Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2023 be agreed and singed by the Chair as a true record

No declarations of interest were received.

Mick Barber, Chair of Lincoln Tenants Panel (LTP), provided a written report on the panel’s continued work on a variety of projects with tenancy services, fire safety assurance, maintenance, business management and resident involvement teams. The briefing note, designed as a regular update to members of Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee, covered the following areas:

• LTP continued to hold quarterly meetings with the Voids Team Leader to review void inspections and targets. The number of voids inspections had increased and all had surpassed standards. Further discussions would be held with the Voids Team Leader to establish how multiple void inspections could be conducted with limited disruption to the team. LTP members recently attended a void recharge workshop and provided recommendations.
• The Complaints Review Group continued to hold quarterly meetings. There were no further updates relating to complaints or anti-social behaviour (ASB) working groups. Recommendations from the LTP were being reviewed and the ASB accreditation was still under review, an outcome of which was expected in the near future.
• The Schedule of Repairs (SOR) Working Group had received positive information relating to performance with repair timescales. LTP offered their thanks to Amy Larder, Interim Maintenance Manager. A detailed action plan to enhance and increase the SOR programme on Facebook was currently being rolled out. LTP had reviewed the latest tenant satisfaction measure progress, reviewed the kitchen and bathroom work programme and confirmed colour choices of kitchen carcases, worktops and panelling together with style of handles. LTP had attended a 30 Year Business Plan and Estate Regeneration workshop, provided feedback and discussed engagement methods with residents. LTP had provided a set of questions to form part of the tenant wide consultation that was due to go out in August. All estate inspections had been attended by LTP members.
• LTP continued to represent City of Lincoln Council (CoLC) at Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH), TPAS (the leading tenant engagement experts) and Social Housing Quality Resident Panel.

RESOLVED that the content of the written update from the Chair of LTP be noted with thanks, to be continued as a regular agenda item.

Paula Burton, Housing Strategy & Investment Manager:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a verbal summary on performance indicators for the Directorate of Housing and Investment (DHI) for Quarter 1 of 2023/24 (April – June)

2. added that regular monitoring of the Council’s performance was a key component of the Local Performance Management Framework and supported its ongoing commitment to continuous improvement of Council services

c.     confirmed that there was a total of twenty-one performance indicators monitored by DHI. An overview of performance for the first quarter of 2023/24, against such indicators, was attached at Appendix A to the report, circulated separately to the main agenda

d.     reported that of the 21 measures in total; eight had met or exceeded their agreed target and eleven had performed below target. Three of the measures found to be performing below target were ‘year-end’ measures; one of which recorded the proportion of homes not at ‘decent homes standard,’ and the remaining two cumulatively recorded expenditure on maintenance and capital works

e.     referred to Appendix A of the report which attempted to simply the overall analysis by listing performance on a service functional basis (rents, repairs etc) and then showing the source of the indicator (reason)

f.       added that further information on the areas highlighted was provided within the report

g.     invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the verbal report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Question: The percentage of rent collected as a percentage of rent due in 2022/23 was 98.36%. In quarter 1 of 2023/24, the figure stood at 96.81%. What was the difference between the percentages in monetary terms?

Response: Information pertaining to the monetary terms would be distributed to Members further to the meeting.

Question: What was the target set for rent collections?

Response: The target set for rent collections was 97.5%. Rent collections had been more successful than anticipated.

Comment: There had been improved performance in one-day repairs. To achieve this, the Council had increased the number of operatives carrying out Priority and Urgent repairs. This helped to maintain performance despite an increase in priority repairs being reported.

Comment: The percentage of urgent repairs carried out within time limits (3 days) had fallen below target during Quarter 1. Measures had been put in place to improve performance within the area. This included the creation of a rota which would see a member of the Customer Services Team work weekly from Hamilton House alongside the Planning Team. In addition, a team leader or resource planner was being made available for those still based at City Hall to provide additional support and guidance to ensure urgent repairs were reported correctly.

Recruitment continued to be a difficulty. It was hoped that the measures implemented would deliver a positive impact against the performance measure.

Question: When was the planned reduction of the work calendar from a 12 week cycle to a 9 week cycle, due to be implemented?

