Agenda item

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 indicators and the council’s own performance could be provided.

·         It was commented that the response times to member enquiries had significantly improved in recent years.

·         The Committee queried how Partners was working with leaseholders to improve billing arrangements. It was advised that, following feedback from leaseholders, Partners had sought the expertise of Hyde’s home ownership team in January 2015 to improve its service. Partners was committed to improving the quality and accuracy of its service charge bills, however explained that improvements to this service would take some time to come to fruition. It was requested that figures relating to the number of leaseholder complaints and how many bills had been contested be reported to the Committee.

·         It was queried how the Government’s proposed Housing Bill would impact on Partners, and in particular how the requirement for the council to sell its most expensive properties would impact on Partners’ business plan. In response, it was advised that there was a contractual mechanism which required the council to compensate Partners for the lost income arising from taking properties out of the contract.

·         Partners had its own roofing team which was supplemented by sub-contractors when required. The roofing team was achieving the performance targets set out in the contracts.

·         A Partners leaseholder advised of a particular service charge billing issue where the scope of works had changed and cost of the works had almost doubled from the estimate issued in the Section 20 notice. The leaseholder suggested that it would be helpful for repairs to be photographed before and after works to demonstrate the necessity and quality of the works. In response it was advised that Rydon staff scrutinised the value and extent of all bills before they were issued and, although some variation was to be expected, some further work with staff may be required in this area.

·         A member of the public queried Partners’ repair satisfaction levels, advising of instances where an independent surveyor found Partners’ maintenance and repair work to be deficient. In response it was commented that cyclical works, such as painting, did not fall within the scope of the repairs satisfaction performance indicator, which measured responsive repairs. 

·         A member of the public queried Partners’ performance indicator methodology. It was advised that their roof had required repair ten times within six years and, although each individual repair had been carried out within agreed timescales, the fact that repeated repairs were required suggested that the repairs were not carried out successfully. It was suggested that there was no way of recognising such issues within the agreed performance indicator framework. Partners noted that they were making service improvements and considering component lifecycles and repair histories when assessing the need for works. It was recognised that in some instances replacements were more appropriate than repairs.  

·         Following a question from Dr Brian Potter of the Islington Leaseholders Association, it was advised that Partners employed four surveyors for cyclical works, three for major repairs, a dedicated roof supervisor and team, and two surveyors to investigate leaseholder challenges. It was noted that all were technically trained, although Partners did not insist on a RICS qualification. Dr Potter invited representatives of Partners to attend the next meeting of the Islington Leaseholders Association.

·         It was commented that the Partners tenant and leaseholder forum used to consider regular performance reports, however this had been disbanded. It was advised that, although Partners’ resident scrutiny arrangements had been revised, an open forum was held which could consider performance matters.

·         Members of the public raised several issues specific to their homes and experiences of Partners, which included roofing, scaffolding, complaints handling, compensation arrangements, guarantees, billing leaseholders before works had been completed, and the use of sub-contractors.

·         Partners clarified that the multiple sub-letting of repairs contracts did not occur and all Partners contractors were vetted and required to demonstrate technical competency.

·         Following a question, it was advised that Partners had considered minimising the use of scaffolding and making use of alternative work platforms and technologies, however scaffolding was almost always required to access the rear of street properties.

The Committee thanked Sharon Pearce and her colleagues for attending the meeting.