Matt Hillman, Maintenance Manager gave a presentation on Decent Homes and Responsive Repairs in response to a question asked at a previous Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee on why the numbers of day to day repairs were so high given the amount of decent homes work that had been completed.
He highlighted the following main points:
· What was Decent Homes?
o It met the current statutory minimum standard for housing
o It was in a reasonable state of repair
o It had reasonably modern facilities and services
o It provided a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
· Lincoln Standard
· Investment Performance
· What was a responsive repair?
o City of Lincoln Council was responsible for the structure, exterior, services and common parts of the property.
· Areas covered by Maintenance
o Emergency Repair (24 hours) Remove immediate danger to the occupants of a property or outside space.
o Urgent Repair (3 day) – Any defect where comfort or convenience of the tenant or third party was seriously affected.
o Routine Repair (20 day) Any defect that could be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to a tenant or a third party, and could wait until the next convenient maintenance visit.
· Maintenance Figures
· Decent Homes Delivery vs Repair Volume
o Maintenance and Investment were looking at options to share the asset management register to include customer services and inspectors.
o Repairs were only carried out once reported by the customer.
o Some repairs would require multiple tickets – thus creating more repair numbers (plastering, damp and mould).
o Inspection tickets were also included within the figures (Voids/ condensation).
o Further repairs were required dependent upon asset type (Kitchen type/ shower type).
o Recharges were also included in the figures.
o Renewal based upon condition not life span.
o Customers could not be forced to have decent home work carried out (refusals were taken out the figures and completed during void)
· Next Steps
· Invited members questions and comments:
Question: How was damage to communal areas dealt with?
Response: The Rechargeable Repairs Policy would be used if possible, it was a contentious area and Officers were currently looking at ways to improve the system.
Question: Would it be better to do a non-slip, white wash flooring in all communal areas?
Response: There was an ongoing contract to do this. The comments would be reported back to the Asset Team regarding the flooring.
Comment: The level of repairs in the new build properties were high.
Response: This would be reported back to the New Build Team.
Comment: Expressed concern over fire safety as some bungalows only had 1 door in and out of the property.
Response: Any new window that had been fitted would provide a means of escape. If there was a vulnerable person living in the property they could contact the fire service for advice. Also if a new window was required at the property they could contact the Council and we would look to improve it.
Comment: Referred to the new build properties and commented that tenants needed to report issues so that the contractors could come back and fix the issues.
Question: Were the new build properties visited?
Response: Yes there was a Tenant visit when they moved into the properties. Contractors would come back and sort out any snagging repairs.
Darren Turner, Director of Housing and Investment explained that repairs was a complex issue and the number of repairs and decent homes did not link together. There were a number of factors that affected the repairs figures, this included the way that repairs were categorised for example 1 repair could generate multiple tickets and increase the number of repairs completed in the figures.
RESOLVED that the contents of the presentation be noted.