Agenda item

The report provides the Scrutiny Committee with an update and overview on the performance of Brent Housing Management (BHM).

Councillor Knight (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security) introduced the report, which provided an update and overview on the performance of Brent Housing Management (BHM), most notably how BHM was dealing with damp and mould following the death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. The report also provided an update on planned and major works and how BHM communicated with tenants throughout that process. She highlighted that, as the Cabinet Member, she was conscious that engagement was key, and welcomed the Committee’s thoughts on the key engagement activities outlined in section 9 of the report.

In concluding the introduction, Hakeem Osinaike (Director of Housing, Brent Council) highlighted that, while the report detailed what BHM had done and continued to do around damp and mould, he wanted to state this did not mean BHM were in a perfect place for damp and mould because there were still cases that might get missed, such as people who may have damp and mould issues that they had not reported to BHM or anyone else. Publicity and communications were ongoing with all residents to attend to any damp and mould problems.

The Chair thanked councillors and officers for their introduction and invited the Committee to raise comments and questions, with the following issues raised:

The Committee were heartened that the report stated that Brent took a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and that Brent were doing more than employing basic methods to resolve the issues through new technology and tools. They highlighted that there were around 880 households that had been reached out to in relation to damp and mould and, of those, around 440 households had been engaged. Members were concerned about those who had not been reached, as it may be possible that those were vulnerable residents who may have a lack of capacity to respond. Ryan Collymore (Head of Housing – Property Services, Brent Council) informed the Committee that officers were now doing a deep dive into their systems to see whether there were any tenants whose first language was not English, and then writing to those tenants in their preferred language where it was not. Housing Officers were also conducting focused tenancy verification audits on the individuals they had not reached. A damp and mould leaflet had gone to all residents and had now been redesigned with pictures to be sent to all residents. He felt that outreach was being tackled from many different angles, and everyone that would come into contact with residents through their duties were advising them about damp and mould. There was also a damp and mould email address set up for residents and councillors to email, and contractors were doing toolbox talks with their teams about reporting damp and mould to BHM as well as taking mould wash kits to properties when visiting. Councillor Knight reassured the Committee that the stance on damp and mould was had changed to ensure the attitude of staff was not to attribute issues to resident lifestyle, but first and foremost prioritised structural issues. In response to a query, Ryan Collymore confirmed that, as a landlord, BHM had a list of residents with vulnerabilities.

The Committee asked whether there was an overall view of overall performance, taking into account all the relevant different performance metrics. Hakeem Osinaike informed the Committee that, as the Council’s landlord, BHM provided numerous services managed by several different teams. For example, repairs was a major service and was the main service residents would come into contact with, but in Ryan Collymore’s team there was also planned maintenance, and for Kate Daine’s (Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods, Brent Council) team there was tenancy services such as resident satisfaction and dealing with succession, and there was also leaseholder services. If he was asked whether BHM was a good landlord, he would say yes, particularly when the metrics were compared to other similar landlords with the same size and type of stock.

Continuing to discuss performance, Lorna Hughes (Director of Communities, Brent Council) advised that corporate performance sat in her area and there was a view of performance through that, including housing repairs. The corporate performance report was published on a quarterly basis and discussed by Cabinet, and included direction of travel against key performance indicators (KPIs) which was monitored closely. The performance report provided a cumulative conversation around all KPIs on a quarterly basis from Quarter 1 through to Quarter 4, which would show the full understanding of how a particular KPI had performed cumulatively over the year. Where the performance report highlighted areas of concern, these were escalated to the Council Management Team, who would implement actions to address the performance. The report included a narrative so that members could see those interventions alongside the performance, and included a visual to show direction of travel. In addition, a benchmarking exercise was conducted on a pan London level by London Councils, which showed Brent’s level of performance compared to other local authorities. The Committee would be notified when the Quarter 4 performance report was published for Cabinet.

Hakeem Osinaike then provide some individual performance metrics. He felt that responsive repairs were doing well at 89% completed within 14 days, and 75% of residents reported being satisfied with those repairs. He highlighted that this was a good satisfaction rate considering the responsive repairs service delivered over 30,000 repairs a year. He felt that asset management was good, with BHM conducting stock condition surveys on 20% of the stock every year, meaning there was a full view of stock on the whole every 5 years which could inform investment plans. BHM were performing well on compliance, which focused on health and safety including fire risk assessments, gas safety, legionella and asbestos.

In relation to resident satisfaction, the Committee asked how residents felt BHM were performing. Hakeem Osinaike informed the Committee that BHM conducted transactional surveys, where a text message was sent every time a service was delivered asking residents how they found the service delivery. Those surveys were doing well and had high scores. There was also a perception survey, which asked all residents about the service. General satisfaction was around 65%, and the Committee were advised that this may not sound high but was not surprising considering the industry. In addition, in perception surveys, residents who may not have received any service from BHM but may have received another service from a different area of the Council may display how they feel about the Council generally in their response. The Committee were advised that the last perception survey was done two years ago. The housing regulator was introducing new tenant satisfaction measures in April 2023, and BHM would start doing perception surveys again based on those measures formally from April 2023. In preparation for those measures, BHM had conducted some trial surveys.

Continuing to discuss resident satisfaction, and highlighting the general satisfaction score of 65%, the Committee asked whether that was a result of budget restraints and the current economic climate impacting services, such as the rate of repairs. Ryan Collymore felt that there had been a variation, particularly the number of damp and mould repairs. Brexit had also had an effect on contractors’ abilities to recruit labour, and rates for materials had increased. However, he highlighted that, for repairs, satisfaction had been 75%, which was good. 

The Committee asked what happened when issues were raised on resident walkabouts. Councillor Knight advised the Committee that section 9.4. of the report detailed the list of actions taken as a result of those engagements with residents. Where residents highlighted particular issues, the Customer Experience Manager worked with residents and Resident Associations to resolve. The individual issues raised on walkabouts were not included in the list of complaints outlined in the report, which related only to formal corporate complaints where individuals had gone through the council’s complaints process. Instead, issues raised on walkabouts were treated as a service request and would be noted and passed to the relevant service to resolve.

In relation to complaints, the Committee noted that there was no breakdown of types of complaint in the report and no breakdown of leaseholder complaints compared to tenant complaints. They asked how BHM communicated with tenants about the complaints procedure, and whether Resident Associations were offered any training on complaints. Kate Daine advised the Committee that the traditional way to raise a complaint was online, where there was relevant information there. She was aware that many tenants may not know that, so BHM were currently reviewing this with the Corporate Complaints Team to ensure Brent were in line with the new ombudsman recommendations. Herself and Ryan Collymore were now looking at the different ways BHM could demonstrate to residents how to raise a complaint in various different formats. She highlighted to the Committee that BHM always worked off the basis that any communication could be treated as a complaint, so if a resident made contact via phone with their Housing Officer and it was clear they were unhappy then the Housing Officer would be expected to offer the complaints procedure at that time. Regarding Resident Associations, they had direct contract with the Customer Experience Manager who sets up Resident Associations. Off the back of that, they should have a clear understanding of how to raise complaints.

The Committee highlighted the long void turnaround times, and asked what the main reasons for this were. Councillor Knight agreed that voids were an issue and there was more that could be done to bring void properties back into use, but it was a very complex process that could take up to 6 months. Ryan Collymore provided further details about the complexities of the voids process, explaining that void turnarounds needed the support of three different teams within BHM and there were a lot of handovers within the process. When investigating, he had found that there were difficulties with three of the stages – handover of keys, initiation and completion of void works with contractors, and then nominations. BHM were looking at these issues and working on a process to improve them and make them more fluent. This included upgrading IT systems, and there was now a permanent Voids and Lettings Manager with previous experience of this type of work, following three different managers over the last 6 months.

