs to link with
existing CBL systems. It was felt this approach was more
likely to engender local support and commitment.

the cost of developing new systems is hard to justify in
the current London context. Not all boroughs participate in
sub regional CBL systems, but systems can be interfaced.
Action: LHF and ALG to take earlier target date (2007/08) to RSLs
and boroughs for agreement

Element two – ‘All five of London’s sub-regions will operate a
Choice Based Lettings system for managing their sub-regional
pool of units’. Target: By (XX date) each sub-region is
operating a CBL system for managing its sub-regional pool NEW
SUPPLY / nominations and possibly for a proportion of lettings
across the sub-region. - RE-LETS

The meeting agreed the wording should read ‘…will have a
system in place for mobility…’ because links to sub
regional systems or advertising schemes could be a stage in
the process to achieving pan London mobility. However,
there was general agreement that whatever the mobility
arrangement, it should be a choice based system.

There were queries about the need to support the link up
with sub regions based on common systems, given the
existence of sub regional nominations protocols. Certainty
is needed on basis to move schemes forward and thought on
how sub regional nominations for new lets will work.

Boroughs were committed in principle to each sub region
operating a system for advertising lets but reluctant to
commit to a pool of re-lets until the impact on
homelessness has been considered.

The meeting agreed to separate both (1) ‘outcomes’ from the
‘system’ and (2) new lets from re-lets.
Action: The meeting agreed (1) to rewrite the vision from a
customer
perspective
incorporating
principles
including
transparency and accessibility and (2) to focus on new supply and
(3) encourage boroughs to be part of sub regional arrangements by
2007/08

Element three - Opportunities for mobility amongst social
housing residents in London are increased by establishing a pool
of lettings available across London (by XX date)

Some boroughs already do this.
However, boroughs
highlighted need for research to provide reassurance that
homeless families will not be disadvantaged or overcrowded.
The meeting agreed to await the outcome of ALG research,
and also ODPM’s research to understand the effects of CBL
on BME households.

GLA suggested research to consider issues of ‘local
connection’ and ‘responsibility’, and advised of the
Accessible Housing Register pilot tender, which will look
mainly at physical disability.

Clarification of the principles was requested, i.e.
definition of ‘most vulnerable’.
Suggestion for ALG to
hold
a
seminar
to
allay
concerns
and
disseminate
information, the meeting felt this could be helpful for
non-CBL boroughs and RSLs, as well as officers and members.
Action:
(1)
Complete
ALG
research
homelessness. (2) ALG to explore a seminar

on
implications
for
Element four - Systems for ensuring that pan-London strategic
development sites, being developed, are available to residents
across London will be in place by (XX date – date first regional
lets expected).
A range of views were expressed.

facilitating Mobility
existing schemes.
across
London
should
build
on

Suggested reorganising the four vision elements and
separating them out into existing and new supply and take
out broad terms like ‘arrangements’.

It is not yet clear that mobility would be best achieved by
a pool of lets and felt the need to see how it will work
together.

The meeting contemplated two options (a) await the outcome
of research before setting a target date, e.g. linked to
the first regional site coming on line or (b) pilot with
caveats and indicative dates, and utilising voluntary pan
London arrangements with wording that does not preclude
those who want to move faster, not necessarily via a pool.

Some felt that setting timeframes for future frameworks
should not be problematic as they will be in place after
the findings of research are known, which could allay
concerns about the supply and demand equation.
ALG agreed to timetable and develop its research brief.
ALG
suggested submitting a general statement for the LHB setting no
date for existing lets but sticking with the target date of
2007/08, noting the LHS EQIA may lead to amendments.
Action:
(1) ALG to capture key points about the Vision and
circulate to Steering Group.
(2) Agreement to be reached via email as to what message about the vision to feed into the London
Housing Strategy.
B. I.T .
The meeting was yet to occur by the time of the meeting.
Action: Charlotte Graves will continue to take this forward and
provide feedback.
C. Research
Market Motivators – The meeting agreed ALG research proposal.
Suggestion boroughs build in questions as part of housing needs
surveys and as part of tenant satisfaction surveys.
Homelessness – ALG research proposal which the meeting agreed as
urgent.
Suggestions were made to include non-priority homeless
and overcrowding. The work will be too late to inform the LHS
though RSLs suggested setting a completion research date by
September and for recommendations to allow agreement of a common
position and enable a public commitment.
GLA & LHF offered to
contribute staff resources.
Action:
ALG will work up proposals including
circulate the Steering Group at the next meeting
timescales
D Equitable Access
 ODPM are not yet able to give details of their research.
and

