Items
No. |
Item |
17. |
Declaration of Members' Interests
In accordance with
the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any
interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at
this meeting.
Minutes:
Councillor Perry declared a non-pecuniary
interest in item 9 (Changes to Reside), as he was a tenant of
Reside.
|
18. |
Minutes- To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2021 PDF 87 KB
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 31 March
2021 were confirmed as correct.
|
19. |
Minutes - To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2021 PDF 84 KB
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2021
were confirmed as correct.
|
20. |
Minutes - To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021 PDF 81 KB
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021
were confirmed as correct.
|
21. |
Minutes - To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2021 PDF 82 KB
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 September
2021 were confirmed as correct.
|
22. |
Appointeeship and Deputyship PDF 57 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Council’s Programme Manager for
Revenues and Benefits (PM) delivered a presentation on the current
arrangements for Appointeeship and
Deputyship within the Council, as well as the plans to implement a
Deputyship service from December 2021 to sit alongside the current
Appointeeship Council service. Both
services were in place to support residents without the capacity to
manage their own finances, or who did not have a family member
willing to conduct these matters on their behalf, but whilst the
Appointeeship service was limited to
small amounts of money and every day financial matters, the
Deputyship service could encompass all aspects of financial matters
(depending on Court of Protection (COP) directives).
In response to questions from Members, the PM
stated that:
- The current annual charge for
residents to use the Council’s Appointeeship service was just over £400,
which equated to £8 per week.
- Many residents using the
Council’s Appointeeship service
did have family members, but for various reasons, and in the best
interests of their relatives, they chose for an independent person
to provide this financial support. This was also likely to occur
with the new Deputyship service. In the case of deputyships, many
family members often opted to spend valuable time with their
relatives, rather than having to worry about their financial
administration.
- In some cases, family members
preferred to take on the responsibility of their relatives’
financial affairs. However, some then struggled with the difficult
nature of this role and opted for the Deputyship service at a later
point.
- If a resident using the Deputyship
service passed away, the Council would settle their estate and
arrange their funeral. Whenever the Council took on a new
appointeeship or deputyship, it would
always try to ensure that a will was in place, so that the wishes
of the individual could be fulfilled. The service would aim to
liaise with family members and the Adult’s Care and Support
(ACS) team as soon as possible around this.
- If possible, the Council would
liaise with the resident themselves around their will, as they may
still have the capacity to express their wishes for their assets or
estate, even if they lacked capacity to manage their financial
affairs more generally. In many cases, residents also had advocates
or family members who were able to help them make these decisions
without any kind of coercion. However, if officers suspected
coercion, they could refer to colleagues in the adult safeguarding
team for advice or intervention.
- If a resident was not using the
Council’s Appointeeship or
Deputyship service, their family member was withholding their
finances, and if the resident was known to the ACS team, ACS would
make an assessment. If ACS believed that the resident was unable to
look after their financial affairs and that their family was not
dealing with their affairs appropriately, then ACS would step in to
try to resolve the situation. In some cases, ACS could also apply
for an order from the Court of Protection, without the approval of
the family members, ...
view the full minutes text for item 22.
|
23. |
Adaptations PDF 60 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Council’s
Head of Housing and Asset Strategy (HH), and Project Manager,
Adults’ Care and Support (PMA) delivered a presentation on
adaptations to council resident and private ownership properties,
to help residents gain an increased level of independence. This
included an overview of the assessment process, how funding was
spent, issues through the system, the impact of Covid-19, projects
underway to increase the supply of adapted homes in the Borough and
the utilisation of existing housing stock. The Cabinet Member for
Social Care and Health Integration (CM) also emphasised the
importance of managing the expectations of residents, by having
open conversations with them at the beginning of the adaptations
process about their requirements, realistic objectives and the Council’s adaptations
budget.
In response to a
suggestion from the Chair relating to the Council ‘growing
its own’ occupational therapists (OTs) due to a national OT
shortage, the CM stated that the Council was exploring the
potential to establish its own OT course, along with Coventry
University London (CUL). CUL would run the course and the Council
would use the apprenticeship levy to enable it to offer a salary to
those in training. The CM hoped that this course would be
established from Autumn 2021. The Council was also exploring the
option of working with North East London
NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT) and neighbouring boroughs, to ensure
that the course could gather the numbers required to run and more
people could benefit from the offer.
