Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alex Diner, Aysegul Erdogan and Mouna Hamitouche MBE.

None.

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.

None.

RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair advised that representatives of the council’s capital works contractors had been due to provide witness evidence at the meeting; however this had been deferred to the January 2016 meeting. It was noted that the January meeting would be the last opportunity to consider capital programming witness evidence before the Committee considered its recommendations.

It was advised that a meeting for Circle 33 tenants would be held in the Town Hall on 25 November 2015. The Chair explained the ongoing problems with the housing association’s repairs service, and all members of the Committee and Circle 33 tenants and leaseholders were invited to attend the meeting.

The Chair advised of the annual Homes exhibition and seminar at Olympia on 16 and 17 November 2015.

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

It was agreed that public questions would be invited following the Committee’s consideration of each item, and any further public questions would then be invited  before the conclusion of the meeting.

Jim Rooke presented the report which set out the recommendations of the Service Review Group on how the housing service should learn from and respond to complaints.

The Committee noted the findings and methodology of the review. A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

·         The review found the quality of response to be inconsistent, with some responses lacking empathy, and some written responses not adhering to a consistent format.

·         The review found that in most cases learning from complaints had been applied, however further work was required to improve the consistency of response.

·         The Committee was encouraged by the reduction in the number of complaints and the number of upheld complaints.

·         The Committee noted the findings of the Service Review Group’s mystery shopping exercise, which found the majority of responses to be courteous, however some responses did not provide all of the required information. Members commented that this reflected their own experiences of the council’s housing service. 

·         The Committee acknowledged the hard work of officers in responding to resident enquiries.

·         The Committee queried if the Service Review Group considered the level of compensation payable by the housing service to be appropriate. It was advised that compensation levels varied from £20 to £70 depending on the circumstances of the complaint, however the Service Review Group had not formed an opinion on the appropriateness of the sums payable. It was requested that further details of compensation arrangements, including the average amount paid, be circulated to the Committee. Dr Brian Potter, Chair of the Islington Leaseholder’s Association, also requested a copy of the compensation data. 

·         A member of the public noted that the council’s target response time for responding to complaints was 21 days, commenting that other local authorities had a more challenging target. It was advised that the Service Review Group had recommended that complainants should be provided with an update if their complaint was not resolved within 10 days. 

The Committee thanked Jim Rooke and the Service Review Group for carrying out the comprehensive review.

RESOLVED:
That the recommendations of the Service Review Group be received.

Sharon Pearce, Managing Director of Partners for Improvement in Islington, introduced the report and made a presentation, copy interleaved, which provided an update on the organisation’s performance. A number of other Partners representatives were also present.

A discussion was had during which the following main points were made:

·         Partners managed around 6,500 street properties on behalf of the council through two long-term contracts. The organisation had completed major refurbishment works to ensure that the properties met the Decent Homes standard and was now responsible for the ongoing management and maintenance of the properties.

·         It was explained that a number of the organisation’s services were delivered through sub-contractors. Rydon was responsible for maintenance, major repairs and cyclical work; Hyde was responsible for tenancy and leasehold management; and United Living was responsible for capital works and gas and heating maintenance.

·         The Committee noted the latest key performance indicator data, which indicated that the percentage of repairs completed within timescales, and tenant satisfaction with repairs, was better than the contractual target. All indicators suggested a high level of performance. 

·         It was advised that the organisation previously had a backlog of major repairs; however this had been cleared following a revision of processes and the introduction of new staff.

·         Independent inspections of responsive and major repair works had found that 94% of repairs met the required quality standard.

·         It was advised that the organisation’s cyclical works programme operated on a geographic basis. Following the 2014 cycle the organisation had improved its processes to make the programme more effective.

·         The organisation had maintained rent collection rates at between 99-100% and the average re-let time was between 12 and 16 days, below the target of 27 days.

·         Partners was concerned by the results of a recent leaseholder satisfaction survey which identified dissatisfaction with major repairs and billing processes. The organisation was making changes as a result of the findings and hoped for improved leaseholder satisfaction as a result.

·         Partners had created a new central complaints team. It was reported that since the introduction of the team, Partners had experienced a reduction in complaints and upheld complaints, and an increase in consistency of response. In particular, it was noted that fewer complaints relating to roofing and major works were being received.

·         The Committee expressed surprise at the reported levels of performance, commenting that the performance indicators did not match the information provided to councillors by local residents.

·         In response to a query on methods of data collection, it was advised that repairs performance was assessed monthly by ORS, an independent research organisation that contacted a sample of residents by telephone. To compile repairs satisfaction data, ORS was provided with a list of residents whose homes recently required repair and surveyed a minimum of 10% of these residents. The Committee commented that it would be helpful to compare performance levels against historic data.

·         It was noted that Partners’ performance indicators were audited both independently and by the council.  

·         The Committee queried if a comparison between Partners’ key performance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

Damian Dempsey, Group Leader – Quantity Surveyors, presented evidence on building inflation data, which provided further explanation of the evidence considered at the previous meetings.

The following main points were noted during the discussion:

·         Following a query on wage increases contributing to significant building inflation in 2014, it was advised that this included wage increases at all levels in the building trade, not only at operative level. The Committee noted that many operatives had only received a modest wage increase, if at all, in recent years.

·         The Committee noted that inflationary increases in the building market were significantly higher than those set out in the council’s capital works contracts, and expressed concern that the cost of capital works would significantly increase when the council’s current contracts were due for renewal.

·         Dr Brian Potter of the Islington Leaseholders Association queried to what extent the capital programme schedules of rates were affected by inflationary increases, and in particular the suggestion by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that tender prices were expected to increase by 28% over the next five years. In response, it was clarified that the schedules of rates were fixed for the duration of the contracts, aside from the contractual RPI inflationary increases, however inflation would have an impact when the capital works contracts were re-tendered in future.

·         Contractors were required to submit tender bids against a national schedule of rates. Due to competitive tendering practices it was not expected that contactors would apply a blanket percentage increase to their schedules of rates when the capital works contracts were re-tendered.

·         Officers confirmed that leaseholders were able to visit the council’s offices to view the schedule of rates related to the capital works carried out to their own property.* 

The Committee thanked Damian Dempsey for his attendance.

It was noted that John Sweeney of the UCATT trade union had been invited to give evidence however was unable to attend the meeting.

The Committee noted that the Islington Leaseholders Association had circulated a report on capital programming and it was commented that this would be considered as witness evidence at the next meeting.

RESOLVED:
That the witness evidence be noted. 

Maxine Holdsworth, Service Director for Housing Needs and Strategy, made a presentation, copy interleaved, on changes to housing legislation proposed through the Housing and Planning Bill and the Welfare and Work Bill, and the possible implications for Islington.

The following main points were noted during the discussion:

·         The extension of Right to Buy to housing association tenants was to be financed by the sale of high value council-owned properties. Whilst Right to Buy was popular with tenants, the council was opposed to the financing mechanism which disadvantaged local authorities.

·         London boroughs were lobbying the government to earmark Right to Buy sales receipts for housing investment in the borough or region they originated from. This would ensure that housing associations reinvested capital receipts into meeting London’s housing need. 

·         Councils were to be required to sell high value properties when they became vacant and return the proceeds to central government. Due to the very high property prices in the borough, it was thought that transferring the council’s housing stock to private ownership could alter the social mix of the borough.

·         It was estimated that the council would be required to sell 300 properties per year; the London boroughs of Islington and Camden were expected to be the two areas most affected by the scheme due to the high numbers of valuable council-owned homes. Islington had previously agreed to retain the ownership of its high-value street properties, whereas other boroughs had transferred the ownership of their most valuable properties to other organisations.

·         There were 26,000 council owned properties in Islington, with 40% of the population living in social housing. The council had a considerable housing waiting list and 900 people living in temporary accommodation. Officers were concerned that the sale of high-value properties would increase the difficulty of housing families with several children requiring multiple bedrooms. It was suggested that the mandatory sale of properties could decrease council lettings by up to a third. 

·         The Committee considered the impact of starter homes being offered to first time buyers at a 20% discount. Although it was acknowledged that this would help first time buyers, it was expected that developers would be able to provide starter homes in lieu of social housing, without any corresponding Section 106 contribution. As the council required developers to provide 50% social housing or shared ownership in new developments, it was thought that the scheme could reduce the number of new affordable homes developed in the borough.

·         ‘Pay to Stay’ would require households earning over £40,000 to pay market rent on their council or housing association property. It was thought that 9% of households in Islington would be affected by the legislation and, whilst housing associations would be permitted to retain the additional income, all additional income received by local authorities would be returned to the Treasury. London boroughs were lobbying the Government to raise the income threshold to £71,000 in London, the same as the Local Housing Allowance level. It was also noted that housing providers did not routinely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

A member of the public advised of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour affecting her local area and queried why the council would not enforce conditions of tenancy and lease covenants on problematic neighbours.

In response, Maxine Holdsworth, Service Director for Housing Needs and Strategy, advised that while she could not comment on specific issues, counter-complaints were often submitted in such instances and the council had a responsibility to consider both sides of neighbour disputes. It was confirmed that the council did enforce conditions of tenancy and lease covenants if there was a breach, however these situations were often complicated and substantial evidence was required before action was taken.

The Chair advised that it may be appropriate to discuss specific issues with the relevant Executive Member. It was suggested that the Committee could consider scrutinising how the council handles housing-related noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour complaints in 2016/17.