Martin Cheeseman offered to report back to the ODPM
Advisory Group (who were yet to meet) on behalf of the
Steering Group. He will also report back to the LHS EQIA
group and reported Ethnos were unable to fully cover Choice
and Mobilty issues.
Ethnos have identified useful
information, e.g. why it may be unlikely that certain BME
groups may not want to be accommodated in Gateway.

GLA noted the London-wide data on needs and minority groups
collated from the Sub Regional Strategy Support Studies
funded by GLA and Boroughs, collating boroughs’ existing
housing needs surveys.

Suggestion for improved cross agenda working on floating
support and Supporting People. ALG agreed to utilise its
internal links.
Action:
(1) ODPM to provide feedback of their research at the
next meeting.
GLA to extract key elements from Fordums survey
findings.
(2) ALG to ensure improved joint agenda working on
Supporting People issues.
4. Proposed ways forward for Pan-London CBL and Mobility
The meeting agreed to defer this item until the next meeting to
allow participants to consider anupdated LHF options paper.
Action:
LHF to provide updated options paper.
5. Communication Strategy
The draft ALG briefing paper for Councillors and London MPs has
been discussed in many circles.
ALG directors and councillors
suggested distribution until after the election.
Action:
LHF to e-mail comments to ALG.
6. Resources

ODPM pilot boroughs received funding to help with scheme
start up costs.
ALG asked if other agencies could help
boroughs establish schemes.

LHF agreed lack of resources is an issue and suggested the
LHS action plan could include contributing next year’s
London Housing Strategy funds towards costs

others suggested linking the action plan to the research
timeframe and consideration of the IT models. The meeting
agreed this required further consideration.
Action:
ODPM and other participants to consider funding options
7. AOB / Future Meetings
Terms of Reference - ALG suggested
meeting as thinking is at early stage
establishing
at
the
next
Media – Project Board had suggested a joint press release to end
speculation.
ALG put this proposal to councillors who did not
want press releases before an election.
The meeting agreed that
member would not discuss London CBL with the media without
agreeing a line with other members, and also to take care when
communicating with software and systems contractors.
Action: Media enquiries to be referred to ALG who will co-ordinate
responses
Future Meetings - Agreement for future meetings to occur every two
months.
Action:
ALG to confirm dates of future meetings
S:\HOUSING\Public\CBL and Mobility\Pan London CBL &
Minutes 16.03.05.doc
M Steering Group\MAR 2005\DRAFT steering Group
Appendix 4 – LHF PAPER
Pan London Choice Based Lettings and Mobility
1. Introduction
At the first meeting of the Pan London Choice Based Lettings and Mobility Steering
Group, it was decided to create a smaller group (the Project Board) to develop
possible ways forward for lettings in the capital. In turn, at its first meeting the
Project Board decided to set up four sub-groups to look at different areas of a
possible pan-London system.
One of the sub-groups, charged with looking at possible models for how a panLondon system would operate, developed a series of high level options that were
reported to the Project Board. Following discussion these options were narrowed
down to three basic concepts.
This report provides descriptions of the three main models identified to date for
delivering choice and mobility, along with a summary of the possible advantages
and disadvantages for implementing each.
2. Alternative Models
This section sets out the alternative models mentioned above and their possible
advantages and disadvantages.
2.1 Quota or Swap System
2.1.1 How the model works
A voluntary or mandatory system in which boroughs and sub-regions retain their
existing choice systems and other boroughs are free to develop new systems or
join those already existing. Mobility is facilitated by a series of bi-lateral
agreements between boroughs (or, potentially, sub-regions) in which each
borough agrees to provide other boroughs or sub regions with a proportion of its
lettings, both to new and existing properties. These properties would then be
made available to residents via their own borough’s choice system.
2.1.2 Advantages
In implementation terms, this is the simplest of the models, as it does not require
any boroughs or sub-regions to switch to a new IT platform or revise their
internal policies. Given this (apparent) simplicity this may well be the quickest of
the models to put in place.
2.1.3 Possible Disadvantages / Issues
In spite of the apparent simplicity of the model, there are a number of potential
issues that may mean that this approach is not the most attractive:








The model would require a significant amount of negotiation between
individual boroughs on the levels of nominations that would be made
available to each.
These negotiations would, in turn, lead to numerous agreements that
would need to be monitored by individual boroughs or some central
group.
The number of agreements and lines of nomination that would need to be
tracked could make monitoring compliance with agreements excessively
complex and time consuming.
As bi-lateral agreements form the basis of the model, it is possible that
boroughs may seek to re-open negotiations when they become aware of
preferential nomination agreements reached with others.
There is a potential for the creation of perverse outcomes in the form of
‘forced’ out of borough moves as boroughs have a fixed number of
properties from all other boroughs regardless of demand from their
residents.
The system, reliant as it would be upon different access arrangements in
each borough, is inherently unequal and could be seen as unfair.
It is difficult to see how this model would facilitate any further progress
towards a true system of pan-London mobility and meet the aspirations
for choice and mobility at a ‘regional or housing market’ level set out in
‘Homes for All’.
The maintenance of numerous systems would still mean duplication of
effort and operating systems for RSLs and other partners, with an
implication for efficiency.
2.2 The Common Pool Model
2.2.1 How the model works
This model has much in common with the existing Locata system currently
being used by the West London sub-region. Under the system authorities
operate either independent choice systems with a common system operating
above these to deliver mobility, or a single system for choice and mobility.
In either case, boroughs would agree a proportion of new lettings that are
placed in a common pool. Residents in all the participating boroughs are then
able to bid for these properties via the same system as they can bid for those in
their own borough.
Equitable treatment for all bidding residents is assured either by the adoption of
a single set of allocation policies and procedures or a pre-agreed ‘exchange
rate’ between individual boroughs’ procedures and those adopted by the
common operating system.
2.2.2 Advantages
Though more complex to implement, there are a number of advantages
pertaining to this model:

The model builds on an existing approach adopted by a number of
boroughs.







The system is more transparent for bidders, allowing direct access to a
wider range of properties within the sub-region and the capital as a
whole.
There is the potential for efficiency savings if boroughs opt for a platform
that supports both their internal choice system and extra-borough
mobility.
There is also flexibility that, subject to an IT solution, would allow
boroughs to maintain existing systems with a link to the system managing
the common pool.
Equally, the negotiation of an ‘exchange rate’ for points/bands awarded
on a borough basis and the mobility system’s bandings would not require
common allocation policies.
The system provides flexibility in terms of the level of lettings placed in
the pool by members and this could increase (or, indeed, decrease) over
time.
Whilst the model would still require monitoring of each borough to ensure
it was meeting its commitments, this would be easier as the obligations
would relate to a single relationship between two bodies.
This model would facilitate a true system of pan-London mobility and
meet the aspirations for choice and mobility at a ‘regional or housing
market’ level as set out in ‘Homes for All’.
2.2.3 Possible Disadvantages / Issues
There are number of questions that would need to be answered in terms of the
development of this model, and a small number of possible disadvantages:







