Issue - items at meetings - Housing Management Performance Report Quarter 3 2013/14

54.1         The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Executive Director – Environment, Development & Housing which covered Quarter 3 of the financial year 2013/14. The report was presented by the Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement.

54.2    Councillor Wilson referred to paragraph 4.2.1 – Percentage of responsive repairs passing post-inspection.  This stated that out of the 1,278 jobs that were post inspected, 82 failed.  Under row 7 of paragraph 4.2 – Percentage of repairs completed right first time, it stated that 97% had been the target and 98.09% achieved in 12/13 year end.  Councillor Wilson asked for clarification on the statistics. What was the percentage that did fail? 

54.3    The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that the actual job was inspected, not jobs completed first time.  This was linked to Row 6, in paragraph 4.2 – Percentage of response repairs passing post-inspection.  There was no direct correlation to percentages of repairs completed right first time.  6.5% of the 1278 jobs had failed.

54.4    Councillor Wilson replied that it would be useful to have percentages that failed in future reports.

54.5    John Melson commented that there were no questions about the quality of the work being carried out.  There was a need to review the performance report and the information contained on the report card.  He suggested phone surveys and more random calling. 

54.6    Mr Melson referred to paragraph 4.2.3 – Lifts restored to service within 24 hours.  He was dubious about the accuracy of these figures.  There could be delays and reports could get lost in the system.

54.7    Mr Melson referred to a bad job carried out on a balcony enclosure and asked about delays at Manor Place.  The Chair replied that work at Manor Place was to be carried out in two stages.  The number of properties was not being reduced.  Balconies were a problem in Essex Place.  They would be checked and Mr Melson would be updated.  

54.8    Councillor Mears agreed that there were major issues with balconies.  She had contacted Mears Ltd about this issue.  She found that they were sub-contracting staff who did not speak English as their first language.  The work carried out was satisfactory when staff were supervised.  When they were not supervised there were serious issues of safety.  For example, materials had been thrown from balconies.

54.9    Councillor Mears referred to paragraph 4.1.1 in relation to average re-let times.  This stated that ‘average re-let time for both indicators is higher than last year because of the need to allow time for financial inclusion work to equip prospective tenants for their new home’.  Councillor Mears asked how long this would take.

54.10  Councillor Mears referred to Appendix 1 – Long term empty properties. She asked for details on figures on properties that had gone over to Seaside Homes.  The Chair replied that the latest figures would be sent to her.  Councillor Mears was concerned that bungalows in Manor Place had been boarded up for some time.  They needed to come back into the housing stock.           

54.11  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that in terms of financial inclusion work there was not one fixed package of work.  An expert in financial inclusion was working on this issue. 

54.12  Councillor Mears stressed that the function of the landlord was to let properties.  Currently, work was being carried out in relation to vulnerable people before property was let.  Councillor Mears thought this information could be provided to new tenants. 

54.13  The Chair explained that the aim was to support people and to sustain tenancies. 

54.14  Councillor West referred to paragraph 4.4 – Anti-social behaviour.  He asked why the council did not report on all wards.  The Head of Tenant Services stated that this information could be included in future reports.

54.15  Councillor Peltzer Dunn referred to paragraph 4.2 – Property & Investment.  He pointed out that the figures quoted in rows 1 and 2 (Emergency repairs completed in time/Routine repairs completed in time) did not add up to the figures quoted in row 7 (Percentage of repairs completed right first time).  For example the Year End figure in row 7 was 3637 more than the year end totals in 1 and 2 combined. 

54.16  The Head of Housing explained that row 7 was not a combination of rows 1 & 2.  Another category carried out was ‘urgent and complete’.

54.17  Councillor Peltzer Dunn questioned why this information was not included in the report.  He referred to Row 3 (Average time to complete routine repairs) and noted the average time had increased by one third.  He referred to Paragraph 4.3, Row 5 (Routine removals of bulk waste completed within 5 working days).  He was worried to note the declining numbers.  

54.18  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that the waste removal figure was different due to the amount of bulk waste left out.  Officers had carried out a considerable amount of work to encourage residents to use the council’s bulk removal service.  She made reference to paragraph 4.3.2 of the report.  It was necessary to prioritise some jobs.  

54.19  The Chair stated that bulk waste was always being dumped on the estates and was dealt with pretty quickly.

54.20  John Melson noted that decent homes work was not mentioned in the report.  There were concerns about this issue and the way surveys had been completed.

54.21  The Chair expressed concern that replacement windows in Warwick Mount had been overlooked. 

54.22  Councillor Wilson referred to the last page of Appendix One – Outline of under occupation arrears and related information.  She noted rows 9 & 10 in relation to the cumulative number of under occupying households who had moved through a mutual exchange or the transfer incentive scheme.  Councillor Wilson asked what had happened to the remaining households.  

54.23  The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that some of these residents had reached a considerable age and were not impacted.  Other households had children under the age of 10 and different genders.  As soon as the children reached 10 the household was no longer impacted.  Some people had a child who came back from university or had taken in a lodger.  

54.24  RESOLVED – That the report be noted.