Agenda item

The Private Housing and Accessible Homes Manager outlined the details of the report to the HMB emphasising that the Accessible Homes and TEC Hub was a team in Homes and Landlord Services focussed on assisting people to remain independent in their own homes. The team carried out a range of interventions to support residents to remain living independently in their own home from equipment to bedroom and bathroom extensions. The team arranged and oversaw the repair of bathing adaptations and the servicing and maintenance of lifts in council properties. In January 2020 a new TEC Hub had joined the team and was responsible for assessing for and providing Technology Enable Care to support adult care in providing innovative solutions to care in people’s homes. The team was made up of a range of staff including Occupational Therapists (OTs) and Occupational Therapy Aids (OTAs) who were responsible for carrying out assessments of people’s needs regarding access to their home environment.

The Board was informed that the Accessible Homes team had not been able to deliver on its home adaptation referrals over the last twelve to eighteen months due to the ongoing Covid-19 crisis, chronic staff shortages and significant contractual issues.

To mitigate and resolve these ongoing issues there were now robust plans in place to significantly reduce current waiting times over the coming six to eight months and improve delivery of the service.

Arising from questions the following points were made/clarified –

a)      The service carried out repairs to homes of disabled council, housing association and private tenants and to homeowners. The budget was split between the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and the Government’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for disabled homeowners and private tenants.

b)      Both budgets were well overcommitted and likely to be overspent due to a 20% increase in referrals, however there had been some additional funding from government (DFG) sources.  This was primarily due to the Government’s aspiration to discharge as many people as possible from hospital as soon as practical to ensure better care and wellbeing for people by being supported in their own homes.

c)      Noted that the workload was increasing, and it was therefore essential that there was value for money to achieve good outcomes. To support this there was an assessment process designed to give a bespoke outcome, it was acknowledged that this was not necessarily the same as what tenants/homeowners wanted. 

d)      New build homes were being adapted to ensure they were fully accessible for disabled people and where properties were re-let adaptations would be made at that time.

e)      Noted there were 202,000 homes/units in the city and many were being modified for improved accessibility, although it was acknowledged that most walk up blocks were not likely to be suitable for this as most disabled people would find them more challenging with access, unless they were on the ground floor.   

f)       Regarding younger families with disabled children noted that their needs were more specific and bespoke eg, families wanted to live near schools and family/friends. 

g)       Generic adaptations eg, wider doors, were being completed wherever possible as resources allowed. Limited accessible, housing stock made it more challenging.      

The Board noted the report and comments made during the discussion.