Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alex Diner and Raphael Andrews (for lateness).

Councillor Rakhia Ismail for Councillor Alex Diner.

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.

Councillor Una O’Halloran, Councillor Rakhia Ismail and Jim Rooke declared personal interests in Item B1, Responsive Repairs Witness Evidence, as council tenants and users of the responsive repairs service.

RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair reminded the Committee of the forthcoming scrutiny visit to the council facilities at Brewery Road and Tufnell Park on 13 April 2016.  This would enable members to meet with responsive repairs staff and tour the council’s training facility.

It was noted that One Housing Group would be presenting to the April meeting and Hyde Housing Association had been invited to the May meeting.

The Chair advised that he had recently attended an informative presentation on the Affinity Sutton repairs service. The Chair had invited the organisation to provide witness evidence as part of the responsive repairs scrutiny.

No changes were proposed to the order of business.

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

(a)  Evidence from Kwest

Susan Richmond of Kwest Research made a presentation to the Committee on the organisation’s work in surveying resident satisfaction with the responsive repairs service.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         Kwest was a Manchester-based organisation with over 25 years’ experience in social housing research. The organisation was a member of the Market Research Society and had provided services to Islington since 2003. Responsive repairs surveys had been conducted since 2008.

·         Kwest did not sub-contract any aspect of its service. The organisation provided research services to a number of local authorities and housing providers on areas such as repairs satisfaction, anti-social behaviour, complaints, grounds maintenance and estate services. 

·         The organisation’s surveying methods provided clients with instant feedback on their services. For satisfaction with Islington’s repairs service, the data collected was automatically transferred to a spreadsheet which updated overnight. Data was available to Islington Council the following day, which allowed any complaints or other comments to be investigated as required.

·         Kwest’s latest contract with the council was for surveying repairs satisfaction over a two year period from December 2015. At the time the contract was renewed, the council changed its survey questions. It was commented that the previous survey was somewhat repetitive and considered to be too long. It was also agreed that the organisation would increase its number of interviews to 15% of repairs provided in order to survey a greater sample size.

·         The organisation surveyed Islington residents via telephone, with the interviewer filling in a response form online. If a resident was unhappy with the service received, a verbatim record of their dissatisfaction was made.

·         The council provided Kwest with data on the residents receiving repairs. Those who had received multiple repairs to their property were excluded in order to link each interview to a single repair. Kwest then amended the data to remove records with no contact details, residents whose repair had not been recently completed, and anyone already interviewed in the last three months to avoid survey fatigue. It was noted that many residents were happy to take part in the survey; however this goodwill was lost by repeatedly surveying residents.

·         Kwest had a large team of interviewers who called residents throughout the day and early evening Monday to Thursday, morning and afternoon on Friday, and also at the weekend. Multiple attempts were made to call residents and call-backs could be arranged for more convenient times.

·         Data from December 2015 to February 2016 indicated that current satisfaction levels were good, with 69% of respondents very satisfied with their repair. A slight decrease in satisfaction was recorded for the month of February.

·         Reported satisfaction levels had increased since the survey questions were revised in December 2015. This is because the council had asked Kwest to survey satisfaction with the repair received ‘on this occasion’ as opposed to overall satisfaction, which tended to be lower as residents included wider factors in their response. Due to the change in interview questions it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

Christine Short, Head of Capital Programming, made a presentation to the Committee on the large fire at Rollit House and the reinstatement works underway.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Committee considered the scale and context of the fire, reviewing images, plans, and the challenges associated with major reinstatement works.

·         It was noted that there was no loss of life due to the actions of one resident who quickly alerted her neighbours to the fire. The Committee commented that the actions of the resident should be formally recognised in some way.

·         Rollit House was compliant with building regulations at the time it was constructed and additional fire safety measures were due to be installed two weeks after the fire occurred.

·         The Committee considered the logistical challenges associated with rehousing an entire block of residents and securing their possessions at short notice.

·         The Committee noted the meetings held with and communications sent to residents. Engaging residents in the reinstatement works was essential.

·         It was decided to reinstate rather than demolish the building as Rollit House was still structurally intact.

·         Challenges associated with the reinstatement works included carrying out surveys, clearing damaged furniture and fittings, the removal of asbestos, the relaying of the gas supply, assessing and rectifying water damage, and amending the layout of properties to ensure they were consistent with the latest fire regulations.

·         It was reported that the council was working closely with its insurer to ensure that the cost of the reinstatement works would be covered. The council self-insured to the value of £1million and costs above this level were due to be met by the insurer. Leaseholders were required to make a contribution in the region of a few hundred pounds.

·         A significant procurement exercise had been conducted to appoint a single contractor to carry out all of the reinstatement works. It was commented that the council had the expertise to produce its own technical documents to support the procurement process, whereas other authorities would likely have to buy in this service. A contractor had been appointed and works were due to finish by October 2016. The contract required working to strict deadlines otherwise the contractor was liable for any additional costs.

·         It was advised that the fire appeared to be accidental and the likely cause was unattended candles.

·         The Committee queried the council’s emergency response processes. It was commented that emergency plans were in place and in the event of a fire such as that at Rollit House residents were booked into hotels and provided with a small amount of money if necessary.

·         It was queried if the council would analyse the payments made against insurance claims. It was reported that such tasks would be the responsibility of the council’s insurance team. The council re-tendered its insurances every few years to ensure value for money.

·         The council did not have existing floor plans for all of its properties and no existing plans were held for Rollit House. It was noted that plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.