Agenda item

Graham Rose, Senior Strategic Policy Officer:

a)    presented a report to Performance Scrutiny Committee with an outturn summary of the council’s performance in Quarter 2 of 2022/23

b)    explained that the full report was attached as Appendix A of the report, with the Quarterly and Annual Performance Measure Outturn Tables attached as Appendix B

c)    referred to a recent Audit of Performance Management which had received limited assurance, reported to Audit Committee on 15 November 2022, resulting in Assistant Directors being asked to review and approve performance measures prior to being included in quarterly reports

d)    invited members’ comments and questions.

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

·         Question: There had been an increase of 39 customer complaints in Quarter 2 compared to Quarter 1. Was there any apparent trend for this?

·         Response: Officers would seek a more detailed breakdown on this figure from the Customer Services Manager, including any reasons for the increased number of complaints and which areas they were related to.

·         Question: There had been an increase in the average customer wait time to receive a response to telephone calls at 795 seconds in quarter 2. Response: There was the option available of ‘ring back’ or contact via e mail. Call operators had to be sensitive/patient in their approach to protect the most vulnerable clients. Officers would ask the Customer Services Manager to provide further detail on reasons for this increase for circulation to members.

·         Question: Did the Council raise awareness of the quieter times of day to our customers where call times were lower?

·         Response: Officers would seek a response from the Customer Services Manager for circulation to Members.

·         Comment: It was assumed that staff sickness would drop now more people were working from home, rather than having increased. The Chair would ask Councillor Chris Burke as relevant Portfolio Holder to respond to this issue on 8 December 2022 when he was due to report into Performance Scrutiny Sub Committee.

·         Question: There had been recent reports in the news regarding very bad issues of mould in Council properties elsewhere in the country. What advice did officers offer tenant’s to help avoid this problem?

·         Response: There were reports of mould in our council stock, the vast majority due to individual circumstances with insufficiently ventilated rooms, or clothes being dried on radiators. The authority was looking at giving online advice to tenants on measures to help avoid mould. Some properties had design defects and these were being attended to, however, the problem was nothing as bad as that reported in recent news reports.

·         There was also an issue with unscrupulous companies mail dropping council tenants suggesting they should make a claim for compensation for mould problems. There was a loop hole in the law which required government intervention; to redress the responsibility for disrepair claims against the Housing Authority which currently identified any employee recorded as having entered a council property for whatever reason being deemed as an acknowledgement that mould had been reported. This resulted in large amounts of settlements to companies over a number of years of around £500,000 with tenants seeing very little of the payment.

·         Question: Had the Council seen an increase in the number of complaints received in relation to mould in private housing and how did we handle such complaints?

·         Response: Officers would provide a response to this question in due course.

·         Question: Could further clarification be given to the number of cases of mould compensation claims and whether they were specific to certain areas of the City?

·         Response: Officers would circulate the latest information to members. There had been 30 claims the previous year at a cost of approximately £150,000. Costs were mitigated as much as possible

·         Question: Did this figure of 9,958 users logged into the online self-help service system this quarter represent the number of log-ins?

·         Response: Officers suspected this referred to the number of clicks on the system, however, further investigations would be made and reported back to members.

·         Question: Short term sickness in the Housing Directorate was quite high compared to other departments. What was the reason for this?

·         Response: This was due to an increasing ageing work force and the nature of the heavy manual work required within the direct works section.

·         Question: Why was there a delay of 29.4 weeks from occupational therapy notifications received for DFG grants to completion of works on site during Quarter 2? Members asked if the vacant post of Technical Officer would be recruited to?

·         Response: This indicator was out of the control of the City Council as it was the responsibility of Lincolnshire County Council. The County Council were also short staffed in this area. Officers would provide additional detail for members information.

·         Question: Why were the number of successful preventions/relief of homelessness compared against the total number of homeless approaches so different?

·         Response: In some cases, it may be that the authority did not have a duty to house the client. There was also a small amount of people who refused to engage with us and became homeless for that reason. The authority was struggling to find temporary accommodation in the private sector for homeless clients, together with pressures from existing voids stock. The cost of living, rent increases etc were all triggers to risk of homelessness. A partnership approach with other organisations was being sought.

·         Comment: The recommendation to the report asked whether we were happy with its format. The performance measures were not always weighted. Problems discussed around staffing were common across all directorates and not a single issue.

·         Response: Officers within the Policy Team would seek comparisons/benchmarking data across other local authorities for Corporate Management Team discussion.

Councillor Dyer requested that future cost saving measures implemented by Executive which had an impact on performance be reported back to Performance Scrutiny Committee in terms of how service level provision was affected.

RESOLVED that:

1.    Further detail to be provided to members in the following areas:

Ø  A breakdown from the Customer Services Manager on the increase of 39 customer complaints received in Quarter 2, including any reasons for the increased number of complaints and which areas they were related to.

Ø  Reasons for the increase in the average customer wait time to receive a response to telephone calls at 795 seconds in quarter 2.

Ø  Whether the Council raised awareness of the quieter times of day to our customers where call times were lower.

Ø  Clarification of the 9,958 figure quoted for number of users logged on to the on-line self-service online system this quarter.

Ø  Further clarification on numbers of disrepair claims against the Housing Authority for mould and damp from unscrupulous marketing companies.

Ø  Whether the Council had seen an increase in the number of complaints received in relation to mould in private housing and how we handled such complaints?

Ø  Reasons behind the delay of 29.4 weeks from occupational therapy notifications received for DFG grants to completion of works on site during Quarter 2.

2.    Performance data be benchmarked against other local authorities as a comparison exercise.

3.    Executive be asked moving forward to report future cost saving decisions taken which impacted on performance back to Performance Scrutiny Committee in terms of how service level provision was affected.

4.    The content of Quarter 2 2022/23 Operational Performance Report be noted for referral to Executive on 21 November 2022.