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 had been scheduled for the end of August to plan the approach and it was hoped that we would have the new calendar in place by November.

 

Comment: The reduction of the work calendar was in the early stages however attendance from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing, would be positive to provide an update to Members in the next Quarter.

 

Question: Had there been issues with the online system and reports not going through to customer services?

Response: There had been ongoing issues with the online system, it was not currently being supported. Newark and Sherwood District Council were the lead on it previously.

Response from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: The CoLC were not the only Council on the pilot scheme who had problems. Newark and Sherwood District Council had experienced issues also. The new IT system should link everything up.

 

Question: If there were issues with the online system, why was it being continued?

Response: Operatives still received repairs reports and they were still attending however it was taking longer. Issues had been resolved however the process had been made longer.

 

Question: Was the recharge mechanism the CoLC’s determination of works that may be required in a void property?

Response: Yes, the recharge mechanism considered a property’s condition when repairs were needed and what charges could be raised. The recharge mechanism was a more robust approach to charges for works needed inside and outside of a property.

 

Question: If deemed repair works were required, were items previously listed in the tenancy agreement to outline what could be charged for? There may be items that should be the responsibility of the Council. It was important for tenants to be made aware of policies.

Response: All information was explained and communicated to tenants at the point of sign up. The main list was within the policy that was in place. Applicants/tenants were made aware of items that were recharged. When the policy changed in the future, a full communication strategy would be carried out to ensure tenants were made fully aware.

 

Question: Did the policy apply to tenants that may have signed up many years ago?

Response: The Policy had always been in place for all tenants and was part of the sign-up process.

 

Comment: Tenants should be advised that costs to remove items from a property would be charged at a ‘like for like rate’ to save instances whereby a tenant may not fulfil obligations to remove items in the instance that a recharge cost was lower than arranging it themselves.

 

Comment from Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: It may be the case that a tenant who passed away had not kept the property in the condition that even they would have liked due to ill health. Individuals who had contracted Covid-19 were more likely to pass away from another illness within two years.

 

Comment: There were incidents where tenants entered into an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) and the money for cleansing was written off.

Response: The cost of cleansing alone was very high.

 

Comment: Each tenant was individual and the policy could affect them all differently. Housing was a business however compassion and discretion was important. It was essential that all tenants understood the policy and continued to be informed of all of the details from the beginning.

Response: Discretion could become very interpretable. The appeals process was in place instead of the typical complaints process and it involved an appeals panel, not left to a single officer’s discretion. The policy signposted tenants to the appeals panel.

 

Comment: It may be the case that many tenants were not aware that they could appeal against the Council’s decision. However, as long as all the information had been made fully available, it was the responsibility of the tenant to read all of the pages before they signed the tenancy agreement.

Response: There was a quality checklist that was in place to ensure individuals were  aware that they were fully supported.

 

Comment: Tenant recharge/s were not uncommon across the whole sector. There would be cases whereby a tenant was unwell and there would be exceptions. The panel removed the decision on one person’s behalf.

Response: Information shared on the appeals panel was positive as it made it accountable and fair. Tenants should be given every opportunity to make right any work to the relevant standard.

 

Question: Was there scope to reduce the average re-let period to 32 days?

Response: Staffing levels continued to be problematic not just for the Council but within the wider building trade. In additional, rising costs created problems. There were lots of elements. It was not possible to predict the future however we would continue in our efforts to drive down the number of void days.

 

Question: What was the target set for voids? It had been left open since Covid-19 and there didn’t appear to be a target set.

Response: The average relet time was 32 days excluding major works and 38 days including major works for all dwellings.

 

Comment: Further information from Customer Services was required to report to Members on the percentage of calls answered within 90 seconds.

 

Comment: It was hoped that the repairs policy would reduce complaints because they would be communicated with fully so it reduced the need for complaints.

 

Question: Customer services operatives were knowledgeable but would it be quicker to pass through to the relevant department as they had the expertise?

Response: Work with resource planners was ongoing. Therefore, as information was received they would be able to answer queries before it scaled up to a complaint.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1. Additional information be provided by Officers in relation to:

 

·        A figure in monetary terms as to the difference in the percentage of rent collection in 2022/23 compared to Quarter 1 of 2023/23.

 

2. The Democratic Services Officer be tasked with the circulation of the Performance Monitoring Report Quarter 1 – 2023/24 and associated appendices to Members of the Committee.

 

3. The current performance outcomes during the financial year 2023/24 to date, be noted.