The model would require a significant amount of collective negotiation
between individual boroughs to develop a formal set of agreements on
the size of contribution to the common pool.
Boroughs would also need to agree the property type and size mix of
their contribution.
A central operating system of some kind would be required to administer
both the central pool and the monitoring of compliance with the collective
agreement. This would represent an additional cost for those boroughs
choosing to operate their own system.
Participants would need to determine whether all residents in all
boroughs have equal access to all common pool properties or if some
are reserved for residents of the sub-region.
Consideration would need to be given to whether boroughs could ‘trade’
contributions according to their stock profile and needs.
The potential maintenance of numerous systems would still mean
duplication of effort and operating systems for RSLs and other partners,
with an implication for efficiency, though this might decrease over time if
one operating platform were to become pre-eminent.
The system would need to be mandatory in order to function effectively.
2.3 The Common Shop Window Model
2.3.1 How the model works
This approach has some similarities with that being explored by the North
London sub-Region. In place of a common pool administered by a central body
that handles applications direct from bidders, this system concentrates on
providing a platform by which applicants in other boroughs are made aware of
available properties and which directs their bid to the relevant borough. A useful
analogy is with websites that search all properties offered for sale by estate
agents in a particular area and display these in one place.
The system would be supported by agreement(s) on the level of properties that
each borough would make available for mobility. Transparency and equity for all
bidders would be assured, as with the common pool, by the development of a
common system of priority ratings that those bidding could easily relate to their
own borough-based points or banding.
2.3.2 Advantages
The system shares some of the advantages of the common pool and, arguably,
has some others:






The model builds on an existing approach being explored by a number of
boroughs.
The system could be transparent for bidders, allowing direct access to a
wider range of properties within the sub-region and the capital as a
whole. This would, however, be dependent on some kind of currency
converter being supplied and easily used by applicants.
The negotiation of an ‘exchange rate’ for points/bands awarded on a
borough basis and the mobility system’s bandings would not require
common allocation policies.
The system provides flexibility in terms of the level of lettings placed in
the pool by members and this could increase (or, indeed, decrease) over
time.
Indeed, the system allows a very large amount of diversity in terms of
boroughs’ and sub-regions’ own policies and procedures, acting as it
does ‘above’ and separately from them.
This model could facilitate a true system of pan-London mobility and
meet the aspirations for choice and mobility at a ‘regional or housing
market’ level as set out in ‘Homes for All’.
2.3.3 Possible Disadvantages / Issues
There are however some inherent difficulties and issues that would need to be
resolved:




The model might necessitate an additional operating system for all
boroughs as it would be separate from their current system of choice
based lettings.
The system could preserve all the different operating systems, regardless
of their relative merits, as the cost of shifting to two new platforms might
be prohibitive.
The central operating system would need to be very carefully designed to
ensure clarity and ease of use for those bidding.
A more complex system of monitoring than required with the common
pool would be needed to ensure that, not only were all boroughs making
available the agreed number of properties, but that they were dealing with
mobility applications in an equitable manner.








The model would require a significant amount of collective negotiation
between individual boroughs to develop a formal set of agreements on
the proportion of properties that would be made available to mobility bids.
Boroughs would also need to agree the property type and size mix of
their contribution.
A central operating system of some kind would be required to administer
the ‘single shop window’.
Participants would need to determine whether all residents in all
boroughs have equal access to all properties offered in the common
shop window, or if some are reserved for residents of the sub-region.
Consideration would need to be given to whether boroughs could ‘trade’
contributions according to their stock profile and needs.
The potential maintenance of numerous systems would still mean
duplication of effort and operating systems for RSLs and other partners,
with an implication for efficiency.
The system would need to be mandatory in order to function effectively.
It is more difficult to see how this system could develop over time to
deliver efficiency savings if a more pan-London approach were taken to
the whole area of lettings and mobility.
3. Summary, Conclusions and Next Steps
Following a series of discussions three alternative models of how a degree of panLondon choice and mobility could be administered have been developed. Each of
the systems has strengths and weaknesses as set out above.
It is clear that two of the systems, the Common Pool and Single Shop Window,
more directly address the issue of pan-London mobility. However, it is worth noting
that these systems would be more time consuming and challenging to implement
and would need to be mandatory.
None of the models implies a pre-determined level of mobility as a proportion of all
lettings; this would need to be agreed as part of the process of implementation.
Neither do any of the models mean that LAs must necessarily move to common
operating systems or allocations policies and procedures. It is, however, arguable
that the Common Pool approach is most suitable to allow for a move in this
direction in the future.
In taking the project forward, there are a number of questions that need to be
answered by the steering group to determine the future work of the project groups:





Is any system preferable to the others? If so should we work on
developing this model?
Should we continue to develop all (or some) of the models and map out
in more detail how they might work before taking such a decision?
In particular, should the IT group examine the feasibility of one or more of
the models?
What additional work needs to be done to develop the models?
Who is best placed to take this work forward?
Berwyn Kinsey
15 March 2005
Appendix 5
Research Brief: The impact of a pan-London CBL
scheme on Homelessness and Temporary Accommodation
Introduction
Increasingly lettings of social housing are made through choice
based lettings systems, either schemes based within borough
boundaries or schemes operating across a sub-region. The
Government in its five year plan ‘Sustainable Communities: homes
for all’ has set a target of all local authorities having a choice
based lettings system by 2010.
The ALG and other London stakeholders are assessing the viability
of establishing a Choice Based Lettings and Mobility scheme across
London. The final shape of such a scheme is to be decided and
will be influenced by this research, but any scheme will have some
element of pan-London lettings.
Local Authorities have statutory responsibilities to homeless
households. Once a homelessness duty has been accepted it can
only be discharged following a qualifying offer of suitable
accommodation. Normally such an offer of accommodation is made in
social housing.
Homeless households are placed in temporary
accommodation pending such an offer.
Temporary Accommodation numbers have been rising for a number of
years and currently there are 62,000 homeless households living in
temporary accommodation in London. The Government in its five
year plan has set a target of halving temporary accommodation
usage by 2010.
Over coming years a number of large-scale
housing will be made in specific parts of
homeless households to such schemes could
impact on temporary accommodation numbers
mobility of such households may be within
system.
developments of social
London. The mobility of
potentially have an
for boroughs.
The
the framework of CBL
The purpose of commissioning this research is to understand the
implications for local authorities of establishing a pan-London
CBL system specifically with regard to managing homelessness and
temporary accommodation. Primarily homeless households to whom
boroughs have a statutory responsibility, but also to other
homeless people that may have been identified as priorities in
homelessness strategies.
Objectives
ALG and other London stakeholders need:







To understand whether a pan-London CBL and Mobility scheme is
likely to put upward pressure on temporary accommodation
numbers, or whether there is scope for such a scheme to
reduce numbers in temporary accommodation
To understand the risks of a CBL and Mobility scheme with
regard to managing homelessness and how best to manage these
risks
To establish whether the number of homeless households being
housed through a pan-London CBL and Mobility scheme is likely
to be greater or smaller than existing arrangements
To assess other likely implications for homeless households
of a pan-London choice based lettings scheme, for example
waiting times to rehousing, satisfaction levels and so on
To assess the implications for equalities and diversity from
the implementation of a pan-London CBL and mobility scheme
To understand the implications of a pan-London CBL and
mobility scheme for the creation of sustainable and mixed
communities
To recommend best practice in the development of a pan-London
CBL and Mobility scheme.
Outputs



A written report is to be provided, setting out main findings
and recommendations
The report should include modelling out different scenarios
for a CBL and Mobility scheme.
This should include
different proportions of pan-London CBL lettings made by
local authorities (including those achieved through RSL
nomination rights). The model should also map out the
different outcomes that might be expected depending on which
type of scheme was adopted, e.g. would there be significant
variance if one of the existing schemes was used as a
template for the pan-London CBL and Mobility scheme.
All supporting evidence should be provided.
Methodology
We would expect you to set out and agree the detailed methodology
that you will use in this exercise as part of the tendering
process.
This should include:


Quantitative and qualitative analysis of a sample of single
borough schemes
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the 3 existing subregional schemes in London.
Timescales
The final report is required by the 30th June 2005.