Agenda item

To receive an update on Brent Housing Management performance, including readiness for new tenancy satisfaction measures and priority workstreams.

Councillor Promise Knight (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security) introduced the report, which provided an update on Brent Housing Management performance. In particular, she highlighted the process of preparing for the new Tenant Satisfaction Measures detailed in section 4 of the report and the pilot for those measures which she hoped would be broadly reflective of the tenant population living in Council homes in Brent. Section 4.10 of the report detailed the areas that Brent Housing Management (BHM) was doing well, such as handling Anti-Social Behaviour and complaints, and the areas for improvement such as time taken to complete repairs. The report set out the plans to address those areas not performing as well in section 4.16, which included a remodelling of the repairs contract to include an in-house handy-person service and a cross-party working group to help steer the procurement. Councillor Knight highlighted that the Committee had previously paid significant interest in void turnaround times, which had now significantly reduced. In the previous year there were turnaround times of 293 days, compared to post-July 2023 where voids were being turned around in an average of 43 days and the backlog of voids had reduced from 1,500 to 203.

In continuing the introduction, Ryan Collymore (Head of Housing – Property Management Services, Brent Council) added that, since BHM had last presented to the Committee, there had been an improvement in compliance and BHM were hitting mainly 100% against all compliance assets. The one challenge in relation to compliance was around EICRs due to difficulties gaining access to properties. Where there were access issues, all were being actioned and legal action was being taken where necessary.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for their introduction and invited comments and questions from the Committee, with the following issues raised:

The Committee asked, in relation to Tenant Satisfaction Measures, what data was most significant and what was being done to mitigate any causes for concern in relation to tenant satisfaction. Councillor Knight explained that repairs satisfaction, particularly tenants feeling that communal areas were safe and well-maintained, was a cause for concern. The process of re-procuring the repairs contract was one way of mitigating those issues to increase satisfaction, particularly the proposal to contract an in-house handy-person service where staff were routed in the locality and understood the area. That in-house service would also mean broader access to councillors who were aware of some of the cases around disrepair and the length of time residents were waiting for issues to be resolved. The deadline for re-procurement was March 2024, with the expectation to have the new contracts and service running by 1 October 2024. To improve repairs satisfaction, the proposal was to split the borough in half so that one contractor looked after one half of the borough and another contractor had the other half. This meant that if a contractor was not performing well then the work could be passed on to the second contractor. BHM was trying to shape its services to fit with the new contract model, particularly making surveyors more area-based, and so in the meantime there was an upcoming restructure putting housing officers in area patches with surveyors, meaning there would be small area teams liaising with each other and having greater ownership of those areas. The aim was to build a community-based service which was hoped would raise satisfaction, and for the caretakers and handy-persons to work closely together to ensure communal areas were fit for purpose for residents to enjoy. The Committee asked for a further breakdown of satisfaction by ward.

The Committee asked what the timeline was for these improvements around repairs and repairs satisfaction. Members were advised that the Council was currently working towards the new contract. There would be a need to demobilise the Wates contract, which could be a difficult time to keep them motivated. BHM acknowledged this potential for demotivation as the Council came closer to the contract award date, and even if Wates were to bid on and win one contract they could not win both contracts with the new split model. Officers had met with Wates Senior Managers and explained the new contract model and strategy and raised concerns that they would become demotivated, and Wates had given a full commitment to continue their work to a high standard while they were within their contract.

In relation to how tenant and leaseholder views would be included within the repairs re-procurement, the Committee heard that there had been a number of outreach activities, including with councillors. Councillor Knight had organised and hosted cross-party briefings and created a cross-party working group of councillors to look at the repairs contract. Part of the engagement work would involve getting feedback from leaseholders, and Tenant Satisfaction Measures would also feed in to the process.

The Committee asked how BHM worked with the Housing Need Department to incentivise tenants to downsize where appropriate. Laurence Coaker (Head of Housing Need, Brent Council) informed the Committee that there was a dedicated team to liaise with tenants and encourage them to downsize to give the Council access to greatly needed larger properties. It had been found that it was important to tailor the approach to the individual person or families’ needs. The Council had a generous financial incentive package, but the experience was that it was not always about the money but what the family wanted in a property to encourage them to move. This could revolve around location and design, for example, some new builds allowed residents to pick the kitchen design of the property.

Continuing to discuss downsizing, the Committee asked whether the government’s succession policy of charging a £20 fee for empty rooms had any impact on incentivising people to downsize. They were advised that the additional fee for empty rooms had not been a significant contributing factor to why people were choosing to downsize.

In considering the succession policy, the Committee asked what influence the Council had on encouraging or enforcing single people succeeding larger properties to downsize. They were advised that this was dependent on the type of succession rights the person had. If the successor was a spouse, they would have a statutory right to that home and the Council would not have any right to enforce them to downsize. Even in those cases, the Council reviewed them individually to consider whether it might be appropriate to encourage them to downsize. For example, if an elderly person was living in a 2-bed property, but that property was adapted to meet their needs, then it would not be encouraged, but if a much younger person succeeded a property then the Council might engage with them to discuss incentives to downsizing, focusing on their individual circumstances. There was also discretionary succession, or discretionary tenancies, which might be awarded to a child, when it was more likely there would be excess rooms. In those types of succession cases then the Council could enforce the person to downsize, and that person would be given Band A priority to bid on an appropriately sized home, or could accept a direct offer. Officers agreed to provide the Committee with the Succession Policy.

The Committee raised the issue of fly-tipping, which they highlighted was an emotive subject for many residents. They asked whether there was any reason behind fly-tipping in particular areas, what proactive action caretakers could take against fly-tipping, and whether residents were motivated to put rubbish in the correct bins. It was highlighted that a reduction in fly-tipping also reduced the Council’s financial burden. Kate Daine (Head of Housing – Neighbourhoods, Brent Council) explained that the caretakers’ responsibilities were largely around keeping estates clean and tidy, and there was a specific team to deal with dumped rubbish and fly tips reactively. The Council was now initiating a more proactive approach to rubbish, balancing out the costs of dumping rubbish and the cost of the resources involved in that and looking at newer, more innovative ways to work with tenants and residents on those issues. Fly-tipping came from many different sources. Some tenants may not know what fly-tipping was and mistakenly fly tip, which was where further education was needed, but there were also more prolific fly-tippers who knew it was illegal and some fly tipping was associated with businesses and buildings. For that reason, a targeted approach was needed to deal with all the different sources of fly-tipping. A specific Service Manager for Estates Services was now in post and as a Working Group had been set up, jointly with environmental services, to discuss how the Council could educate facets of society about how to dispose of waste and take an enforcement approach in ‘hotspot’ areas that had been labelled and designated. At present, caretakers did not have the power to issue tickets or enforcement work and were not trained to do that. In order to give caretakers that power there would be a need to change their job descriptions and train them to do that work.

The Committee asked how the Council was currently communicating messages about disposal of waste to tenants and leaseholders. They heard that the Council’s waste contractor, Veolia, did proactive education around bin management and recycling. The Council was trying to continually reduce the amount of waste residents produced to improve the carbon footprint on estates. It had also increased estate walkabouts and part of that involved conversations about fly-tipping and bin management, which often involved educating tenants and giving them better ways to report fly-tipping. In relation to whether this education piece was happening in schools for that early messaging, the Committee was advised that this had not yet been fully detailed. In response to whether CCTV and robust signs were in place to deter big fly-tippers, officers confirmed that this was the case.