In response to further
questions from Members, the PMA and the Operational Director for ACS
stated that:
- A social care
assessment would be the first stage in helping to support someone
who had an immediate need for an adaptation. The adaptation would
be the next stage to help them to reach their
independence.
- The adaptations
waiting list, which was based on the level of need, was assessed on
a regular basis. The team would try to prioritise those deemed to
be in more need; however, this could sometimes prove difficult
depending on the adaptation itself. There were various stages
within the adaptations process where delays could occur, such as
through the planning process, architects
or neighbour disputes. The team would facilitate the process and
try to ensure that the adaptation was completed as quickly as
possible.
- The Dynamic
Purchasing System (DPS) was a commissioning tool that sat within
the Commissioning service. Details of a job for works could be
uploaded to the system and contractors could bid for that job. The
team would then review the bids that came through and select the
most viable option, and all bidding contractors would already be on
the Council’s approved framework. For a long time, the
Council had been in a situation whereby it had had to wait for
Barking and Dagenham Management Services (BDMS) to take on
adaptations works, and this had caused quite a backlog of work. The
DPS had helped significantly in reducing this backlog, especially
considering the shortage of companies able to undertake such work,
and the ... view
the full minutes text for item 23.
|
24. |
Changes to Reside PDF 63 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The HH delivered a
presentation on Reside, including a breakdown of the current
tenures, plans for future growth, the addition of market rent
properties to the Reside portfolio and plans to manage this, and
the Reside tenancy policy, which enabled residents to stay within
their properties as long as they were
paying their rent and abiding by the conditions of their
tenancy.
In response to
questions from Members, the HH stated that:
- The reason as to why
the majority of new homes were being
built at the intermediate tenure, at 80 per cent of market rent,
was to enable the Council to receive more income to help pay for
its new build programme, as it was borrowing lots of money to build
its new homes. This rent level could be reduced in future, but this
would also reduce the annual income gained by Reside, could impact
on its ability to run operationally and to repay its loans. These
rents would need to be charged initially to meet the financial
metrics set by the Council around its investments, and whilst the
Council could change the rent policy for new homes in this category
in future, it would need to work through any implications before
doing so.
- In order to build more social rent
and intermediate rent properties, the Council needed to build
market rent properties. This income would also contribute towards
borrowing and operational costs.
- In charging full
market rent tenures, Reside was
competing with the private sector and it was therefore conducting
more research into where it sat within the market. The private
rented sector in the Borough was currently made up of lots of
individual landlords that owned one or two properties, and shared
accommodation, as well as some private companies that were
providing Build to Rent homes similar to
the Council. The market rent homes built by the Council would be
targeted more to the needs of local
residents.
- He would need to send
the Committee a more detailed breakdown of different tenures.
Reside had built a number of social rent
properties, and some at target rents, and others at different rent
levels. The vast majority of what was being built was at London
Affordable Rents (LAR), which was the GLA proxy for social rent.
New GLA funding has now ended LAR and returned to social rents. In
Reside, there was not a service charge on top of LAR, whereas the
typical model for social rent was rent plus a service charge;
however, the schemes were not too dissimilar in regards to overall
charges.
- The Council used GLA
grant to build social rent tenures, and right-to-buy receipts for
intermediate rent tenures. Having market rent tenures, where the
Council does not need to use its limited subsidy, is helpful in
generating additional income, which can then be used across other
Council services.
- There were no
proposals at this stage to change schemes that had already gone
through Planning.
- It was recognised
that the performance of Reside needed to ... view
the full minutes text for item 24.
|
25. |
Work Programme PDF 77 KB
Minutes:
The Chair informed the
Committee of the following change that had been made to the Work
Programme since the last meeting, which was noted by the
Committee:
- The Disability
Payment Disregards item, which was due to come to the 8 December
2021 Committee, would instead be deferred to a meeting in the first
quarter of 2022. This was because the impact and potential
implications of the ‘Norfolk Judgement’ for Barking and
Dagenham were still unknown at this stage.
|