Agenda item - Residents Question Time

Responses to items raised at the Tenant Only Meeting held on 23 November 2017

28.1    (Item 1 – Accessibility Issues)

28.2    A resident stated their preference for the Verdana font, minimum size 16. They requested if it was possible to receive pdf versions along with hard copies of agenda packs in the future.

28.3    An officer agreed to make adjustments to future despatch proceedings to include sending an electronic copy to the resident.

28.4    (3 Star Item – West Area Panel)

28.5    (Item 2 – Review of the Estate Development Budget)

28.6    Residents stated the following concerns and enquiries:

·         Expressed confusion as to why another review was being requested

·         Stated that Central didn’t receive everything that was bid, inferred that a bid had been lost due to incompetence on behalf of Mears.

·         A request for a review on Mears’ handling of EDB was submitted and formally seconded

·         Noted that the company “Lee Sullivan” appeared to be receiving a large number of sub-contractual work through Mears.

28.7    Officers responded to resident’s enquiries and concerns with the following:

·         Agreed that in the specific case of Mears potential negligence, would follow up and report on findings. They clarified that there was a difference between a specific enquiry and systemic issues.

·         Emphasised that the change in the past Estate Development Budgets was fundamental and that this is to be a more collective audit.

·         Stated that there was no evidence to suggest Lee Sullivan area receiving extra money from Mears. They furthered that Mears are legally allowed to sub-contract specialist works.

28.8    The Chair confirmed the request for guidance in regards to details of the review.

28.9    (Item 3 – Tackling Social Isolation)

28.10  Residents had the following enquiries, statements and concerns:

·         Stated that the response trivialises the experience

·         Expressed concern that a check-up every 5 years is not help

·         Whilst recognising the depleting resources, residents objected to the response on the grounds that it was lightweight

·         It was stated that engagement with new tenants was important and that Resident Officers must be more pro-active in future

28.11  Officers had the following responses for residents:

·         Apologised for the appearance of a soft response and reaffirmed that this was not the intention

·         Laid out the current system of support and the role the resident association plays and stressed its importance

·         Clarified that the Resident Involvement Review ascertains what is available within the terms of finite resources.

28.12  Chair summarised that this is an issue of being proactive in future. Enquired if it would be possible in future tenants to be notified of a new Resident Officer upon moving in.

28.13  (Item 4 – Affordable Housing)

28.14  AGREED – That the report be noted.

28.15  (Item 5 – Black boxes and recycling in South Hawk)

28.16  AGREED – That the report be noted.

28.17  (Item 6 – Rubbish in tenants gardens)

28.18  AGREED – That the report be noted.

28.19  (Item 7 – Reporting anti-social behaviour)

28.20  AGREED – That the report be noted.

28.21  (Item 8 – Tenancy requirements at Nettleton & Dudeney)

28.22  AGREED – That the report be noted.

28.23  (Item 9 – Gardens for new tenants)

28.24  A resident enquired if it would be possible for this to be considered as part of the 5 year check.

28.25  An officer offered to take this suggestion forward.

28.26  (Item 10 – Grants to Resident’s Associations)

28.27  Resident’s enquired why bank accounts are required

28.28  An officer stated that the account they hold is for office and statutory equipment.

28.29  The Chair agreed with resident’s request to address the scope of the grants payments system.