Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)       Petitions: to receive any petitions presented to the full council or at the meeting itself (copy attached);

 

(b)       Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 14 September 2016;

 

(c)   Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 14 September 2016.

 

Petitions

 

18.1   The Committee considered the following petition submitted by David Green and signed by 219 people. The petition was presented by David Croydon on Mr Green’s behalf. Mr Croydon stressed that as well as the people signing the petition, he had received 200 emails a month on the subject of the petition. 75% of works were deemed unnecessary, and leaseholders who objected were being faced by a team of barristers, lawyers and council officers. 

 

          Justice for Leaseholders

 

        “We the undersigned petition Brighton & Hove Council to - review the contractual relationship, and implementation of contracts, between BHCC and those who have leased property from the council under right to buy legislation. In particular we request that a comprehensive and public investigation be held into:

• The accuracy and validity of Annual Service Charges, cyclical repairs and redecoration.

• The charges for Major Works, in particular the recent city wide cladding programme, wholesale roof and window replacement, and the repair, refurbishment and replacement of lifts. We request that any investigatory body includes experts independent of BHCC and that the terms of reference include;

• The necessity of work carried out

• The validity of the consultation process, particularly with but not confined to leaseholders, Value for Money, the tendering process, and actual costs

• The standard of the work carried out.”

 

18.2   The Chair responded as follows:

 

          “Thank you for your petition. The council understands the implications to leaseholders when high cost major works are proposed. We do not undertake these lightly, but we have legal obligations to keep our buildings in repair.

 

To help leaseholders who have difficulty with payment, we offer a number of options we believe are helpful to resident leaseholders.

 

The petition asks the council to review the contracts and the contractual relationship it has with leaseholders. Each leaseholder has a contract with the council through their lease. The leases are agreed by both parties on purchase of the property and we are confident that we are acting in line with our obligations under those leases. We do take into consideration the financial impact on leaseholders before authorising work whilst ensuring our properties are maintained.

 

With regard to high cost major works such as cladding, roof and window replacement carried out at some properties, leaseholders are protected in law that:

 

·                  The costs have been reasonably incurred

·                 The works are carried out to a reasonable standard

·                 The consultation regulations are complied with

·                 The lease allows the costs to be passed on in the service charge

 

The council has a 3-stage Leaseholders Disputes Procedure in order to try to resolve matters between the two parties in the first instance.

 

In addition, leaseholders have the legal right to seek a determination at the First-tier Tribunal if they believe any of these protections apply to particular service charge costs that have been demanded.

 

In relation to the request that experts independent of the council are instructed, we would very much recommend that it is in the interests of any leaseholders who challenge service charges to take their own legal and professional structural surveying advice in order to evidence their case. This is a matter for leaseholders themselves, as the council already takes its own legal and structural surveying advice in managing our buildings, and is confident that we are managing our buildings, our tenancies and leases properly and in line with our various obligations.

 

The council’s Internal Audit team provides independent, objective assurance of the Council’s risk management, internal controls and governance processes. Each year, the internal audit team designs and delivers a programme of work focused on the key risks for the council. In 2015 Internal Audit assessed the leasehold service charge administration as giving substantial assurance. Internal Audit concluded that:

 

·                 There are effective controls in place to ensure service charges are accurately and promptly processed.

·                 There is compliance with major works legislation in relation to consulting leaseholders.

·                 There are appropriate procedure notes to enable staff to undertake their tasks in a consistent manner and there are also adequate guidance notes available to leaseholders.”

 

18.3   RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

18.4     The Committee considered the following petition submitted by Steve Parry and signed by 39 people. Mr Parry stated that the proposal would save tenants, the courts and landlords money.  It would also reduce an enormous amount of stress that people who were homeless were facing.  Mr Parry considered that the council’s response selected some parts of the guidance but not other sections.

 

Homelessness from an Assured Shorthold Tenancy

 

““We the undersigned petition Brighton & Hove Council to adopt a policy that when citizens apply as homeless from an assured shorthold tenancy that BHCC implement the guidelines “that authorities should note that the fact that a tenant has a right to remain in occupation does not necessarily mean that he or she is not homeless" as prescribed by the "HOMELESSNESS CODE OF GUIDANCE" (Under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996) BHCC should assist citizens that are faced with the certainty of homelessness in the same way as if they are homeless and not wait for the time when Court action is taken, costs incurred, and families are on the street. This is unjust, results in additional costs to BHCC and the family involved, and is socially damaging.”

