Agenda item

Performance Monitoring Report Quarter 3 2021/22


Andrew McNeil, Assistant Director of Housing Strategy:


a.    provided Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a quarter three report on Performance Indicators for the 2021/22 financial year (April 2021- December 2021), as detailed at Appendix A of the report provided, which combined all performance relevant to Housing Landlord issues


b.    advised that of the 21 measures, 8 were on or exceeding targets for the year (year-end), and 12 had not met the normal targets set


c.    highlighted that of the 12 measures that did not meet the target, 5 of these were within 5% tolerance of their respective targets (amber rating), 3 of the 5 were year-end targets (Decent Homes and 2 financial measures) and one measure did not have a target set (Complaints replied to in line with corporate policy)


d.    reported that over the last twelve years the Council had been working with the Lincoln Tenants Panel to improve external scrutiny and to meet the standards implemented by the Tenant Services Authority


e.    reported that from April 2010 all social landlords were required to have local offers in place alongside the national standards, as set out in the new Regulatory Framework for Social Housing, amended with effect from April 2012, although the principles remained the same


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


g.    added that for comparison purposes each indicator showed last year’s performance against the target for the current year (where applicable) and progress made in the current year


h.    referred to paragraph 4.3 of the report and highlighted areas of good performance:


·         % of Rent Collected as a % of Rent Due

·         Arrears as a % of Rent Debit

·         Complete Repairs Right on First Visit (Priority and Urgent)


i.      reported at paragraph 4.4 of the report on reasons where we were close to achieving our targets (amber rating) as follows:


·         % of Homes with Valid Gas Safety Certificate

·         % of Non-Decent Homes


  1. further highlighted a brief explanation of reasons where we had not achieved our targets as detailed at paragraph 4.5 of the report:


  • Average Re-Let Period- General Needs (Excluding Major Works) - (Days)
  • Average Re-Let Period- General Needs (Including Major Works) - (Days)
  • % of Urgent (3 Days) Repairs Carried out Within Time Limits (HRS)


  1. stated that although there were no direct financial implications arising from the report, there were several indicators that did affect the HRA including the amount of rent collected and repairs and improvements; there had been an increase in material and labour costs, struggles with recruitment into vacant positions and an increase in voids due to the standard of returned property


  1. added that our financial position with finance colleagues continued to be monitored


  1. invited committees’ questions and comments.


·         Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, commenting and asking questions in the following main areas:


·         Question: How long would it take before the two roofs requiring replacement to meet the non-decent homes standard would be actioned?

·         Response: The officer would make investigations and report back to the member concerned.

·         Comment: Could Performance Indicator 37 be shown numerically rather than as a percentage.

·         Response: Yes this would be addressed.

·         Question: Why were planners being asked to prioritise 3 day jobs over 100 day tickets?

·         Response: This was down to operators’ ways of working towards the end of a day, 100 day tickets already in the diary were currently being prioritised over 1-3 day jobs as they were less urgent. This needed to be addressed. A new repairs co-ordinator would be employed to reinforce best practice between the operatives and planners.

·         Question: Were our contractors internal council staff?

·         Response: Some of our contractors were in-house. Voids were completed by a specific contractor Capital work by Kier had ceased. A balanced approach aimed at using in-house contractors was taken.

·         Comment: It would be beneficial to identify unoccupied properties through council tax/rent records to avoid operatives wasting time attending those homes for gas service inspections.

·         Question: Could yellow stickers be put across doors at properties classed as unsafe in relation to gas safety inspection?

·         Response: The operative would not always know there was an issue with the gas certificate until entry to the property was obtained.

·         Question: Were customer satisfaction figures for repairs collected?

·         Response: Yes this data was analysed.

·         Question: Were the 58 replacement front doors required due to fire safety regulations?

·         Response: They were part of the current door replacement programme.

·         Question: Would the 82 properties failing to meet the decent homes standard be prioritised to bring them up to this standard?

·         Response: Yes. They were at the highest risk for gas/electrical safety and first focus to get access to the properties.

·         Question: Where did bathroom and kitchens fall in relation to non-decent homes? There were 4 replacements that were known to be outstanding.

·         Response: They were completed on a programme of works. Some occupants refused installations. He would investigate further if supplied with the details of the four properties concerned.

·         Comment: It was thought people telephoning to make a repair requests were not asked if they were elderly or vulnerable.

·         Response: They were indeed trained to ask this question.

·         Question: Could property inspections be carried out more often than every five years in the interests of health and safety?

·         Response: Best practice was for gas inspections to be conducted once a year and 5 years for electrical safety. To bring them down below that level would incur financial resources.


Mick Barber, Chair of LTP agreed to act as an anonymous ‘happy shopper’ to obtain confirmation that staff asked tenants if they were elderly or vulnerable.




1.    The current performance outcomes during the financial year 2021/22 be noted.


2.    A commitment to continued reporting on a quarterly basis and to determine a programme to have more interim in-depth reviews of service specific performance be noted.

Supporting documents: