AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
1.
REPORT TO:
Executive Board
REPORT NO:
PAW/33/10
DATE:
2 November, 2010
LEAD MEMBER:
Councillor Mark Pritchard
(Housing and Planning)
LEAD OFFICER:
Philip Walton
Strategic and Performance Director
CONTACT OFFICER:
Marc Williams (Tel: 315506)
SUBJECT:
Common Housing Register
WARD:
All Wards
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to seek Executive Board support in principle, to agree
the undertaking of a feasibility study looking into the implications, risks, benefits
and disadvantages of developing a Common Housing Register.
2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1
Presently, anyone wishing to apply for Social Housing within the County Borough
needs to submit separate applications to each social housing provider if they wish
to be considered by all providers for an allocation of accommodation. As of August
2010, the total number of properties owned by all participating Partners in
Wrexham is 13,093 of which Wrexham County Borough Council owns 11,541
properties representing 88.1% of the social housing stock. As of the same period,
the total number of Applicants on the waiting lists by all Partners was 4,056.
Wrexham Borough Council had 2,950 on its waiting list representing around 73% of
the total.
2.2
The Council Local Housing Strategy 2007-12 identified an action to explore the
feasibility of establishing a Common Housing Register for the County Borough. A
Common Housing Register can be defined as a group of Social Landlords jointly
agreeing a system by which anyone applying for social housing in a given
1
geographical area can register their housing needs and specify their housing
preferences.
2.3
A Common Housing Register is seen as providing simple and fairer access to
social housing. It is further seen as a more efficient way of allocating social
housing stock.
2.4
The early work undertaken so far has been progressed by the Wrexham Housing
Alliance. They established a Common Housing Register Working Group to explore
the scope for establishing a Common Housing Register. The Common Housing
Register Working Group is represented by the local authority and the registered
social landlords operating in this area.
2.5
There are currently 9 local authorities in Wales that have Common Housing
Registers in place. Four North Wales local authorities are at various stages of
developing their Common Housing Registers.
2.6
The establishment of a Common Housing Register would lead to significant
changes to the processes of housing allocation within the Borough and any
feasibility assessment will need to explore a number of matters including
information systems requirement, potential operating models and funding
requirements including agreement on contribution between Partners.
3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Members approve the commencement of a feasibility study into the
development of a Common Housing Register.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The feasibility study on the development of the Common Housing Register will inform and
influence a future decision to approve or not approve the development of a Common
Housing Register.
Philip Walton
Strategic and Performance Director
2
4.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
4.1
Presently, anyone wishing to apply for Social Housing within the County Borough
needs to submit separate applications to all social housing providers if they wish to
be considered by all providers for an allocation of accommodation. Currently, the
social housing providers operating in this area include the Council’s Landlord
Services, and three Housing Associations, namely, Clwyd Alyn, Wales & West &
Tai Clwyd. For the customer, this is a time consuming process and can mean that
some customers do not take up the opportunity available to them from a range of
housing providers. It also means that there is reduced scope to match applicants
with particular needs to the most appropriate property.
4.2
As at end of August 2010, below is the housing stock of the Council and its RSL
partners and the percentage share to overall housing stock:





4.3
Wrexham County Borough Council……..11,541……88.1%
Wales and West ……………………………..716……...5.5%
Clwyd Alyn…………………………………….638……...4.9%
Tai Clwyd……………………………………...198……..1.5%
Total………………………………………..13,093……100%
Below are the figures of Applicants on the respective waiting lists:





Wrexham County Borough Council..2950………73%
Wales and West………………………557……….14%
Clwyd Alyn…………………………….360………..9%
Tai Clwyd………………………………164……….4%
Total…………………………………..4056………100%
4.4
The Council Local Housing Strategy 2007-12 identified an action to explore the
feasibility of establishing a Common Housing Register for the County Borough.
4.5
A Common Housing Register can be defined as a group of Social Landlords
jointly devising a system by which anyone applying for social housing in a given
geographical area can register their housing needs and specify their housing
preferences. Participating Landlords then prioritise and select applicants from a
single/ common pool of applicants according to their allocation policy or policies.
The system can be supported by shared housing information, advice and in some
cases a Common Allocations Policy.
4.6
A Common Housing Register is seen as providing simple and fairer access to
social housing. It is further seen as a more efficient way of managing social housing
stock. The system involves the creation of a single process for housing applications
backed by a co-ordinated and consistent administrative and management system
covering all processes to the point of allocation. There are different models for the
Common Housing Register and it typically takes around two years to fully develop
and implement a Common Housing Register. The cost for development varies and
is dependent on the sophistication of the model chosen. A fuller outline of the
perceived advantages and disadvantages of Common Housing Registers is
provided in Appendix 1.
3
4.7
The early work undertaken so far has been progressed by the Wrexham Housing
Alliance. In October 2009 a report was presented to the Social Affairs, Health &
Housing Scrutiny Committee on the concept of Choice Based Lettings, a system of
housing allocation currently used by the vast majority of local housing authorities in
England. At that stage, Members indicated they were not supportive of Choice
Based Lettings but favoured the principles of Common Housing Registers and
Common Allocation Policies. As a result, The Wrexham Housing Alliance
established a Common Housing Register Working Group to explore the scope for
establishing a common housing register followed by a common allocations policy.
4.8
The Common Housing Register Working Group is represented by the local
authority and the registered social landlords operating in this area. The working
group have met three times and have undertaken some preliminary work on the
possible design for the structure and model of a register.
4.9
There are currently 9 local authorities in Wales that have Common Housing
Registers in place and we are aware that 4 North Wales local authorities are at
various stages of developing a Common Housing Register. The proposed feasibility
study would also explore the scope for a Common Housing Register across North
Wales authorities.
4.10
The establishment of a Common Housing Register would lead to significant
changes to the processes of housing allocation within the Borough and any
feasibility assessment will need to explore a number of matters, including:






Potential operating models
Funding requirements including agreement contributions between Partners.
Organisational commitment of all partners
The availability of expertise and capacity to develop a Common Housing
Register.
Alignment of a Common Housing Register with the allocations policies and
processes of each partner
The potential for alignment of policies and procedures including a Common
Allocations Policy.
Information systems requirements
5.0
CONSULTATION
5.1
Housing Act 1996 part VI places a requirement on Local Authorities to consult with
relevant Registered Social Landlords when implementing significant changes to its
allocation policy. There has been no public consultation on the development of a
Common Housing Register at this stage although it is anticipated that this will be
necessary if the Local Authority is to adopt a Common Housing Register once the
feasibility work is done. It is proposed that the Wrexham Housing Alliance, with its
RSL partners, will oversee the feasibility work and would seek to obtain the support
of RSL Boards for any recommendation arising from the Study.
4
6.
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6.1
The subject of this report has not been presented to the Scrutiny Committee at this
stage.
7
IMPLICATIONS
7.1
Policy Framework
The Council’s Local Housing Strategy 2007-2012 identified an action to explore the
feasibility of establishing a Common Housing Register for the County Borough.
Since the development of a Common Housing Register will lead to significant
changes in policy at the appropriate time, an Impact Assessment will be necessary
to establish impact and measures to address negative impacts. The feasibility
study will need to consider whether a Common Allocation Policy would be a
considered option as this would have a direct working impact on the Common
Housing Register.
7.2
Budget
The feasibility study will be undertaken utilising existing staffing resources within
Housing & Public Protection and partner RSL’s as apart of their normal duties and
will not incur additional costs to the authority. However, the study will need to
establish the capital and revenue costs of the development and operation of a
Common Housing Register. This will include a contribution formula on capital and
revenue cost amongst Partners.
7.3
Legal
The legal implications of the development of a Common Housing Register will be
considered as part of the feasibility work.
7.4
Staffing
The implication of staffing would be assessed as part of the feasibility study. The
study should include the impact on existing staff working around the housing
register and allocation process.
7.5
Equalities/Diversity
An equality impact assessment will be needed to determine and measure the
impact on various equality groups. The assessment will be carried out prior to any
decision on whether to implement a Common Housing register.
7.6
Risk Assessment/ Issues
A comprehensive risk assessment will be part of the feasibility work undertaken.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
None
LOCATION
5
WEBSITE INFO
APPENDIX 1
Advantages and Disadvantages of a
Common Housing Register
The Advantages
Advantages for the Social Landlord:

Greater levels of customer satisfaction through improvements and consistency.

Administrative efficiencies –management of allocations, less time spent verifying
applicants.

Providing consistency of access to housing.

Ensure best and improved use of housing stock.

Improved collection of data to assess housing need, supply and demand – avoids
double counting.

Opportunities for partnership working, joint training, sharing good practice.

Access to a large pool of tenants.

More information on prospective tenants.

Greater strategic influence for both RSL and LA

Greater opportunities for organisations to promote themselves and their service

Achievement of operational efficiencies through various economies of scale.

Effective tool for housing needs assessment for a geographical social market.
Advantages for an Applicant:

Access to any landlord through a single point of contact – 1 list instead of 4.

Improves fairness and accessibility.

Access to a larger pool of properties.

Provides greater convenience and simplicity – 1 application form and 1 information
booklet.

Applicants receive improved and consistent information.

Promotion of improved mobility within and around given geographical area.

Could positively contribute to sustainable neighbourhoods.
6
Disadvantages and Concerns of the Common Housing Register.
Disadvantages for the Social Landlord:

Risk of failure.

Development costs may be high e.g. IT, staffing and so on.

Compatibility of IT systems may be difficult to achieve.

RSLs who work across different local authorities may mean using a range of
different IT systems.

Perceived loss of control/ independence.

Limited numbers of properties may not justify the cost.

Time consuming to set up – Development takes around 24 months.
Disadvantages for an Applicant:

New system may seem more daunting/ bureaucratic.

If the register is larger, applicants may feel that chances of being housed are
lessened.

May believe that more organisations will have access to their confidential
information.

Applicant may be unaware of some Landlords and so less confident in their service.
7