Agenda item
Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) - performance update
This presentation will provide an overview of BHP’s performance and provide:
· Analysis of BHP benchmarking results compared with London Boroughs and Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMO) performance improvement club
· Analysis of BHP benchmarking results compared with London Traditional Housing Associations and Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT)
Minutes:
David Bishopp of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) gave a presentation highlighting the performance of the company against similar local authorities and ALMOs as well as other housing associations. In comparison to local authorities and ALMOs it was explained that BHP had improved in terms of value for money; including overheads and major works. In terms of key performance indicators (KPIs) customer satisfaction was in the middle to upper and upper quartile. BHPs performance improved in terms of costs and major works compared to other authorities with major works moving from 16th position to 5th. It was highlighted that BHP no longer operated as a development business but had undertaken a small development of330 homes which had led to the misleading poor performance figures. It was noted that the comparisons were against local authorities that undertook large developments and was not a fair comparison. David Bishopp highlighted that rent arrears continued to be a poor performing indicator due to the external pressures of the economic climate and changes to welfare, with decent homes also showing as poor due to changes in the way performance was recorded and tenants refusing works. It was highlighted that Brent was performing well compared to traditional London housing associations, being third in terms of overhead costs and fourth in terms of housing management.
Members raised residents concerns of not receiving replies to complaints and issues being raised. David Bishopp explained that complaints were meant to receive an initial response within 10 days then passed to the relevant department for a full response and agreed to forward any unanswered complaints to the relevant department. Following discussions, members queried the difficulties in re-letting properties despite a housing shortage. It was explained that the allocation process enabled tenants to refuse properties that they did not wish to live in for a variety of reasons such as desirability, size and location. A revised choice based lettings scheme was being devised to restrict tenants from refusing more than three properties to improve re-letting. It was noted that the current re-letting target was 27 days with average re-let time of 26 days the previous month. It was noted that properties requiring major works would often have a longer re-let time which would affect performance statistics. Following queries it was explained that the financial information had only just been completed for the end of year and is sent off for comparison with a final report being received in September. It was explained that the KPIs were reported on a quarterly basis. Members queried the level of performance in relation to the standard of decent homes and re-letting. It was explained that the decent homes indicator was misleading due to many tenants refusing works, with these homes being included within the indicator. It was noted that rent collection was targeted at 98% and was currently operating at 98.4% although future difficulties were anticipated in line with the current climate and welfare changes, with 67% of tenants currently receiving housing benefit. Members queried how rent arrears were addressed and how we compared. It was explained that we could not be compared to housing associations due to secured tenancies. A rent collection team would address any rears and follow an escalation policy before the final stage of a court possession order being sought. If a forwarding addressed was passed on then a debt collection agency would be engaged with one officer collecting arrears from former tenants with the target return greater than the costs to employ them. David Bishopp informed the Committee that numerous tenants would leave with rent arrears and up to 30 persons being evicted. Following queries it was explained that approximately £500,000 worth of rent arrears was accrued for the current financial year with a potential total debt of £1.5m form rent arrears. It was explained that this debt was calculated into the business plan due to the difficulties in collecting rents. Members queried whether tenants not paying utility bills resulted in energy companies removing the meters. It was noted that this problem had not been raised but David Bishopp agreed to investigate further. Following queries it was explained that a drop in capital project costs and a self-financing scheme had resulted in lower maintenance costs with £200m of historical debt being written off by central government. It was explained that an asset review was taking place and repairs were carried out on an appointment based system, with performance recorded by the length of time taken to complete repairs. Repairs were currently targeted to be completed in 10 days but following a current average success rate of 6.8 days, the target for the next financial year was being reduced to five days.
RESOLVED:-
Members noted the report
Supporting documents: