To consider the final report on the work of the Discretionary Housing Payments [DHP] Task and Finish Group.  The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, Councillor Chris Mellings, will present the report. 

The Chairman of the DHP Task and Finish Group presented its findings to the Committee.  He stated that the members of the Group had found the work to be interesting and thanked the Officers involved in supporting the Group. 

He drew attention to the fact that although there was a broad framework for the allocation of DHP, every individual case had different circumstances; he added that the Group had been able to consider a number of case studies and this had helped considerably in drawing up its conclusions. He added that the Task and Finish Group had also been made aware of the new processes and procedures that were being developed for the new team of staff whose work area also included the Support and Prevention Fund.

In drawing Members’ attention to the Task and Finish Group’s recommendations, as detailed on pages 6 and 7 of the report, he drew particular attention to recommendation 6 [relating to the inclusion of Disability Living Allowance DLA within the calculation for DHP] and recommendation 9 which highlighted the shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom properties that prevented people from downsizing to more appropriate accommodation for their needs.

In response to a Member’s query, the Chairman of the Task and Finish Group commented that the Group had wished to speak to DHP applicants face to face but, unfortunately the applicants had been too daunted to be interviewed by Councillors and had declined.

In response to another Member’s concerns regarding the inclusion of DLA within the calculation for DHP, the Task and Finish Group Chairman commented that the new processes and procedures being used by the new staff team included closer working with support workers and ongoing dialogue rather than being a very paper based assessment.  It was further noted that consideration of case studies had shown that some such applicants had excess income over expenditure; DHP should be considered as a short term stop gap whilst steps were taken to come to a longer term solution.

A Member’s proposal to exclude DLA from the DHP calculation and to include this aspect as a key part of the recommended 6 month review did not receive sufficient support from the Committee.  The majority were supportive of recommendation 6 from the Task and Finish Group that did not exclude DLA from the DHP calculation whilst recognising that this would form a key part of the 6 month review of the Council’s revised processes.

Referring to a Member’s query whether there was any appeal process, he added that the new process included a Reconsideration Board that provided an opportunity to review and reconsider applications.

The Task and Finish Group Chairman recognised Members’ concerns that DHP funding that was unspent was returned to government but gave assurances that the Task and Finish Group had been satisfied that DHP funding was being used for its intended purposes, was being allocated appropriately to support applicants and need was being met.  He commented that any additional DHP funding received by the Council would be spent to support the need and he hoped that Members would recognise that in some years the monies would be underspent and in other years there may be more applicants than funding available.  An understanding of ‘need’ was recognised as being an integral part of the application process.

In response to a Member’s query on the increase in DHP funding received by the Council, the Welfare Reform and Support Manager explained that some applicants needed their funding awarded for a longer period of time in order to allow them to change their situation and this could take longer to achieve.

RECOMMENDED:

That the following recommendations from the DHP Task and Finish Group be endorsed by the Performance Management Scrutiny Committee and considered by Cabinet:

1. The Group is concerned it is unable to evidence original approval of the scheme and that it may be timely for Council to re-approve the policy with a particular clarification of the Council’s objectives for the use of DHPs.

2. Given the impact of Welfare Reform and other pressures the Group acknowledges the importance of DHPs and the support it can provide to tenants at a time of change.

3. The Group believes it is important to ensure the use of Shropshire’s allocation is maximised to support the need of Shropshire tenants.

4. The statistics on grant and refusals of awards are provided for the DWP which do not give a full picture of the scheme’s operation. The Group feel a local set of indicators would be beneficial in understanding its operation and outcomes.

5. The Group supports the introduction of the revised process from 1^st June as a more flexible, simplified approach. It suggests that its impact be reviewed in 6 months’ time by the Task & Finish Group.

6. Given the commentary within the report, the Group believes that at the present time DLA should not be excluded from the calculation but this should form a key aspect of the 6 month review referred to in recommendation 5 to ensure the needs of disabled tenants are being met.

7. Whilst most applications are from social housing tenants, the scheme also applies to tenants in the private rented sector. Though engagement has proved difficult, the Group believes that attempts should be made to better support private rented tenants through the use of DHPs.

8. The Group had discussion about tenant’s awareness of DHPs. Though obviously Support Workers and others are well versed in DHPs the Group felt there should be a greater awareness by tenants of DHPs and their purpose.

9. It is clear that many applications relate to the impact of the Spare Room Subsidy. Whilst a number of people have been assisted to downsize to more appropriate accommodation, it is clear there is a shortage of such accommodation. Though perhaps outside the scope of our consideration, the Group strongly believe that future development of social rented housing needs to take account of this shortfall and development programmes need to allow for increasing the availability of one and two bedroom properties. Whilst it is possible that the future policy framework could change, the Group feel that this is an area worthy of further consideration by Scrutiny.