The Committee were encouraged by the improvement in void turnaround times and reduction in the backlog. Members asked what the target turnaround time was and what financial impact longer turnaround times had on the Council. Peter Gadsdon (Corporate Director for Resident Services, Brent Council) advised the Committee that the turnaround target for a minor void was 35 days and 72 days for a major void, which were recognised industry standard targets. In relation to the 170 properties that were being tracked as void pre-April in distressed condition, when those properties were eventually let they would show in the performance indicators as red, but since April 2023 BHM had been tracking newly void properties as averaging around 45 days turnaround. BHM now needed a period of time to work through those 170 pre-April voids before performance indicators started to improve. It was highlighted that Wates was performing on voids at the present time and the delays were being caused by issues such as clearing meter debt and arranging for other contractors to inspect properties for asbestos, legionella and other compliance related issues. There had also been issues with residents leaving properties in a poor state, meaning large rubbish clearances were needed before conducting a full specification on a property. The void process had now been improved significantly, with all voids identified and a suited key system to avoid delays accessing properties. It was estimated that the steady state on voids should be around 70 properties at any given time. In relation to the financial impact, the cost was two-fold. Firstly, the cost of losing rental income while the property was void could be significant, and secondly the cost of the void refurbishment itself. In value for money terms, if BHM was getting voids right then it greatly helped with the financing of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The Committee requested further details of the financial impact of current voids.

The Committee asked whether there was a policy for pre-allocation of a void property to help reduce the waiting list faster. Laurence Coaker (Head of Housing Need, Brent Council) informed the Committee that the Housing Need Department was involved in that process. It involved close liaison between Housing Need and the Voids and Lettings Team. Housing Need was responsible for Locator, which was the choice based waiting list. The Voids and Lettings Team provided Housing Need with the pipeline of void properties and, when appropriate, the Housing Need Team would advertise those properties. The Committee heard that it was important to get the timing of that right, and once the team knew a property was nearing completion they would advertise, receive bids, verify that people’s circumstances had not changed, confirm that they were eligible, and create a shortlist of verified nominations ready to arrange viewings.

The Chair invited representatives from Brent Youth Parliament (BYP) to contribute to the discussion. BYP asked what interventions the Council had in place to prevent young people from becoming homeless. Councillor Knight advised the Committee that BHM worked closely with Housing Need Department and the Children and Young People Department to ensure the Council offered the right assistance to young people who found themselves homeless in a position that was no choice of their own. The Council also worked with external partners and charities, particularly those focused on youth homelessness. Laurence Coaker added that, in relation to care leavers specifically, there were protocols in place to ensure a path for housing for any care leaver. The majority of care leavers went into social housing as opposed to the Private Rented Sector, but that was not a blanket approach and the support was tailored to the need of the young person. For example, if a care leaver was to go to a different part of the country to study and subsequently wanted to settle in that part of the country, then the Council would assist them to access privately rented properties in that area.

Continuing to discuss children and young people, the Committee asked how BHM engaged young people. Councillor Knight highlighted section 4.8 of the report, which detailed that 464 tenants had been surveyed from a broad range of individuals, some of which would be young people, although she felt there was more BHM could do to engage young people. She felt that the work of BYP would be helpful in allowing BHM to engage with more young people, but the challenge was that BHM was focused on the tenant population living in council homes, where oftentimes the tenure would be slightly older.

In relation to compliance, the Committee were advised that BHM checked Fire Risk Assessments, legionella, asbestos, conducted yearly gas checks and domestic electrical checks, and did block electrical checks in all Council-owned properties. The Committee asked what powers BHM had to ensure privately owned or leased properties were compliant with health and safety in blocks where 50% of properties were Council-owned and occupied by Council tenants. Members were advised that the Leasehold Teams and Home Ownership Team handled that side of compliance and should contact leaseholders asking them to provide gas safety and EICR certificates. This may not be done on a routine basis as it was in BHM but it was expected of those teams. There were some private properties that had asked BHM to manage compliance assets on their behalf, where BHM would do those checks routinely.

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 there is liaison between BHM and leaseholder services to ensure there is compliance by private owners and leaseholders in Council blocks, to ensure that all tenants residing in those blocks are safe.

Several information requests were also made throughout the discussion as noted below:

i)              For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive an infographic detailing how different services work in a joined up way to ensure repairs work is completed.

ii)             For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive information around any recruitment and retention issues within BHM and what impact the savings proposals are having on BHM.

iii)           For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive further details on the financial impact of current voids.

iv)           For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to be provided with the Council’s Succession Policy.

v)            For the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to receive a breakdown of tenant satisfaction by ward.