Agenda item
Council housing management services
This report provides an overview of Brent Housing Management’s (BHM’s) operational performance. It focuses on this financial year (2019/20) and provides data for the period since the service came in-house (October 2016) for comparison. The report also identifies actions that are designed to further transform resident experience
Minutes:
Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform) introduced the Council Housing Management Services Report, providing an overview of Brent Housing Management’s operational performance. The report provided data for the period since the service came in-house in October 2017 for comparison.
In outlining the report, Councillor Southwood highlighted the following key points:
- Housing repairs were a difficult area for residents. She hoped the committee could see the concerted effort to improve, such as tackling the misdiagnosis of emergency repairs, which were now being completed on time 100% of the time. The contractor, Wates, handled all repairs.
- The Housing Management Service dealt with considerable scale, and expected to see further improvements. There were issues of estate management for residents, and the cleaning service currently under review had been brought back in-house, with residents part of that review to specify what they would like to see from the service.
- The tenancy sustainment panel had been introduced by the Council to address those residents receiving Universal Credit and who were vulnerable to rent arrears.
- In acknowledging the deputation, Councillor Southwood felt that it was an example where work had not been as joined up as it should have been. Properties in disrepair for some time came to the services attention from councillors flagging them, resident complaints and proactive work where Officers sampled the state of properties. It was expressed that it was important to hear about concerns and issues, and that she expected teams to work jointly to resolve issues, including with Veolia, the waste management provider.
The Chair thanked Councillor Southwood for her introduction, and invited Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director for Housing, Brent Council) to make any additions to the presentation, with the following highlighted:
- Hakeem Osinaike issued a correction to the report, which stated that housing management came in-house in 2016, highlighting that it came in-house in 2017.
- In response to the deputation, Hakeem Osinaike agreed that the service did not always get everything right, and it was always good to receive feedback from residents. He felt that as feedback was received, they could build a programme to ensure needs were met.
- He highlighted that Brent Housing Management were always investing in properties, and this financial year had committed to spending £6.5m refurbishing all low-rise properties including windows, roofs and heating systems. In total, the Housing Management Team were spending £17m investing in properties.
The Chair thanked both Councillor Southwood and Hakeem Osinaike, and expressed appreciation for the work of the Housing Management Service. He proceeded to invite questions and comments from Committee members, with the following issues raised:
In response to whether the team felt disappointed that some areas had remained unimproved within the new Housing Management Service, Councillor Southwood expressed that it was a wide ranging and complex service. She expressed that lessons had been learnt from the previous service, particularly in relation to outstanding repair issues. It was noted that it was hard to compare the new in-house service to the previous service, as the new service had a much larger remit. Councillor Southwood added that there was ever increasing transparency where things needed improvement. For example, the trial in July 2018 for ‘patchless’ working was identified by residents as an issue, therefore the service would revert back to a patch-based model from April 2020.
The committee noted paragraph 4.1 of the report that highlighted a steady increase in customer satisfaction, and queried whether there was any qualitative data that could offer better reflections of outcomes and accountability. In response, Councillor Southwood informed the committee of the introduction of a follow-up to repairs where Officers spoke to residents immediately after the repair, asking whether it met their expectations and why. It was more of a quantitative measure of satisfaction. She felt that there was not a correlation between the huge investment in repairs and customer satisfaction, so qualitative data was necessary to underpin why.
Sean Gallagher (Head of Housing Property, Brent Council) added that where dissatisfaction had been reported, the resident was contacted and a report taken. These reports were then taken to a weekly meeting with contractors, the customer experience team and property surveyors to draw out mistakes made and trends. There was also the Customer Experience Panel made up of Brent Council tenants, which was exploring customer satisfaction.
Continuing to discuss customer feedback, Sean Gallagher responded to a question that there were not currently measures for the broad experience of tenants where they had not needed or received a service. The model would be changed in the new financial year with broader questions currently in development with regard to repairs. He was also proposing that the Customer Experience Panel joined the Housing Management Team on the journey of a repair as it happened in real time. Hakeem Osinaike noted the annual housing survey (STAR) as a broad test of how tenants and leaseholders felt about the Council as a landlord. Regarding the use of data from that survey, Hakeem Osinaike explained that the customer insight team gathered all of the information from those surveys and analysed them to inform services of improvements that could be made. Councillor Southwood added that where trends were coming out from the data she was able to act on them as a Cabinet Member.
It was agreed that for future scrutiny meetings Housing Management report could include the voice of the tenants.
The Committee noted the increase in customer satisfaction to 83%. In response to where the service hoped to be next year, Councillor Southwood expressed that she would like to see 90% customer satisfaction. Hakeem Osinaike added that Brent Housing Management were performing at the top quarter in London.
The committee queried what core work would be done to assist the rise in customer satisfaction hoped for. Councillor Southwood responded that they were striving to work with a more joined up approach, as it impacted resident experience if they had to call several times and be passed around to different services. She highlighted voids as an area for improvement and estate management services. They were working with residents to redefine the cleaning service.
Hakeem Osinaike hoped to see an improvement in customer satisfaction as a result of addressing areas identified as needing improvement. For example, to address shortfalls in complex repairs the service would work with Wates through new weekly meetings looking at the way Wates operated. The renewed relationship with Wates allowed constructive working, and Wates had been informed how the housing service would measure them and the frequency issues would be raised. Phil Porter noted that 30% of Wates score on planned works would be tenant and leaseholder satisfaction going forward. Other work included the introduction of an online application to 700 tenants and leaseholders that enabled them to report a repair or book an appointment. If the pilot worked well, they would introduce the application to all tenants to allow them to book repairs 24/7.