The Committee discussed repairs, and asked what the categories were for complex issues. Ryan Collymore advised that complex repairs were usually categorised as a P3 or P4, of which 89% were completed within 14 days. P4 repairs had a 90 day target, but it was unlikely a repair would be raised on P4 which was why some P3’s went out of target. The Committee would welcome a review on complex repairs that had not been resolved within 2 years to see if there were any recurrent themes, as well as a breakdown of the specific nature of repairs that were not completed on time compared to those which were. They also asked for this information to be provided in future reports. Councillor Knight advised the Committee that she would be happy to return to the Committee in a future meeting to talk about specific areas of interest to the Committee, such as responsive repairs.

In noting the 89% of routine repairs completed within 14 days, the Committee asked whether that related to urgent or non-urgent repairs. Hakeem Osinaike advised that the figure related to urgent repairs, and for emergency repairs there was a statutory response time dictated by law which BHM met. The target of 14 days for routine repairs was set by BHM itself, and most other social landlords had a target of 28 days.

The Committee asked whether BHM could provide any reasons why they were not meeting the ambitious target of 100% for these repairs. Hakeem Osinaike advised that a common reason these types of repairs were not completed within the target of 14 days was because residents were offered an appointment for when it was convenient to them, which may not fall within 14 days of reporting an issue, meaning it was unlikely 100% would ever be reached. In addition, the current repairs contractor, Wates, were struggling to recruit wet trade workers such as plasterers and painters.

The Committee asked when Brent was likely to complete all repairs to buildings and properties that required repairs in relation to fire safety. Ryan Collymore advised the Committee that BHM conducted fire risk assessments (FRAs) on all properties on a yearly basis. From those assessments, actions were picked up, and following completion of the actions from the FRA the property was compliant.

In relation to financial implications, the Committee noted the significant savings required to be made, including the possibility of staff reductions which may impact targets. It was noted that rent had been capped at 7%. Hakeem Osinaike explained that the current inflation rate was approximately 10.1%, and normally BHM would increase the rent cap by inflation plus 1%, meaning it would have been around 11.1%, which is what would be needed to cover the increases in costs associated with the rate of inflation. The government had insisted that rents could only be increased by 7%, which had lead to a savings gap. As the HRA was a ringfenced account, the money would only come from rents, so there was a need to find additional savings. There were efficiencies that BHM could implement but would not cover the gap, meaning there was a need to look at staff reductions. As a result, there was a need to accept that services in some areas may not improve as much as BHM would want.

The Committee asked whether energy companies could force entry to fix a smart metre in a BHM property if a bill had not been paid. Hakeem Osinaike confirmed that if they were the supplier then they could, as the relationship was between them and the person they supplied energy to, and they did not require BHM permission to do that.

The Committee asked how the 17 estates which would see parking enforcement implemented had been selected. Hakeem Osinaike advised the Committee that a consultation had been carried out on each estate in the borough managed by BHM which asked residents to vote yes or no to parking enforcement, and the 17 estates were the ones who had voted yes.

The Chair thanked those present for their contributions and drew the item to a close. He invited the Committee to make recommendations, with the following RESOLVED:

i)              To recommend that future reports include a detailed breakdown of the nature of repairs in order to understand what types of repairs are being completed on time compared to those that are not.

ii)             To recommend that Council policies are signposted to or included in future reports when they are referenced in reports.

In addition to the recommendations, a number of information requests were raised throughout the discussion, recorded as follows:

i)              That the Committee receives details of the Quarter 4 Corporate Performance report when it becomes available.

i)              That the Committee receives the results of the latest tenant perception surveys and transactional surveys in regard to satisfaction.

ii)             That the Committee receives more information on the nature of outstanding, out of target, complex repairs (P3 and P4) that have taken a year or longer to resolve.

iii)           That the Committee receives a breakdown of Brent Housing Management’s complaints.