Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Decisions:
Members received an update on
the progress made against the action plan produced in response to
the review of the Housing Repairs service. Members were reminded
that the ‘backlog’ discussed was not a backlog in work
but in ‘completing’ jobs on the Orchard system. It was
reported that additional controls had been introduced in relation
to void costs (including kitchens), that the schedule of rates was
being reviewed and that capacity had been increased whilst costs
remained the same. It was also noted that work was being undertaken
to develop relationships between Housing Officers and the Housing
Repairs team by way of shadowing and co-location in order to build
a greater understanding of the work of the teams and the needs of
the tenants.
Discussion ensued
regarding:
- Housemark: It was explained that
this benchmarking site was for monitoring purposes and was not an
accreditation. Officers agreed to confirm the cost of
this;
- Voids: Members wished
to view completed works on voids to be aware of the current
standard. It was stated that the standard hadn’t been lowered
as part of the action plan, but it did standardise work to prevent
too much being spent on a void on unnecessary works. Members were
informed that ‘tenant inspectors’ were used, to look at
random samples of properties of their choosing. It was also felt
that members should have the opportunity to see the standard of
some vacated properties before work is commenced;
- Customer care: the
importance of customer care and good communication skills was
emphasised;
- Customer
satisfaction: Some research was to be undertaken into the response
rate to surveys and the type of person who usually
responds;
- Staffing restructure:
It was stated that there had been no cost to the
restructure;
- The cost of upgrading
Orchard: it was noted that the Orchard system was not just used by
Housing Repairs but also by the Housing Allocations, Rents and
Anti-Social Behaviour teams;
- Boiler repair
contract: concern was expressed that the contractor did not provide
good customer care and seemed to have to make many repeat calls. In
response it was reported that a fixed fee was paid, not a fee per
call out, but that repeat calls were monitored;
- Boiler replacement
programme: it was reported that there was a boiler replacement
programme which was procured each year depending upon the number of
planned replacements in the programme;
- Improvement
programmes: it was noted that there was a kitchen replacement
programme in place, but that bathroom replacements were
responsive;
Concern was expressed about how
a potential overspend would be flagged up, and in response it was
noted that there were weekly monitoring meetings and forecasting
was carried out continuously.
With regard to the standard of
vacated properties and the standard of voids when returned to use,
officers agreed to consider how members could be made aware of
this. It was also agreed to email a copy of the standards to
members.
RESOLVED –
(i)
the void standard be sent to
members;
(ii) cost of Housemark
membership be conveyed to members;
(iii)
the report be noted and progress made be endorsed.
Report author: Julie Kenny
Publication date: 19/12/2013
Date of decision: 11/11/2013
Decided at meeting: 11/11/2013 - Finance, Audit & Performance Committee
Accompanying Documents: