Post by Patrick Torsney on May 10, 2012 13:09:42 GMT
Chris noted in another thread the rather restrictive nature of the brief definition the LSC has given the Housing work in the future contract. The brief Housing definition says (my emphasis):
Covers possession of the home (other than mortgage possession), eviction from the home (including unlawful eviction); seeking repairs to rented accommodation where the disrepairs pose a serious risk of harm to health or safety; homelessness assistance for persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness; injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in the context of housing and ASBO matters in the county court
I think what is also interesting about these 'brief definitions' is that when you compare the Debt definition:
Covers mortgage possession of the home, orders for sale of the home, and involuntary bankruptcy (including dealing with a statutory demand) where the person’s estate includes their home
You note that they appear to have differentiated - split - the types of possession between the two category types: mortgage cases go to Debt, rent cases go to Housing
Whether this is an issue remains to be seen. If both Debt and Housing need to be done together as, ostensibly, one broad category then it will mean that certain cases must be reported as Debt matters and other certain cases as Housing
You can read the brief definitions of the categories in this document:
The issue (IMHO) regarding the split between Housing and Debt is that Debt must go through the Telephone Gateway before there being the possibility of face-to-face advice.
"Services in Debt..will be subject to the mandatory telephone gateway, which will mean that clients will need to access these services through the telephone in the first instance."
Thus, if a provider opens a matter as Housing, but the LSC then on audit decides it actually comes within Debt, then (on my reading), despite the provider having a Debt contract (as Housing & Debt will be one contract category), the provider will not be paid for that matter unless the client has gone through the Mandatory Telephone Gateway and been referred to that provider.
Post by Patrick Torsney on May 11, 2012 8:03:35 GMT
Looks correct to me and, I think both points are tied up together - correctly identifying the split in terms of types of work and the fact that the directing of the client once this has been decided may get messy given the gateway for Debt but not Housing
The decision point is going to be at the outset - providers will need to be able to identify correctly that something must go through the gateway from the off. As you say, if they get it wrong, then there may be trouble
It raises lots of practical issues, not least what you do when a client presents with (in scope) debt in person? Presumably, you would need to tell them to access the gateway first as this would be the only way they could get to see a specialist in Debt?
Have we got anything anywhere on the remit of the gateway? It would be useful to know how restrictive it will be - for example, could a client ring them and say "I'm in an agency now, and they can make me an appointment" or, could the gateway 'pinch' the client, saying perhaps that they don't need an appointment or that they should go somewhere else?
Depending on its remit, the gateway decision-makers could end up deciding the fate of organisations that are relying on them to make both appropriate referrals and, enough of referrals to generate adequate cashflow
We're trying to work this out as we go along so people please feel free to comment and throw your views in, especially if you've dug anything out of any relevant documentation
Sorry to be dense - will providers have to bid for housing and debt or can we choose which [In my case housing] - ie are they bundling categories together as they did SWL. From my reading of their advert it looks separate.
My understanding is that it will be a joint contract for Housing & Debt.
This raises the question of whether a provider needs a Supervisor in Debt in order to obtain the Housing & Debt contract. This would be despite the fact that the provider will rarely (never?) get to provide Debt advice as all Debt advice must initially go through the Mandatory Telephone Gateway.
Many questions are raised regarding this Housing & Debt contract and not sure when the LSC will start proving any explanations.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out in terms of volume- the number of cases/NMSs allocated per procurement area- and how the bidding for lots is done. Will we end up with a high number of successful small bids or a low number of successful large ones? The PQQ requirements could well steer us into one or the other I think.
Post by lordgreenform on May 13, 2012 18:27:36 GMT
do we know yet if these brief definitions of both housing and debt is an exhaustive list and all we are waiting for is a precise defintion of each term? eg "threatened with homeless" or " immediate risk" etc.
what about other types of cases not mentioned at all and would not be included within the words/ terms quoted so far? eg unfair reationships of secured loans under consumer credit act
do we know yet if these brief definitions of both housing and debt is an exhaustive list and all we are waiting for is a precise defintion of each term? eg "threatened with homeless" or " immediate risk" etc.
what about other types of cases not mentioned at all and would not be included within the words/ terms quoted so far? eg unfair reationships of secured loans under consumer credit act
I believe we have to assume that all work that is out of scope will remain out of scope. So, unless it falls within the final definition (and I can't see any reason it would), that's it, it's out and not covered
I don't know the answer to Chris' question on Supervisor Standards however, my guess would be that it won't be a matter of current Housing Supervisors having to meet the current Debt Standard. Generally, the Standards themselves reflect the work that can be done under the scheme and I can't see the LSC making it excessively difficult within the Bid Round
I think the harder Supervisor transition is likely to be a Debt Supervisor wanting to move to Housing; assuming this crops up anywhere and is necessary
Having thought about it some more, I would imagine that, as the categories are being combined by the LSC, then there will be a new Supervisor Standard covering this new combined category of Housing & Debt with the necessary knowledge and skills covering the types of cases that will be left in scope as the per the LSC's brief definitions.
Thus, as Patrick says, I would have thought it will be relatively straightforward for a current Housing Supervisor to qualify as a supervisor in the new combined category, but more difficult for a current Debt Supervisor to make the transition.