18.5   The Chair responded as follows:

 

          “Thank you for your petition about homelessness and the ending of private sector tenancies in Brighton & Hove.

 

Tackling homelessness is a priority for this administration and the council is working hard to maintain and develop its work in assisting households facing homelessness and housing difficulties in an increasingly difficult housing market.

 

Practice of Housing services with respect to homelessness from PRS

 

The Council is increasingly trying to become involved earlier and earlier in situations that are likely to result in homelessness, in order to try and prevent it. To avoid homelessness by either resolving the issues to sustain the accommodation or to work with the household to find alternative accommodation and hence avoid homelessness is a better option for all parties and is at the core of our Homelessness strategy.

In terms of actual homelessness or when households are legally threatened with homelessness, the council has not adopted a policy about the timing of assistance when a private sector tenancy is ending, as we want to be involved at an early stage. However the council does have various roles in such circumstances. We must advise tenants about the legal process of a tenancy ending and this must, necessarily, include advice about the process after a section 21 notice is served by the landlord.

 

It would be to neglect the council’s legal obligations as the statutory provider of good quality, professional, lawful, accurate and free housing advice to do otherwise. The council must necessarily operate within a fine balance of acting to provide advice about rights to occupy and acting on the differing interests of its customers who are both tenants and landlords and the Council itself and this is why each case is considered on its individual merits as per the Code of Guidance.

The statutory homelessness Code of Guidance, which local authorities are required by law to have regard to contains guidance on how authorities should treat homelessness applications in circumstances where a tenant has received a valid s.21 notice. It says that housing authorities should not, in every case, insist upon a court order for possession and that no local authority should adopt a blanket policy in this respect. The Guidance states that if the landlord intends to seek possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order then it is unlikely that it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation, however each case needs to be considered on a case by case basis and balanced against the general cost to the authority. The relevant sections of the Homelessness Code of Guidance are as follows:

 

“8.31. In determining whether it would be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation, the housing authority will need to consider all the factors relevant to the case and decide the weight that individual factors should attract. As well as the factors set out elsewhere in this chapter, other factors which may be relevant include the general cost to the housing authority, the position of the tenant, the position of the landlord, the likelihood that the landlord will actually proceed with possession proceedings, and the burden on the courts of unnecessary proceedings where there is no defence to a possession claim.

 

8.32. Each case must be decided on its facts, so housing authorities should not adopt a general policy of accepting – or refusing to accept – applicants as homeless or threatened with homelessness when they are threatened with eviction but a court has not yet made an order for possession or issued a warrant of execution. In any case where a housing authority decides that it would be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy their accommodation after a valid notice has expired – and therefore decides that he or she is not yet homeless or threatened with homelessness – that decision will need to be based on sound reasons which should be made clear to the applicant in writing. The Secretary of State considers that where a person applies for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation, and:

 

(a)    the person is an assured shorthold tenant who has received proper notice in accordance with s.21 of the Housing Act 1988;

 

(b)    the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession; and

 

(c) there would be no defence to an application for a possession order; then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation beyond the date given in the s.21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to withdraw the notice or allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.”

 

The costs of private rented accommodation in this area plus the requirements and additional fees charged by letting agents means it is increasingly difficult for households on low and medium income to obtain alternative accommodation and hence it can take longer to find alternative accommodation. It is generally this that causes a household to remain in their home after the expiry of the Notice.

 

When the council is able to assist, or when a family being helped finds accommodation before this, the council will always advise that the new tenancy starts at the same time as the Notice expires. Sometimes some extra time is requested because of the issues associated with moving that may come up unexpectedly.

 

What is more difficult is when a family that the council is assisting has not found another home to move to and has no alternatives. In this case the family does become homeless and the council’s statutory duties to provide accommodation come into play.

 

In these cases the council will always consider cases on an individual basis and we have agreed, when necessary and pragmatic to do so, to provide statutory temporary accommodation earlier than a possession order.

The cost, to local tax payers (which include landlords) will be considerable if a policy were adopted to always guarantee to provide statutory temporary accommodation on expiry of the s21 Notice and this also would be contrary to the Code of Guidance which says in 8.32 not to have a blanket policy. 

 

With respect to Mr Parry’s specific petition, the council position is as follows: 

 

·     The council does assist before the court date, and in many cases it has helped families move before court action is needed.

·     It is a fact of law that vacant possession is obtained by order of the court. It is also a fact of law that a homeless duty – to provide statutory temporary accommodation – is only triggered at the time that a household becomes homeless. However the Code of Guidance sets out considerations to be taken into account when reaching a decision as to when to provide accommodation which the council complies with.

