Agenda item

Michelle Hoyles, Business Manager, Corporate Policy:

a)    presented Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee with a report on performance indicators for the Directorate of Housing and Investment (DHI) for Quarter 4 of 2023/24 (January – March)

b)    confirmed that following consultation with Lincoln Tenant’s Panel it had no comments on the content of the report

c)    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

d)    explained that this report provided an overview of the Council’s performance against performance indicators monitored by the Directorate of Housing and Investment (DHI), and covered those measures related to the Council’s responsibility as a landlord

e)    confirmed that there were a total of twenty-one performance indicators monitored by DHI; an overview of performance for the fourth and final quarter of 2023/24 against such indicators, was attached at Appendix A to the report

f)     highlighted that for the first time benchmarking comparisons were provided within Appendix A where available, which would be provided annually each fourth quarter

g)    reported that performance ‘direction of travel’ information was also included to aid interpretation of how performance had changed for each measure year-on-year

h)    reported that of the 21 measures in total; in quarter four, eleven had met or exceeded their agreed target, three had performed close to target, six had performed below target and one was volumetric; this included three year-end measures related to Housing Revenue Account (HRA) expenditure on responsive and programme maintenance, and decent homes

i)      highlighted the key conclusions drawn from Appendix A as detailed at paragraphs 5-10 of the officer’s repot

j)      invited comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

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

Question: It was pleasing to see Denise Raine from Acuity Research and Practice joining us shortly via vide link this evening, whose services had been procured to report on Tenant Satisfaction Measures as part of the Social Housing Regulation Act. It would be helpful to compare results with other local authorities using a similar process.

Response: Benchmarking data was compared with Housemark and other social housing providers which included local authorities. Comparisons were not always useful in some circumstances as contrasting providers had different stock and not all social providers were members of Housemark.

Question: Were other authorities setting different targets? We needed to benchmark against the best housing providers in the housing sector.

Response: Performance was measured by where we sat in the table rankings As one example of how Housemark benchmarkingoperated; it ranked each local authority on rent loss and set quartiles for these rankings.

Our performance was high compared against other local authorities in voids management, however, as we set higher personal targets for this reason we were showing as red.

Comment: In terms of performance indicator 37 ‘% repair appointments kept against appointments made for priority and urgent repairs’ was shown as amber.

Response: We had exceeded a higher target than actual the previous year. This year we were very close to achieving our target, with the status of amber rating reflecting this, although showing reduced performance from previous years based on figures achieved from the second quartile onwards.

There were national issues of flooding during this period which meant that priority repairs only could be actioned. The recording process would also be refined to make sure all priority repairs were identified correctly as such in reality to those repairs that could wait.

Every time an appointment was missed it was analysed to bring about improvement and tenants would be informed when appointments couldn’t be met. New technology coming on board would help improve communication considerably.

Comment: In terms of performance indicator 22 ‘% of complaints replied to within target time’ our target had been set at 63.43% last year and higher as 95% this year,performance however was a great deal lower. This needed improvement.

Response by LTP Member: A Complaints Scrutiny Panel had been set up with much work carried out in this area. Measures were being introduced to bring about an overall improvement.

Question: What did the major percentage of complaints relate to?

Response: That would be mould, damp and anti-social behaviour.

RESOLVED that the current performance outcomes at the end of Quarter 4 of the financial year 2023/24 be noted.