Agenda item

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.