·     Families we are assisting do not end up on the street. The council provides statutory temporary accommodation where homelessness cannot be avoided, the time to be determined on a case by case basis.

·     Fulfilling the lawful way of ending a tenancy does not result in additional costs to BHCC. To provide temporary accommodation does incur costs and this is taken into consideration when determining at what stage to provide temporary accommodation, as per the Code of guidance.”

18.6   RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

Questions

 

18.7     A question had been submitted by Valerie Paynter as follows:

 

“I have already reported pointing mortar falling onto my own windows from on high but two tenants from Conway Court have spoken to me about wet concrete setting hard on their windows. One tenant requested and got set concrete removed, but says the glass was left scratched by the Bulgarian concrete workers' tools.  Can you tell me, please, why the council is unable to get Mears to protect the glass, and UPVC on newly installed windows from slopped and SETTING concrete being put into drilled out banding areas during work directly adjacent to and above individual window areas?”

 

18.8     The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Martin Reid, Head of Housing Strategy, Property & Investment has been in correspondence with Valerie regarding the works at Clarendon & Ellen Estate and recently specifically on window replacements.
 
We are aware that Ms Paynter has some outstanding ‘snagging’ issues to her windows and we are arranging works to be completed.
 
We have still to cut out the defective concrete on the blocks and carry out full repairs and until this has been completed the new windows are temporarily sealed with expanding foam to offer some protection from the weather. Once the concrete repairs have been completed the windows will be finished off with plastic trims and sealed.
 
We are doing what we can to minimise the impact and avoid causing any major issues for residents and Mears are fully aware that all new windows should be protected while carrying out concrete repairs. We are confident this is happening.
 
The Property & Investment team hold monthly progress meetings on site with the contractors where all specific issues are raised and monitored alongside progress reports on the repairs to the blocks. At these meetings both the council’s quantity surveyors and contract manager surveyors attend to ensure value for money and quality checks on the project.
 
Overall a percentage of new windows are checked by the council’s surveyors after they have all been installed in the block to gather any operational and installation issues internally. All elevations are checked externally prior to the mast climbers being taken down to make sure there are no issues.
 
With works of the type and scale that we are carrying out to the blocks along Clarendon Road, there is going to be some dust, noise and potentially loose debris above the windows but we don’t expect this to be substantial and if residents have concerns regarding their properties, they are welcome to contact either the council or the Mears Site Managers and we will help resolve the situation.
 
It is important to highlight that the windows are under a 10 year warranty, therefore, under this contract if are any issues identified with them within this timescale, they will be repaired free of charge.
 
To date we have installed 140 flats with new windows on the Clarendon & Ellen Estate high rise blocks and have received only seven reported issues with their windows all of which have been inspected and are what is termed as ‘snagging’ issues that can be easily resolved and works completed.
 
These works are part of our commitment to improve the quality of our residents homes as part of c£25m per annum HRA capital investment programme approved at January Housing & New Homes Committee, informed by our Housing Asset Management Strategy developed in consultation with tenants and leaseholders”.”

 

18.9   Ms Paynter stated that the windows had been installed before the concrete repairs.  Mears wet concrete had slopped onto brand new windows and the glass had not been covered with anything.  Ms Paynter stated that people were not registering complaints due to intimidation.  One person had been told their tenancy was at risk by complaining.  Ms Paynter asked the following supplementary question:

 

          “Please inform me how the council will act to reassure tenants regarding contacting Mears and how will they help tenants to feel safe coming to the council so Mears Ltd can be held to account?”

 

18.10  The Chair thanked Ms Paynter for her questions.  She stressed that serious allegations had been made and the Head of Housing would investigate this matter.  The Head of Housing would need to know who the people concerned were, and when the issues took place. 

 

18.11  The Head of Housing stated that she would take up these issues.  She was in regular contact with Ms Paynter.  There was a three stage complaints process which could be independently assessed. If a tenant was not satisfied they could then go to the Ombudsman.  There was no need for a tenant to be fearful about losing their tenancy if they raised a complaint.   

 

18.12  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

18.13    A question had been submitted by Diane Montgomery.  The question was presented by Sue Crossley on Ms Montgomery’s behalf as follows:

 

“The Living Rent campaign support the aims and recommendations of the Private Rented Sector scrutiny panel and ask if they could be one of the groups involved in the Rent Smart Partnership Agreement?”

