Issue - items at meetings - Housing Management Performance Report Quarter 4 and end of year 2012/13

Report of Executive Director – Environment, Development & Housing (copy attached).

7.1       The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director – Environment, Development & Housing, which covered Quarter 4 of the financial year 2012/13 and as requested, year end performance.  It also included benchmarking figures for the 2011/12 financial year, which were attached as Appendix 2.  The report incorporated changes suggested at previous meetings, including specifying whether an indicator is a Service Pledge as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ rather than abbreviating, and the inclusion of figures from the same quarter last year.  The report was presented by Ms Dafe, the Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement

 

            Rent collection and current arrears/Empty home turnaround time

 

7.2       Councillor Farrow referred to paragraph 4.0.1, Percentage of rent collected as proportion of rent due each year.  The third sentence read “We are taking a proactive approach to supporting our tenants with paying their rent in the light of the introduction of Welfare Reforms from April 2013 onwards”.  Councillor Farrow asked if this included the bedroom tax.  He was concerned that intimidating letters had been sent out to tenants.          

 

7.3       The Chair stated that a letter had been sent out to tenants to start the process.  The letter had been redrafted by the Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement and was not frightening.  This letter would be circulated to all members of the Sub-Committee.  The process had been used by all housing associations and usually resulted in tenants coming to an agreement to pay any arrears in small amounts. 

 

7.4       Councillor Farrow referred to paragraph 4.0.2, Total former tenant arrears.  He was concerned at the second sentence which stated “This is a fairly good result considering the reduction in the number of staff working on former tenant debt…”   Councillor Farrow was concerned about staffing resources and wanted to see sufficient staff to deal with the job. 

 

7.5       The Chair stated that debt was only written off in exceptional circumstances.  The  Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement informed members that resources had been redirected to deal with some of the preventative work.  However, in the long term there would be a need to increase staff resources.  She agreed that debt was written off in exceptional circumstances.  However, there might be circumstances where people were contacted to settle arrears.   

 

7.6       The Chair asked officers to report back on how much debt had been written off for the next meeting. 

 

7.7       Councillor Farrow referred to paragraph 4.05, Percentage of rent collected as a proportion of rent due each year by area.  He asked if there was any information on why there was a variation between areas.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that historically there was far more deprivation in the east of the city, as opposed to areas such as Portslade. This was possibly due to the concentration of one bedroom flats and people with different problems.   The Chair asked for this matter to be investigated.

 

7.8       David Murtagh referred to paragraph 4.1, Empty Property Turnaround time.  He had noticed that properties were being let when they had not been completely finished.  Work had continued after the new tenant had moved in.  The end result was not good. 

 

7.9       James Cryer, Mears Ltd confirmed that properties should only be let to new tenants when any work required had been completed.  He would be able to investigate specific premises if he was given details. 

 

7.10    Barry Kent stated that as a resident assessor he had visited properties in Portslade and Queens Park which had a number of things wrong with them.  The Chair stated that he would meet with Mr Cryer about this issue.

 

7.11    Councillor Peltzer Dunn referred to 2.63% (Actual year end 12/13, tenants with more than seven weeks rent arrears).  This did not explain the cash amount.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that officers followed a previous style of reporting on this figure but could provide the cash amount in the future.   

 

7.12    Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked if the figure £531,636 (Actual year end 12/13, total former tenant arrears) related to 12/13 or money from previous years.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that this was the total arrears in rent loss from former tenants.

 

7.13    Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked how much was collected from leaseholders each year.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement replied that 88% was collected in 11/12 and 83% was collected in 12/13.  Councillor Peltzer Dunn queried these figures.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement replied that Councillor Peltzer Dunn would receive a written answer.   There would be more detail in the next performance report.

 

7.14    Councillor Peltzer Dunn mentioned that a number of empty properties were being given over to Seaside Homes.  He asked if this could be carried out in smaller batches.  

 

7.15    Councillor Barnett asked about the average let time.  She stated that a property in Hangleton had been worked on for six months.  She asked if anyone was checking the work being done in the course of a day. 

 

7.16    James Cryer, Mears Ltd stated that he wanted work to be completed as soon as possible.  He would investigate Councillor Barnett’s query.  

 

7.17    Roy Crowhurst declared an interest in the discussion as a board member of Brighton & Hove Seaside Community Homes.  He explained that batches for Seaside Homes were governed by the Santander tender.  There had to be seven or more properties at any one time.  

 

7.18    Councillor Peltzer Dunn queried why it took so long to decide whether properties should be transferred to Seaside Homes.  The Head of Property & Investment replied that there needed to be a minimum of five batches.  Officers were looking to see if there could be smaller batches as an interim.  This would need to be agreed by the surveying partners and Santander.  The Chair asked to be kept informed about this matter.

 

7.19    Councillor Peltzer Dunn queried the figure of 18.1% in section 2.0 Rent Collection and current Arrears.  The Head of  Income, Involvement & Improvement replied that she would revise this figure. 

 

7.20    The Chair stated that the seven week rent arrears figures were encouraging.  There was also an encouraging improvement on the turnaround of empty homes.  He noted the points made regarding the quality of work and would talk about this matter to James Cryer, Mears Ltd. 

 

            Property & Investment

 

7.21    Robert Spacie asked about current electric certificates in all council properties.  James Cryer replied that there were decency standards around electrical testing.  There were 265 more to carry out.  He wanted to achieve 100% by December 2013.  

 

7.22    Councillor Farrow referred to average time to complete routine repairs (calendar days) under 4.2.  He considered the target too high and suggested a more realistic target of 10.  Councillor Farrow referred to the 95% target for tenant satisfaction with repairs.  He was not happy with the way this information was collected.  

 

7.23    The Chair concurred. It was difficult for someone to voice an opinion if the contractor was there.

 

7.24    Councillor Farrow referred to percentage of repairs completed first time and asked how this information was collected.  He was concerned with the target for cancelled repair jobs (under 10%).  He suggested 5% would be appropriate.  Many tenants worked and it was essential that everything was done to ensure jobs were not cancelled.  Councillor Farrow suggested a meeting should be arranged between the Chair,  Opposition Spokespersons and James Cryer to discuss these matters.  This was agreed.

 

7.25    The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement informed members that the targets would be reviewed before the next report.  Meanwhile data could be collected in a way which was unbiased.  

 

            Estate Service

 

7.26    Councillor Barnett referred to the emergency removal of graffiti.  When she had phoned about this matter she was told it could only be removed as an emergency if the graffiti was considered racial. She asked if this was correct or whether all graffiti should be removed.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that staff tried to remove all offensive graffiti within 24 hours.  This included racial graffiti.  The Chair stated that all other non offensive graffiti was removed within 7 days.   

 

7.27    Councillor Farrow asked how information was collected.  It was stated that 98% of cleaning tasks had been completed.  Councillor Farrow had heard that some tasks were missing.  He queried the year end figure of 20 areas of graffiti removed in seven days. 

 

7.28    The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that with regard to cleaning tasks more information could be included for the next performance report.  Meanwhile graffiti on HRA land was removed by Housing.  City Clean removed graffiti on highway land.  City Clean had a longer target time.

 

            Anti-Social Behaviour

 

7.29    The Chair referred to the number of new cases of anti-social behaviour.  The fourth quarter was high and a cause for concern. 

 

7.30    The Head of Tenancy Services stated that a new computer system allowed officers to understand and monitor anti-social behaviour. A new performance framework was being set up and a report on this subject could be submitted to a future meeting.  The Chair stated that that would be very helpful.

 

7.31    Councillor Barnett considered that instead of providing neighbours with sheets to fill in for three months, tenants needed to know from the start that anti-social behaviour was unacceptable.  The Senior Lawyer stressed the need to gather evidence before cases could go to court. 

 

7.32    Councillor Farrow expressed concern for tenants with disabilities and mental health problems.  It was difficult for them to report problems with neighbours.  There was a need to show a duty of care and protect them from victimisation.

 

7.33    The Head of Tenancy Services replied that officers did not underestimate these concerns.  Officers were trying to take a more assertive approach, balanced with the need for evidence.  A report would be brought back to the meeting. 

 

7.34    The Chair remarked that the Tenant Scrutiny Panel could be asked to investigate this matter. 

 

7.35    David Murtagh informed members that he was on a working group looking at anti-social behaviour.  He considered that graffiti should be classed as anti-social behaviour. 

 

            Sheltered housing

 

7.36    Robert Spacie referred to the performance indicator “provision of at least one social activity per week in 21 of our 23 schemes.”  He asked for an explanation.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that officers wanted there to be a social activity in all sheltered housing schemes where this was possible.

 

7.37    Councillor Barnett noted that there were 887 sheltered residents.  She asked if this included residents in Housing Association sheltered housing.  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement replied that the 887 residents were in the council’s 23 schemes. 

 

7.38    Charles Penrose stated that there were one or two places which did not have social events.  Stonehurst Court had no place for events.  He would like to see them joining a nearby scheme which had events.

 

            Appendix 2

 

7.39    Councillor Farrow expressed concern about the benchmarking groups.  He would have liked the city to have been included in a larger group to achieve better standards of benchmarking.  He asked for this to be investigated.   Councillor Farrow was disappointed in paragraph 2.2.2 (comparatively poor performance against percentage of appointments).  He considered this was not a reasonable explanation of the council’s performance and he asked for this to be investigated. 

 

7.40    James Cryer replied that Brighton & Hove was more punitive about appointments than other organisations.

 

7.41      RESOLVED  (1) That the report and above comments be noted.