Agenda item

Daren Turner, Director of Housing and Investment

a.    presented the Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with an end of year report on performance indicators for the 2021/22 financial year (April 2021-March 2022), which combined all performance relevant to Housing Landlord issues

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

c.    added 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, which was amended with effect from April 2012 although the principles remained the same

d.    reported that of the 21 measures in total; 10 were on or exceeding targets for the year (year-end), 10 had not met the normal targets set, of which 3 were within 5% tolerance of their respective targets (Amber Rating), and one measure did not have a target (complaints replied to in line with corporate policy)

e.    referred to Appendix A of the report which detailed performance against the various targets in greater detail/clarity with further information on areas highlighted at paragraph 4 of the report

f.     invited committees’ questions and comments.

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

·         Question: Why was there a high level of refusals from tenants in terms of voids being re-let. There had been 108 refusals in total which equated to 23.8%?

·         Response: The current practice allowed three refusals in total. There were a variety of reasons for this including the layout of the property, size of the garden, location of the property, presentation of the property and the upkeep of the neighbours garden. Officers were currently unable to identify any trends as to why properties were refused.

·         Question: Mick Barber, Chair of Lincoln Tenant’s Panel suggested further investigation on the reasons for refusals on properties be undertaken as the figure was quite high. Why would homeless people turn down a property?

·         Response: The incidence of refused properties from homeless people was extremely low.

·         Comment: The incidence of refused properties added further time on to the re-let period.

·         Response: The Housing Directorate  was working exceptionally hard to do all within its power to re-let council properties, for example redecorating vouchers were available.

·         Question: Who decided which customer had the first viewing on a re-lettable property?

·         Response: This  was down to need and the circumstances of the bidder.

·         Question: Once a bidder backed down, was the property offered to the next bidder?

·         Response: This was dependent upon how long the tenant had been on the waiting list.

·         Comment: In a past policy LTP Panel members had inspected the condition of void properties, they did not come across anything terrible with 9 out of 10 having no issues.

·         Question: What measures were being taken to bring voids figures back on target?

·         Response: The housing Service was doing everything it could to bring void figures back on target. Bench marking measures carried out across other authorities revealed they were in a similar position.

Daren Turner, Director of Housing and Investment provided a detailed power point presentation to members which demonstrated the multiple measures undertaken to monitor and encourage take-up of re-let properties. He emphasised that the properties had to be at a lettable standard and safe for tenants. He highlighted that three Tenancy Sustainment Officers had been appointed to assist vulnerable tenants who struggled with day to day tasks to manage their tenancies for a longer period. This would also bring about improvements.

Councillor Hewson referred to problems in terms of the turn-around time for housing repairs being completed after customer services received the repair request call. He highlighted a high incidence of customer services calls chasing repairs already reported. He asked whether tenants were made aware at the time they registered  a repair how long they would be expected to wait?

Phil Longhorn, Interim Maintenance Manager, Investment commented as follows:

·         He was conscious of the points raised; however, the detail was in the problem that calls were received from customers who did not know how the system worked.

·         Customers were now issued a date for their repair request at the first point of call which reduced the number of repeat calls into the  customer services team.

·         Repair requests could also be reported on line which speeded up the process.

·         It was important to communicate to customers via press releases and other public relation opportunities to spread awareness.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The current performance outcomes during the financial year 2021/21 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.