Response: A meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Paula Burton, Housing Strategy & Investment Manager:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a report on the introduction of a Management of Communal Area’s Policy

2. added that the proposed Management of Communal Areas Policy laid out the approach that the CoLC would take to manage enclosed communal areas and the areas that immediately surrounded blocks of flats

3. confirmed that such a policy would have a number of benefits for all stakeholders including residents, Council staff and members of the public as detailed at paragraph 4.3 to the report

4. reported that Management of Communal Area policies were implemented by the vast majority of social housing providers in order to set out the required standards relating to safety, repairs, maintenance and aesthetics

5. referred to paragraph 3.1 of the report which defined a communal area, some of which included; communal entrances, any shared stairwell, balcony, or access path and communal parking areas  

f.       added that an agreed standard would ensure consistency during the maintenance and refurbishment of communal areas. In addition, it would ensure that safety critical aspects relating to communal areas met legal and regulatory requirements as detailed at 4.4 to the report

g.     invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Question: Why were maisonettes not included?

Response: The policy covered any communal blocks.

Comment: The report from the commissioned company would consider overall estates, the overall appearance, not specific communal areas. Consideration of an identified area would be the assessment of the regeneration of a specific area.

Question: Had LTP been consulted with on the proposed policy?

Response: Consultation with LTP had taken place.

Question: The policy was welcomed. Who would be responsible for enforcement of the policy?

Response: Expectations and enforcement would be by way of tenancy agreement as it concerned communal areas. Expectations would be communicated clearly and subsequently enforced by HRS and Investment.

Question: The policy was positive as many areas were dirty, smelly and cluttered. The policy provided for mobility scooters. Was it possible for pushchairs to be included?

Response: Suggestions would be fed back for consideration.

Comment: The report was encouraging and the policy greatly needed. All tenants and housing officers should be given a copy of it. Compliments offered to the individuals responsible for the devisal of the policy.

Question: How did the Council plan to enforce a ‘zero tolerance’ approach?

Response: Identification of the individual responsible was an essential step in any potential enforcement action. Methods of enforcement action would be contained within tenancy agreements. Previous attempts to discover the identity of a perpetrator included work with community services, often opening bin bags to ascertain if the identity of the personal responsible for rubbish could be discovered. It was not always easy to identify who owned items and/or rubbish. It was essential for the policy to be in place to enable any action to be taken.

Comment: It was hoped that the policy would give  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Paula Burton, Housing Strategy & Investment Manager:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with an update on the intention to request authorisation from Executive to proceed to lease the land to the side of Tower Flats, to Green Synergy

b.    added that the leasing of the land would enable the continuation of management and maintenance of the area by Green Synergy as a community garden in memory of Ellie Bradford, a former member of Council staff in the Housing Department who had passed away whilst still in service. Ellie was a Housing Officer and Area Housing Manager

c.    confirmed that the Council and Green Synergy had entered into an informal agreement in 2013 when Green Synergy expressed an interest in the creation of a community garden with the Tower Action Group on the Tower Estate

d.    reported that the garden was no longer open to the public and was awaiting a formal lease agreement to be in place

5. referred to 4.4 of the report whereby details of Green Synergy’s vision could be seen. The vision for the garden was to secure a formal lease for the land to enable Green Synergy to bid for available funding to encourage community participation in looking after the garden, develop the planting and increase the biodiversity in the garden. 

f.     added that the charity also sought to support sustainability through the development of compost bays on the garden and maintaining a beautiful community green space which it was hoped would contribute to the Lincoln Climate Commission challenges by increasing the native species on the garden

g.    invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Comment: Plantation would reintroduce plants and wildlife that had not been seen in Lincoln for a long time.

Comment: Proposals were for a 25-year lease, with break clauses included at five yearly intervals. Permission was necessary from Ellie Bradford’s family. Contact still needed to take place with Ellie’s son and daughter.

Question: Gardening and green spaces helped with mental health issues. Green Synergy’s work was fantastic. Was it possible to include a memorial plaque?

Response: It was possible to include a memorial plaque and that was what permission from Ellie’s family was needed for.

Comment: A memorial plaque would be very heart-warming in Ellie’s memory.

RESOLVED that Members agreed the contents of the report to progress to Executive for formal approval.

Paula Burton, Housing Strategy & Investment Manager:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with an update on the management of anti-social behaviour across introductory and secure tenancies

2. added that the Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Crime and Policing Act (2014) gave local authorities increased powers and tools to deal with ASB. Tenancy Services worked closely with the Public Protection & Anti-Social Behaviour (PPASB) and Legal Teams to combat ASB and ensure the robust and proportionate management of cases

3. confirmed that there were 72 open ASB cases within Tenancy Services as at the end of June 2023

d.     reported that there were 53 ASB cases open for noise nuisance which equated to 74% of all open ASB cases. Most of the complaints received were noise related. Ten cases (14%) were currently open for verbal abuse/harassment/intimidation and/or threating behaviour. Four cases (6%) were open for other general tenancy breaches. Two cases (2.8%) were open for pet nuisance. One case (1.4%) was open for physical violence. One case (1.4%) was open for drug related activity and one case (1.4%) was open for litter/fly-tipping

e.     added that there were six notable cases as outlined in 3.4.1 of the report

6. highlighted that Tenancy Services were undergoing a review of its ASB management with the purpose of obtaining the HQN ASB Accreditation. The review was almost finalised with a decision due within the next month

7. invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Question: How far back did the figures go?

Response: Figures contained within the report were indicative of the number of cases at June.

Comment from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: It would be useful to include cases that concerned non-council properties to provide a useful comparison. Figures to demonstrate the comparison between private housing compared to Council housing.

Response: A comparison between both housing sectors would be provided in numerical format to Members, further to the meeting.

Comment: The information at paragraph 3.2 of the report was the total number of open ASB cases. It was possible that there could be ten complainants to one case. The data demonstrated the cases, not necessarily the resources that had gone into it.

Question: Were figures for ASB contained within the Lincoln City Profile?

Response: Information on ASB was held by the Public Protection & Anti-Social Behaviour (PPASB) Team.

Question: How were non-Council tenant complaints about a Council tenant resolved?

Response: The report contained information about Council tenants. Non-Council tenant complaints would be included within figures from the PPASB Team that went to Performance Scrutiny Committee.

Question: ASB cases concerning pets and animals seemed low. Was it the case that people had not reported them?

Response: Yes. Individuals may not have reported ASB complaints about pets and animals.

Comment: Information contained within the report were ASB issues. It may be that there were complaints that weren’t ASB complaints. The report highlighted issues that had been reported to the Council, not necessarily  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

RESOLVED that this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Cub Committee to be held on 2 November 2023.

Amy Larder, Maintenance Manager:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a report to detail the changes and updates made to the Repairs Policy since its previous review in 2017

2. added that the key areas for clarification were on fencing, specifically guidance on replacements and the tenant responsibility for maintaining installed fencing. Other key alterations included responsibility to include maintenance of ventilation to the property and the cleaning/clearing of air vents by tenants

3. confirmed that the Repairs Policy aimed to identify within the provision of the Housing Act 1985 (amended) the tenants right to repair and identify the repairs that the CoLC were responsible for and those of which tenants were responsible for within the terms and conditions of their tenancy agreement

4. reported that the policy looked to provide key information on service delivery, information on services provided by CoLC and how to report a repair
   
   
5. highlighted that the items added to the policy within the tenants’ responsibilities were detailed at paragraph 4.7 to the report
6. added that the Policy had been reviewed and updated by HRS, the Investment Team and in consultation with Lincoln Tenants Panel

7. invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Question: Who was responsible for repairs on enclosed porches? Was that the responsibility of the Council or the tenant?

Response: Some areas had been enclosed by a previous tenant that should not have been. They were not classed as a habitable space. The CoLC were responsible for canopies. Areas would be referred back and then maintained from there.

Question: Would it be more appropriate for the bleeding of radiators to be a Council responsibility rather than a tenant responsibility? If radiators were not bled correctly, it could result in the loss of heating and hot water.

Response: The Council would be responsible for a boiler issue that resulted in no heating.

Question: Could Officers provide some clarification around the provisions for textured ceilings and walls?

Response: Textured ceilings and walls in good condition would only be removed at the point where a repair was needed to them. If either were already in situ, it would not present a problem, however tenants were not to install any.

Comment: Should radiators come under the service per year to be checked and removed from the tenant’s responsibility. A tenant should report if a radiator was not producing heat effectively.

Response: There were DIY videos that would accompany the Repairs Policy in order to aid tenants with the tenant’s responsibilities.

Question: When were DIY videos planned to be rolled out?

Response: The videos were planned to accompany the Repairs Policy update on the website.

Comment: Referred to electrics within the home. Changing a fuse should be a Council responsibility only.

Response: Fuses were for individual appliances only. The Council would not expect a tenant to change a fuse on a fuse box.

Question: If there were a vulnerable tenant, disabled or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Democratic Services Officer:

a.     presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with the Work Programme for 2023/24 as detailed at Appendix A to the report

b.     advised members that a draft work programme for 2023/24 had been circulated to the Chair and Vice/Chair of Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee and the Chair/Vice Chair of Lincoln Tenant’s Panel for individual input/comments prior to the first meeting of the new Municipal Year ready for use as a working document.

RESOLVED that:

1.     A report on the timescale for scheduled repairs be presented to Committee in March 2024.

2.     An update on the Downsizing Policy be deferred to the next committee meeting on 2 November 2023.

The content of the work programme be noted.

Andrea Ripley, Housing Strategy Officer:

1. presented Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a report to outline the Post Implementation Review (PIR) findings of the delivery of De Wint Court Extra Care facility, following handover from the developers in March 2022

2. added that In July 2016, Executive approved, as part of the Housing New Build Strategy, to consider a detailed appraisal of options for the refurbishment or redevelopment of De Wint Court, a 37 unit supported scheme

3. confirmed that following the open procurement exercise in the summer of 2019, ESH Construction Limited were awarded the contract to build De Wint Court with an anticipated build time of 80 weeks

4. reported that there were delays to the delivery of the scheme due to the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions. The availability of materials and labour impacted delivery substantially with a 41-week extension to the contract

5. highlighted that De Wint Court was handed over from the contractors at practical completion to City of Lincoln Council on 11 March 2022

6. added that the findings of the post implementation review could be seen at Appendix 1 to the report

7. reported that the scheme had achieved the scope to deliver a 70-unit extra care facility within the budget allocated. Lessons learned had been captured as detailed within Appendix 2 to the report

8. invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report, commented, asked questions and received relevant responses from Officers as follows:

Question: Had all units been taken?

Response: Yes. There were a small number of voids due to the nature of the scheme however all units were signed up as of October 2022.

Question: Could Officers share an update in regard to the onsite hairdressing salon?

Response:A meeting had taken place with a working hairdresser.  There had been interest in the lease however, the original design included three hair wash basins.  One of these basins was being replaced with a forward-facing hair wash basin for ease of use for wheelchair users and another basin would be removed to enable a clear view to the mirror whilst hair was  being cut.  This work was being progressed and once completed, the hairdressing salon would be ready to let.

Comment: There were lessons to be learnt in every scheme.

Question: Would the building benefit from full staff cover?

Response: Staff cover should be 07:00-22:00. Any absence of staff could be attributed to sickness. Comments regarding staffing would be fed back.

Question: Should the situation arise, was there provision for a tenant to complain to the Council regarding the Service Charge?

Response: Yes. The right to reply on the level of service charge was lawful.

Comment: A percentage of the staff charge was covered by the Council. It was a very good scheme and feedback received from residents had been very positive.

Question: The rent breakdown included an element for void properties and rent arrears. Why was this?

Response: Rent breakdowns were important to demonstrate transparency. It was not uncommon within the sector to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item(s) of business because it was likely that if members of the public were present there would be a disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100I and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item(s) of business because it was likely that if members of the public were present there would be a disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100I and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Andrea Ripley, Housing Strategy Officer, provided members with details of the De Wint Court financial revenue income and expenditure.

RESOLVED that the verbal update be noted.