Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Aysegul Erdogan and Rose Marie Macdonald. Apologies were also received from Richard Smith of Half Moon Crescent Tenants Co-operative, who was scheduled to provide witness evidence under item B10, Scaffolding Scrutiny Review.  

Councillor Jilani Chowdhry for Councillor Aysegul Erdogan.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d)      Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

As an employee of Circle Housing, Councillor Chowdhury declared a pecuniary interest in Item B8, Registered Social Providers – Circle Anglia Presentation, and did not participate in this item.

As a Circle Housing tenant, Councillor Andrews declared a personal interest in Item B8, Registered Social Providers – Circle Anglia Presentation.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting on 26 January 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair referred to the Committee’s recent site visit undertaken as part of the scrutiny review of scaffolding and work platforms. It was commented that the visit was valuable and gratitude was expressed to the Council’s contractors for their participation.

The Chair stated that the order of business would be as per the agenda.

The Chair outlined the procedure for public questions and the filming and recording of meetings.

Mark Rogers, Group Chief Executive, and Chris Eddison, Regional Director, were present on behalf of Circle Housing and made a presentation to the Committee, copy interleaved, during which the following main points were made –

·         Mr Rogers offered an unreserved apology for the unacceptable housing maintenance and repairs service provided to Circle’s tenants in the Borough by Kier Services. Mr Rogers emphasised Circle’s commitment to Islington and working in partnership with the Council.

·         It was noted that Circle provided 3,488 homes in Islington and employed 250 people in the Borough.

·         Information was provided about Circle’s customers in the Borough and the services provided to them. It was commented that 52% of Circle tenants in Islington were aged between 40 and 60 and in single households, which was a different profile to Circle customers in other areas.

·         The advantages of supporting the financial resilience of customers were explained; helping tenants with debt and income advice helps to reduce arrears. Only 2.6% of the organisation’s tenants in the Borough were currently in arrears.

·         It was stated that Circle had a positive voids position, with fewer than 1% of its properties in the Borough void at any one time. The current voids position was given as 0.67%.

·         The background of Circle’s repairs and maintenance contract with Kier was explained. The contract was intended to improve performance and deliver value for money. Tenants throughout the group were consulted throughout the tender process and helped to select the contractor.

·         Circle had sought to mitigate the contractual problems with Kier by allocating additional resources to its customer service, complaints and surveyors sections. However, Circle considered that insufficient progress had been made by the contractor and as a result Kier was to cease providing the organisation’s responsive repairs service by the end of April 2015, and emergency repairs service by the end of March 2015.

·         Mr Rogers stressed the importance of partnership work and in particular drew attention to Circle’s work with the Council on tenancy fraud, and the work with MAGPI teams on anti-social behaviour.

·         The resident engagement and “social dividend” work of Circle was noted. Circle sought to promote home mobility, with 400 Islington residents registered for its house exchange programme, and 10,000 customers registered across London.

·         Following a question from a member, it was stated that the new repairs and maintenance contractor could not be named at the time for reasons of commercial sensitivity.

·         It was queried at what stage Circle acknowledged the problems with its repairs and maintenance contractor. It was explained that the contract started in November 2013, and initial performance issues were considered to be teething problems, or related to the relatively high workload following the winter storms of that year. Following further poor performance, the problem was acknowledged in Spring 2014, at which stage Circle sought to address the issues with the contractor.

·         It was commented that there were performance issues with the repairs and maintenance service before November 2013, and this was why a new contract was initially  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Gary Harris of the GMB Union was present and made a presentation to the Committee, copy interleaved, during which the following main points were made –

·         It was suggested that there were several instances of duplication of responsibility in the Estate Management service; in particular between Estate Service Coordinators and Quality Assurance Officers. Further duplication was identified in the analytical roles of the Support Manager and the Housing Environmental Coordinating Team. 

·         It was recommended that the Committee should consider job descriptions for different posts in the service to investigate any duplication of responsibility.

·         Mr Harris suggested that there was confusion among caretakers in regards to who was responsible for management, and proposed an alternative service structure.

·         It was explained that each caretaking task was measured to ensure consistency and manage workloads; however measurements did not incorporate walking distances or replacement of water, and for this reason were considered inaccurate.

·         The GMB favoured SLAs for estates, as these enable tenants and leaseholders to be aware of the service levels they can expect to receive.

·         Attention was drawn to the lodge facilities available to caretakers. The view of the GMB was that these are of a poor standard and required investment from either the health and safety or corporate budget.

·         The GMB considered the management structure to be inefficient and suggested that the cost of management should be met from central officer budgets.

David Salenius, Principal Housing Manager (Estate Services), was present and presented a report to the Committee, copy interleaved, during which the following main points were made –

·         The current service structure was recommended following a best value review and had led to an increase in service satisfaction levels.

·         The service management structure had been revised twice in recent years, saving £500k per annum.

·         The alternative service structure proposed by the GMB, which divides responsibility for repairs and caretaking, was not supported as residents preferred a single point of contact.

·         The Council was investing £100k into caretaker lodges in 2014/15 and invested £40k in 2013/14.

A debate was had, in which the following points were made –

·         Members agreed that there appears to be some overlap in responsibilities between Estate Service Coordinators and Quality Assurance Officers.

·         Although only eight of the 190 caretakers were agency staff, it was suggested that some of these had been working for the Council for over a year and should be considered for permanent positions.

The Chair thanked officers and the GMB Union for attending.

RESOLVED:

That job descriptions for the service be circulated to the Committee in advance of the next meeting.

The Committee received evidence from Brian Potter, Chairman of Islington Leaseholder’s Association (ILA). The following main points were made –

·         It was suggested that the Council should have greater engagement with the ILA.

·         The ILA considered that scaffolding was too expensive, and although scaffolding was a fixed cost, prices were unnecessarily “front loaded” and represented poor value for money for both the Council and leaseholders.

·         Greater oversight of scaffold works was required. The ILA provided examples of scaffolding being erected, dismantled, and then erected again for separate works within a short time period. It was also suggested that scaffold works had damaged properties.

·         The ILA preferred for the Council to have an in-house scaffolding service which could also provide scaffolding services to neighbouring boroughs.

·         It was alleged that several scaffolds on the public highway had been erected without a licence.

·         A debate was had regarding the health and safety and storage requirements of an in-house scaffolding service.

The Chair thanked the ILA for their attendance.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the summary of the site visit circulated with the agenda be noted;

(b)  That the impact of scaffolding works on residents be considered further as part of a future scrutiny review into housing repairs, including whether a review of management procedures could result in more effective scheduling of scaffolding works.

Irna Van Der Palen, Head of Private Housing Partnerships, was present and presented a report to the Committee, copy interleaved, during which the following main points were made –

·         It was noted that the private rented sector represented 26% of the available housing in the Borough and was often inaccessible for those on middle and low incomes.

·         Although Islington had some very high quality private rented properties, there was some evidence of poor quality properties, including illegal conversions.

·         The Committee was advised of progress made against the scrutiny recommendations, as set out at Appendix A to the report submitted.

·         It was advised that the Council’s Social Lettings Agency had been established and would launch in April 2015. A publicity campaign had been launched and the Council was incentivising private landlords to subscribe to the scheme by guaranteeing six months’ rent up front.

·         Further to recommendation 3.1, it was advised that 146 of the Borough’s 150 lettings agents had subscribed to a redress scheme.

·         Further to recommendation 3.2, it was advised that 73 of the 150 lettings agents had been visited.

·         It was noted that the Council had established a telephone number for residents seeking private sector housing advice. Residents could also complain to the Council about private housing via the Council’s website. The Committee requested details of how many calls had been made to the telephone number.

·         Following a query, it was confirmed that eight private landlords had expressed an interest in working with the social lettings agency. It was also clarified that the social lettings agency was intended to be cost-neutral.

·         A member queried which residents would receive priority for housing through the social lettings agency and suggested that those from the social housing list should receive priority. It was confirmed that a referral system had been established to identify those in need of a property who would benefit most from the scheme. Between 20 and 30 households were on the agency’s waiting list.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the progress on the recommendations be noted;

(b)  That details of how many calls the private sector housing advice telephone number has received be circulated to the Committee.