Members of the Committee also asked for details on the tangible changes that had been made to make the improvements seen in the report. Councillor Southwood felt that bringing the service in-house had given the Council more agency over what happened and more control on standards. They were working on the attitude and culture of the service. The new record management system would also allow for more joined up working with other services. Hakeem Osinaike noted that the in-house service allowed other services within Community Wellbeing to work together and provide a whole service, as often the teams were providing services for the same residents, for example the single homeless prevention service.
Regarding section 8.9 of the report about keeping residents safe, Committee Members queried why the percentage of properties with a valid gas certificate was at 99.72% and not 100% and how the service planned to reach 100%. Sean Gallagher explained that not every tenant let them in to test and they sometimes would have to use court action. The gas certificates would eventually be obtained, and he was confident that Brent was performing in the top quartile.
The committee requested a report back at the end of the 12-week audit ensuring there were Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for all residents in high-rise blocks to assure the committee that the work had been completed. It was agreed that this could be reported. To complete the actions required liaison with individual residents. Personal evacuation plans were a sensitive piece of information to obtain, and could worry residents. Regarding the low-rise fire safety work programme, Councillor Southwood expressed there had been an unacceptable delay due to issues with Wates’ supply chain. It was in relation to sourcing correct fire doors, and whilst the service recognised the difficulty sourcing the doors, they did not accept it as a reason for delay. Wates were being closely monitored and Phil Porter had met with Wates that day and been informed that they were on track with their monthly plan.
Specifically regarding the number of calls answered in the table of paragraph 6.1, which was an area for improvement identified in the report, Hakeem Osinaike explained that they were taking on a larger number of calls than the previous service due to the expanded remit of the service and the introduction of new phone and record management systems had impacted the service. Before the introduction of the new phone system and record management system contact centre performance had improved significantly by approximately 10%, so now that the new systems were running smoothly it was hoped that performance could get back to that level by June 2020 and then see a further improvement in the latter part of the year. The introduction of these new technological systems was a part of the wider Council’s digital transformation programme.
There was further discussion relating to the central call centre, in which both housing needs and repairs were dealt with. The Committee wanted to know how the service could deal with a vulnerable client over a phone enquiry and whether the workforce were well equipped to deal with those situations. Hakeem Osinaike explained that when dealing with complex matters it was not dealt with in the contact centre, but sent through to a secondary team to take the case forward either by phone or visiting the tenant. The introduction of the record management system meant that contact centre Officers had access to as much case work information as possible to allow them to assist the client more fully. Hakeem Osinaike highlighted the desire to deal with all enquiries in the same contact centre to limit the amount of transference to someone else, and often 80% of calls required straightforward answers. The aim was that when the resident left the call they would know what would happen next. The Committee requested figures in future reports showing how calls were handled and the percentage of people satisfied with call outcomes.
Presenting Officers confirmed that the record management system had robust security, taking into consideration GDPR requirements as it dealt with personal information. The service had staff responsible for ensuring full compliance with data regulations.
The Chair invited Councillor McLennan (Deputy Leader, Brent Council) to take the speaker’s seat. Councillor McLennan further explained that the digital strategy for 2019-2023 was tied in with the cyber security strategy, and the Council worked closely with other London Councils to ensure ethical data gathering. Security was an essential part of the strategy. The Chair thanked Councillor McLennan for her contribution.
It was confirmed that while all housing management services were now delivered in-house, there were a number of contractors who they still worked with such as Wates. There was a political desire to bring as much as possible in-house. A target was to build 1,000 new homes, a major contract across the council with Councillor Krupa Sheth leading what the options might be politically.
The Chair invited Councillor Hylton to take the speaker’s seat. Councillor Hylton expressed uncertainty with the process of how complex repairs were dealt with, and gave personal experiences of needing complex repairs as an example. Sean Gallagher expressed that complex repairs had never been managed well and the process meant there were often delays. The team were working with Wates to begin addressing these issues.
Councillor Hylton also asked about the members of the Customer Experience Panel and how representative the panel was. Hakeem Osinaike responded that the members of the panel had been recruited through advertisements on the internet and through local newspapers. There was a variety of members and it was expressed that the panel was very representative, with a lot of professionals in their own rights who were able to challenge the Officers. The panel had been in existence for 18 months and the plan was to retain the members rather than have a turnover. Recruitment would happen if positions became vacant. Having concluded her questions, Councillor Hylton was invited to retake her seat.
Regarding tackling Anti-Social Behaviour, Hakeem Osinaike explained that the team were working closely with the Council’s Community Safety Team on an agreed process. They also worked with police. It was highlighted that there was a combined effort across the council to deal with Anti-Social Behaviour. It was hoped that the new record management system would help improve communication with residents about Anti-Social Behaviour.
Committee members wanted to hear about financial pressures and mitigation for the service. Councillor Southwood explained that there had been a £0.5m overspend in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). This was because the Public Works Loan Board borrowing rate was increased by 1% and cost the Housing Revenue Account around £1m a year. Turnover for the service was around £55m. The service was currently out for consultation on increasing rents in Council Housing, due to close shortly. The government rent freeze represented a financial loss to HRA of around £23m, and the service now had the opportunity to consult with residents about an increase to rent equating to around 55p per week for Social Housing Tenants. The draft budget made assumptions that the rent was increased.
The questions being concluded, the Chair invited the Committee to make any formal recommendations, with the following recommendations resolved:
(i) That Cabinet reports back to the Committee at the earliest opportunity regarding the completion of outstanding actions relating to Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans and with the results of the 12-week safety programme for high-rise blocks.
(ii) That Cabinet reports back to the Committee about how they will develop further qualitative measurements of customer satisfaction for council housing management, and with the results of the STAR survey measurement.
(iii) That Cabinet reports back to the Committee with comparative data and benchmarking data in relation to other similar boroughs’ council housing management.
Supporting documents: