70. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2005 were confirmed.

71. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations at this stage.

72. CALL-IN OF THE RECORD OF DECISION 08/05 TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS – PROVISION OF HOUSING FRONT DESK AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION SERVICE

The Chairman welcomed Mr M Thatcher of the Law Centre to the meeting.

The three members responsible for the call-in were invited to outline their reasons for taking such action. They believed the decision as to why the funding had been withdrawn from the Law Centre should be debated and wanted an assurance that an improved service could be achieved by bringing it in-house.

The Portfolio Holder indicated that if the amount of money involved had been for a lesser amount then the decision would have been made under officer delegated powers.

Although funding of £50,000 had been obtained from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) for 2005/06 there was no guarantee of further funding in future years. The homelessness service was currently provided externally by the Law Centre with other related services being provided by the Council. This was not however deemed to be the most cost effective way to run the service. It was suggested that the contract with the Law Centre, to provide the housing front desk and homelessness prevention service, be terminated and the £50,000 grant from the ODPM used to provide a fully integrated options, advice, prevention and investigation service within Housing Services. The funding had not as yet been withdrawn as 3 months notice had to be given.

There was some discussion with regard to the hours that the Law Centre’s was open with limited accessibility for early mornings and late afternoons. If a service was to be provided it should be on the same lines as the host company.

The Acting Head of Housing and Community Support advised members that although the Housing Service had been in a transitional stage he was confident of achieving harmonisation with the service. The team now had 2 Homelessness Prevention Officers in place. The Audit Commission had upgraded the service to one that had excellent prospects for improvement.

The Audit Commission had also stated that the advice given by the Law Centre was excellent. Members asked how many meetings had been held before a decision to withdraw funding had been made.

The Portfolio Holder advised the Select Committee that the Law Centre had not signed the contract as they were unable to deliver the service the Council wanted. The first draft of the contract was shared with the Law Centre in October 2004. A meeting to discuss the contract was held with Mr Thatcher on 17 November 2004 followed by an invitation to sign the contract on 26 November 2004. There had been considerable delay in signing the contract and a further meeting was held on 5 January 2005 before the contract was finally signed on 11 February 2005.

There was some discussion relating to the fact that free advice was being given to landlords rather than tenants, Mr Thatcher indicated that although the Law Centre should be dealing with the most vulnerable people the contract stated that they had to work with landlords.

Mr Thatcher told the Select Committee that homelessness prevention was the Law Centre’s biggest work load. They had dealt with 120 cases from the court desk within the last 12 months for eviction or re-possession and of those only 8 had been unsuccessful. The homelessness statistics had dropped from 390 to 330 since May 2004. He believed that people would still call at the Law Centre with their eviction warrants, and it was the only one in the country being operated as a drop-in centre.

The Select Committee believed that the Audit Commission had proposed the housing front desk and homelessness prevention service should be brought back in-house but subsequently understood that was not the case and therefore members felt they had been mislead on that point.

Members asked for an outline of the Council’s proposed drop-in provision, court desk cover, domestic violence and who would be dealing with the injunction work. The Acting Head of Housing and Community Support advised the Select Committee that they proposed to deal with the full range of homelessness advice, including the provision of cover for the court desk. They currently provided a mediation service for domestic violence and were developing other areas. Members wanted an assurance that the service would be delivered.

The Select Committee understood that the service had started off as taking back the provision of the Housing Front Desk and Homelessness Provision wider areas of concern had now been thrown up. Members asked if the Housing Department had the means to provide all the services needed and believed the Council had to be careful not to jeopardise a service that members of the public had come to rely on. It was suggested that the Council could focus on the housing functions and the Law Centre to concentrate on all legal aspects. The Select Committee wanted to ensure that the areas of concern were properly addressed before a decision was implemented and suggested that all parties work collectively for the good of the clients.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR ADULT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND THE ACTING HEAD OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT :

The decision be referred back to the Portfolio Holder for further consideration and an updated report be brought back to the 28 April 2005 Adult and Community Services Select Committee.

CHAIRMAN