 

18.14    The Chair replied as follows:

 

“As Rent Smart is not a council partnership it is not a decision I can make so I am directing Diane’s question to those members of the partnership present at the meeting today.”

 

18.15  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

18.16    A question had been submitted by Jacqueline Madders as follows:

 

"Will the council consider reviewing the customer service policy in the housing departments, to having recorded phone calls in line with other businesses to prevent the constant intimidation and bullying that so many are experiencing?”

 

18.17    The Chair replied as follows:

 

“I am very sorry to hear that even one person may reportedly be experiencing treatment that they consider to be intimidation and bullying, and would like the opportunity to investigate any allegations of this occurring.  In the spirit of always seeking to improve our customer service and to assist with staff training, Housing would indeed like to have telephone calls recorded.  Used in other businesses, call recording not only helps deliver customer-focused services and sometimes assists with disputes, but it can also protect staff from abuse and false accusations.  

Housing will certainly consider this addition to our service alongside any future upgrading of our telephone system.  The additional cost of implementing it with our existing system has been investigated, and does not currently provide value for money.  

In the meantime, I would kindly request that any customer who is unhappy with the conduct of our staff, or with our service, please let us know at their earliest opportunity so that we can try to put things right.  Customers can contact the line manager of the staff member in question, or if it is in relation to our housing landlord services they can contact the Housing Customer Service Team on 01273-293030, or by email to housingcomplaints@brighton-hove.gov.uk. 

Alternatively customers can raise a complaint to the council’s Customer Feedback team using the following contact details:-

·           using a link on the council’s website to an online comments, compliments and complaints form

·           by email: customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.uk

·           by phone: 01273 291229

·           using the Complaints, comments & compliments form supplied at council offices

·           writing to: Brighton & Hove City Council, Customer Feedback, Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove, BN3 2LS”

 

18.18  Ms Madders asked the following supplementary question:

 

          “Is the Chair aware that there is a them and us scenario between Brighton & Hove City Council and residents and that the most vulnerable feel intimidated?  People were taking their lives as a result of council intimidation. Where would people go after complaining to the ombudsman?”

 

18.19  The Chair thanked Ms Madders and informed her that the council would not condone bullying from staff directed at tenants.  Tenants could contact Ward Councillors who would take up complaints on their behalf.   

 

18.20  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

            Deputation

 

18.21    The Committee considered the following deputation which was presented by Daniel Harris: 

           

            “Housing and New Homes Committee, please consider this deputation in which I along with supporting current and previous residents ask for my common sense emergency accommodation proposals and subsequent Green & Tory Amendments be allowed to roll over into the next committee meeting.

 

Having spent this campaigning tirelessly for the voiceless and vulnerable this year, I feel that giving me less than 24 hours from release of the reports is not long enough for me, residents and service providers to fully review the recommendations proposed from the officers reports.

 

It seems appropriate that tenants with disabilities & health conditions should be involved in decisions that affect them. Considering recent events including two deaths and a fire it only seems fair that the council take this into account and makes adjustments so that tenants can have their say. At this time tenants need to feel reassured that the council has their safety & well-being in mind and should actively seek to involve. A delay would help this process.

 

The response from others like myself in emergency and temporary accommodation have phenomenal, so I went on to co ETHRAG which is a fully constitutionalised & democratic residents association. We have had two public meetings and will meet again until the 19th October, having discussed these points with ETHRAG residents, they/we feel that we as a group need time to discuss and agree a way forward.

 

I am also concerned with the 5 year local connection rule proposed, this would affect vulnerable LGBT people, who are enticed to Brighton and Hove for its equality and diversity values, I hope the committee review these findings with the LGBT community in mind.

 

So I along with the following professionals, groups and concerned residents ask that this area of consideration be moved to the next meeting. We also invite Councillors to come along to a residents meeting to see the group in action.”

 

18.22    In addition to the written deputation Mr Harris reported that there were a number of people in attendance at the committee who were living in emergency accommodation.  There had been an amazing response to ETHRAG which was saving people’s lives.  ETHRAG was a democratic residents’ association with a constitution. It was time the council recognised it.  Mr Harris asked for the report to be deferred to allow consultation with the people it affected.  

 

18.23    The Chair thanked Mr Harris and stated that she was not inclined to defer the report.  It was up to councillors to respond to the report.  The Chair stated that she was sure that another report on this subject would be submitted to a future meeting, where all the points being made by Mr Harris could be considered.

 

18.24    RESOLVED - That the deputation be noted.