Agenda item - Housing Management Performance Report Quarter 4 and end of year 2015/16

Report of Acting Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture (copy attached).

(1)      That the report which went to the Special Area Panel on 18 May 2016 be noted along with the comments of the Committee.

12.1   The Committee considered a performance report of the Acting Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture which covered quarter four of the financial year 2015/16, alongside end year results.  The report was presented by the Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement who explained that additional information had been provided on benchmarking data (appendix 3).  This compared the cost and performance of Brighton & Hove as a social landlord with other local authorities and housing associations. The benchmarking data was for the year 2014/15.

12.2   Councillor Gibson referred to the section on major works and cyclical maintenance (appendix 3) and asked why this was so undesirably high.  Councillor Gibson referred to the table in paragraph 4.0 (page 215).     No. 5  - Rent loss due to empty dwellings showed that the council did well last year.  He questioned whether the council should be setting a target which was lower this year than already achieved.  Councillor Gibson noted that £42,000 had been lost in rent over the year.  Whereas No 6 – Former tenants arrears had received a red status yet had only lost £40,000.  Councillor Gibson welcomed the appendices with benchmarking information.  It was helpful to note the direction of travel.  Benchmarking costs had been taken back to the previous year.  He requested to see the results from the 2011 Star Survey. 

12.3   The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement answered these questions as follows. 

·       Major works (appendix 3) - The higher costs reflected the money spent on meeting decent homes standards by December 2013 and maintaining those standards in 2014/15.  Meanwhile there were various reasons why costs could vary between local authorities and between housing associations and local authorities.  A big factor was the regional differences across the country.  In areas of higher deprivation there were a higher number of households with greater vulnerability.     

·       Table in paragraph 4.0 (page 215) - No. 5  - Rent loss due to empty dwellings – Officers tried to set targets that were better than the previous one. However, sometimes setting an improvement target could be counterproductive as they needed to be achievable.  The slightly lower target this year was due to welfare reform and changes in benefits.  Officers factored in the possibility of having to move approximately 900 people who would be impacted by the spare room rules. It was known that when people were moved by transfer that there would generally be a period of 4 weeks between tenancies. 

·       Rent loss of £42,000.  Officers were committed to report on all targets that were amber and red. 

·       Request for further information -  The results of the 2011 Star Survey had been reported to the Committee. The council was just about to conduct the next Star Survey. 

12.4   Councillor Gibson stated that he would like to be sent a link to the previous Star Survey.  He stressed that Decent Homes Standards was achieved in 2013 and the figure he was referring to was 2014/15.  The comparisons with all local authorities were not good and there was a need to scrutinise this.  He wanted to see the total cost per property for the year before and the year before that.  

12.5   In response to the Chair, the Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement confirmed that previous performance reports are on the website.  The Business and Performance Manager stated that the major works figure purely reflected money spent on capital improvements, and does not have a value judgement as to whether that is or is not a good thing. 

12.6       Councillor Mears referred to page 215 in relation to No 5  - rent loss due to empty dwellings.  This had shown a housemark last time but was under benchmarking this time.  Councillor Mears asked if there was a difference between the two.  Page 218 talked about not being able to present HCSTs using the same indicators as the repairs helpdesk.  Councillor Mears asked if anything was being done about that.  Councillor Mears referred to page 222 in relation to lift performance.   She was aware of significant issues in the city around lift breakdown.

12.7       The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement answered these questions as follows. 

·             Benchmark/housemark question – Rent loss – Councillor Mears would receive a written reply.  

·             Page 218 – repairs helpdesk.  The council and Mears Ltd used different telephone systems.  Until they used the same system there would be two separate information reports on this subject.

·             Lift breakdown – Residents’ concerns were recognised with regard to the distress caused when lifts were not fixed quickly enough.  There was a lift replacement programme.  As lifts were replaced, officers would ensure spares of obsolete parts were kept. 

12.8    Councillor Lewry asked for clarification regarding the figures in the far left column of pages 234 and 235.  He asked if these related to days properties were left empty.  Some of these figures were quite high and the property in Woodingdean had been empty for 18 months.

12.9   The Head of Income, Involvement & Improvement explained that the figures did relate to the time properties were left empty. Sometimes this was due to difficulties experienced in carrying out necessary works and in some cases it was due to properties being set aside to be transferred to Seaside Homes.  Until they were transferred they had to be counted as empty properties.  

12.10  RESOLVED:-

(1)      That the report which went to the Special Area Panel on 18 May 2016 be noted along with the comments of the Committee.