Vulnerable but……………

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33913
    keith j
    Participant

    Any comments gratefully received,
    Am I right in thinking those in receipt of funding from “Supporting People” should not be classified as vulnerable as the funding is theoretically to assist independent living. i.e. taking responsibility for their rent,bills,etc.etc.
    Or should I be looking at each individual case?

    #48078
    JamesPickering
    Participant

    I think you need to look at each one individually as it will depend on the support package they are receiving and how long they have been receiving it.

    I would say that any award to a customer with help from supporting people would need a shortish review period to ascertain when they would start being able to take responsibility to pay the rent.

    I would also say it would be hard to make a decision to pay the tenant if the support worker wrote in to say the tenant couldn’t manage to pay their rent.

    James

    P.S. As everyone knows all cases are looked at individually to avoid blanket policies… 😉

    #48079
    keith j
    Participant

    Thanks James
    Blanket? What Blanket 😉

    #94367
    Accura
    Participant

    I raised this with the DWP on one of their roadshows

    Given that the DWP had not provided ongoing funding for the potential increased resource requirements to manage queries regarding payments and vulnerability, how would they safeguard against LAs implementing a broad vulnerability policy to make it easier for payments to landlords (not that I was thinking of doing this of course!).

    Their response was that they didn’t expect LAs to operate in this way!

    Initially we intend to provide this level of support but long term broad and flexible vulnerability policies may be the way some LAs choose to minimise the resourcing requirements – i.e. if in doubt just pay the LL!

    #94368
    Accura
    Participant

    I raised this with the DWP on one of their roadshows

    Given that the DWP had not provided ongoing funding for the potential increased resource requirements to manage queries regarding payments and vulnerability, how would they safeguard against LAs implementing a broad vulnerability policy to make it easier for payments to landlords (not that I was thinking of doing this of course!).

    Their response was that they didn’t expect LAs to operate in this way!

    Initially we intend to provide this level of support but long term broad and flexible vulnerability policies may be the way some LAs choose to minimise the resourcing requirements – i.e. if in doubt just pay the LL!

    #48082
    keith j
    Participant

    Having established that NONE of us will be using a blanket policy, are people intending to decide vulnerable applications at assessment stage (i.e the individual assessor will decide) or will some sort of decision making body be set up to discuss each case?….Just planning for time, resource etc.etc. Although I suppose in a naive way I shouldn’t be expecting too many of them 🙄

    #94369
    JamesPickering
    Participant

    We will be deciding all of ours individually. it will depend on whether its a new claim or change of address and what evidence is supplied.

    We won’t be holding up processing new claims or changes of address whilst we make the decision.

    #94370
    Accura
    Participant

    My current ideas include;

    1.process map / flowchart for assessors
    2.escalation route for complex cases e.g. LL / tenant disputes
    3.Dedicated point of contact for LLs and predefined standards of evidence and / or forms for LLs to sign.

    I have no doubt that many switched on LLs will cry wolf with potential arrears, but as the DWP have stated LAs are free to change payee before the 8 weeks is up if on balance they feel the tenant is at risk of not handing over the dosh to the LL.

    We’re in the early stages of LL engagement but I think we need to hear what the LLs think before we put policies in place that ignore their view point.

    #94371
    JamesPickering
    Participant

    Accura – stop coming on here with your new fangled ideas about engaging LL’s, thats not the traditonal LA approach now is it.

    Where does that include the normal approach of [u:b01575a4b1]telling[/u:b01575a4b1] our customers what they want.

    #94372
    Accura
    Participant

    sorry James how “blue skies” of me 🙄

    I have to be honest my initial reaction to all of this LHA malarky was thinking that landlords would run away from benefit tenants in droves but I am now sold on this idea of getting them on board to encourage inclusivity in delivering our service for the collective benefit of our key customers and stakeholder engagement through forward-looking investment and a balanced policy matrix approach and preventing failure with regenerated transitional contingencies.

    Our external consultants recommended a quality administrative paradigm shift with a solution that can provide us with deconstructed asset options. With our initial exploratory research pointing to an interactive administrative projection and as we already know you really can’t fail with homogenised incremental processing. Only LAs stuck in the 90s will go for a deconstructed orchestrated efficient convergence with morph key player platforms without first empowering their financial bandwidth. We all need to incentivize next-generation metrics, engineer transparent interfaces by cultivating impactful vortals and optimize stakeholder synergies.

    don’t ya think? 😉

    #94373
    keith j
    Participant

    Yeah!!

    #94374
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I thought the whole point of having 9 or so local authorities heavily subsidised by DWP to ‘pathfinder’ the scheme was to provide much needed feedback on issues like this to inform national roll out.It really disappoints me that the vast majority of authorities are having to grapple with issues like this in the absence of any feedback or advice from the pathfinders.Come on pathfinders,let’s hear from you or do these pathfinder authorities not subscribe to hbinfo.org

    #94375
    JamesPickering
    Participant

    There is quite a lot of information on the disk sent by the DWP which I assume was originally supplied by the Pathfinders.

    #94376
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Or Peem, you could do what we have done – get in touch with your nearest pathfinder and ask them? 8)
    Damn sight easier than waiting for information, anyway 😉

    #94377
    robinjc
    Participant

    OK people here we come out of the woodwork! I work for one of the original pathfinders and of course we are happy to help (as my mate at tescos would say!).
    We now deal with applications for ‘vulnerable’ status at assessment stage. Originally we had a pathfinder team cos we had funding to pay for it but we’ve merged it into assessment now as the on-going funding has almost stopped. As someone mentioned earlier, we don’t allow this to hold up the assessment. If we don’t have proof of vulnerability the claimant gets paid.
    On our claim form we ask the claimant if we can share non-personal details with the landlord, provided they say yes when we start or stop payments to the tenant the landlord is informed as well. Bearing in mind that claimants are paid fortnightly, we introduced a policy whereby if the tenant has received 2 cheques and failed to pay the landlord they can apply for direct payments immediately, as long as they prove the tenants arrears we change it over on the grounds that the tenant has shown that they are unlikely to pay their rent.

    Before becoming a pathfinder we paid over 80% of our claims to the landlord, so this was a huge change for our landlords to accept. We introduced a landlord forum which, after the initial furore and resistance to tenant payment was very well received. We also do regular newletters, publicity in the local press etc. A big change for us as we previously avoided contact with landlords unless we could help it!

    If you do want any info about our experience we have a LHA liaison person – kim.holmes@nelincs.gov.uk

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.