Agenda item

Lynn Stratton, Deputy Head of Communications and Change, introduced the Scrutiny Initiation Document.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Housing Service was a large service which had to communicate several different messages to residents. It was important to communicate the right message, to the right people, at the right time.

·         The council’s resident review groups had previously reviewed communications matters. It was commented that the findings of these reviews could be fed into the committee’s review.

·         The Committee suggested that agreeing a Code of Communications among the council’s housing services, Partners, and contractors would be a method of ensuring that communication with residents was of a consistently high quality.

·         The council had been working to develop its online housing services, which included the repairs reporting system. The council’s website had also been redesigned in 2016 and it now met high standards of accessibility.

·         It was suggested that witness evidence could take the form of joint workshops with officers to review complaints, and receiving feedback from focus groups or resident forums.

·         A member commented that residents often assigned greater importance to printed communications as opposed to emails, and acknowledged the council’s work to develop and improve online services. It was asked if there were any services which would not be appropriate or effective to provide online. Officers noted that no decision had been taken on if particular services could not be provided online, but it was decided that some key information should be available in hard copy. For example, recent communications relating to fire safety following the Grenfell Tower fire had been printed and delivered to each property due to its importance. It was suggested that websites were particularly useful in signposting to other services.

·         A member commented that although it was possible to report anti-social behaviour online, there was no feedback system to communicate what was being done in response to these reports.

·         The digital notice boards installed on estates had been well received, and it was thought that these could be developed further by including more localised content. It was suggested that residents’ associations could be consulted on the information they wanted these screens to display.

·         The Committee queried how repairs reported online were processed, and if this resulted in a quicker response than reporting via telephone. 

·         A member commented that housing services were unlikely to receive feedback from residents who could not speak English, and asked how the council knew that its housing services were accessible to all. In response it was advised that the council did make a number of publications available in multiple languages, and telephone translation services were available on request. A member suggested that many residents did not know that translation services were available.

·         A review by the resident Service Review Group found that if one person in a household could speak English they would often translate for their families. This usually involved younger people translating for their parents.

·         It was requested that the findings of relevant reviews carried out by resident scrutiny groups be circulated to the Committee.

·         The Committee requested that the Scrutiny Initiation Document be amended to specify that the review should focus on verbal, written and online communication, as well as communication between officers, communication with residents, communication between departments, and communication with tenant and resident associations.

·         A member of the public suggested that residents needed methods to communicate with the housing service in a collective way, as ‘atomised’ forms of communication did not highlight wider issues.

·         A member of the public asked if the review would focus on how councillors communicated with residents. In response it was advised that the review was focused on Housing Service communications.

·         The Committee requested an organisation chart which indicated lines of communication within the council and with residents. It was requested that this include front line staff, including caretakers.

·         A member if the Committee highlighted that issues were sometimes escalated to councillors if there was not an effective resolution, and councillors could get frustrated by the same issues occurring repeatedly. It was suggested that a detailed evaluation of resident journeys through services could help to identify issues which need resolving.

The Committee thanked Lynn Stratton for her attendance.

RESOLVED:

That the Scrutiny Initiation Document be approved, subject to amendments to specify that the review would consider: verbal, written and online communication, communication between officers, communication with residents, communication between departments, and communication with tenant and resident associations.