Agenda item

This report presents the scrutiny recommendations tracker for review by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

The Chair referred to the Housing Management Complaints Annual Report presented at the Committee’s meeting in April 2025. Particular concern had been expressed regarding the data relating to housing, repairs, and maintenance. In response to these concerns, the Committee had requested further scrutiny of the matter and was pleased to welcome the attendance of Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services), Spencer Randolph (Director Housing Services), and representatives from Wates.

The Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to Housing Complaints as part of the Housing Management Complaints Annual Report, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• Members queried the overarching strategic plan in place to significantly reduce complaints related to repairs, particularly those of a recurring nature, and also sought clarification on the role of staff training and the extent to which the approach moved beyond incremental improvements. In response, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) confirmed that a strategic review had been undertaken, with a particular focus on staff training and service improvement. The review had been led by Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) who had prepared a presentation on the subject. In continuing the response, Lizzie Skillen proceeded to outline the scope and findings of the review and informed the Committee that she had joined Brent Council in October 2024, coinciding with the launch of the project. The review had been driven by resident insights and experiences, gathered through surveys and other engagement methods, with the aim of delivering tangible outcomes for residents. It was emphasised that the review sought to overhaul the complaints handling process within Housing Services, with a view to establishing a holistic and resident-focused complaints service. The objective was to rebuild trust, rectify failings, and embed a culture of continuous improvement. Key areas identified for improvement included, systems and guidance, staff training and internal campaigns, governance and performance monitoring, complaint definition, triage, and resolution timeframes, root cause analysis of recurring issues; and data accuracy and reporting mechanisms. Ongoing work to improve housing monitoring and controls around resolution timelines was highlighted, ensuring that outcomes were being met. Members heard that the Housing Management Complaints Annual Report for 2025 was in development and would provide further insight into areas requiring improvement. Close collaboration was underway with Councillor Donnelly-Jackson as the Lead Member for Complaints, to ensure robust oversight and transparency. It was stressed that the project was not seeking quick fixes but rather a fundamental restructuring of the complaints system. The Committee was advised that once the complaints handling framework was firmly established, attention would shift to service improvements informed by complaint insights. It was anticipated that this would lead to a reduction in complaints in targeted areas.

Findings from the review had been disseminated across Residents and Housing Services, contributing to a reframing of the approach to complaints and resident experience. Several headline findings, included:

1)    An overreliance on service requests, resulting in underreporting of complaint;

2)    The need for improved complaint acknowledgement and expectation-setting;

3)    Repairs-related issues as the primary drivers of Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints;

4)    Limited data issues, with plans to enhance analysis by trade, outcome, and compensation type

5)    Concerns regarding housing customer service, particularly in relation to access and communication

In concluding the response, Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) noted that the review had been positively received across the service and was expected to yield significant improvements in complaints handling and resident satisfaction.

• Members raised queries regarding the historical pattern of complaints, particularly those arising from repeated poor workmanship by various contractors and noted that this had been a key rationale behind the restructuring of the repair contract and the establishment of the in-house Handyperson Service unit. Clarification was sought on whether there was any evidence, at the level of complaints, to suggest that this restructuring had led to improvements. In response, Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) acknowledged that further work was required to investigate the complaints data in greater detail and advised that the current system outputs did not provide the necessary level of detail to draw firm conclusions. However, she referenced a recent resident survey which had highlighted recurring themes of dissatisfaction, notably a lack of response and ineffective solutions. It was stated that while these themes were evident, it was not yet possible to attribute them to specific service improvements. Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) added that the new contracts referenced by members had only recently commenced and explained that the contract with Wates had been initiated at the end of May 2025, while a second contract was scheduled to begin on 1 October 2025. As such, it was too early to assess performance or make comparative evaluations between contractors. Spencer Randolph expressed optimism that future data would enable meaningful comparisons and facilitate the identification of best practice. He further commented on the importance of the patching model within the Handyperson Service, noting that one of the key sources of complaint had been the lack of continuity in personnel attending to repairs. The patching model was designed to foster accountability between the resident and the operative, thereby improving service delivery and resident satisfaction.

• Members raised concerns regarding data collection and administration, particularly in relation to the monitoring of service improvements and customer service retraining and queried when performance statistics would be available for Committee review, and whether such data would be accessible within the early part of the new municipal year. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) indicated that it was unlikely that comprehensive data would be available within that timeframe and informed the Committee that the Council was in the process of implementing a new system, NEC, which constituted an 18-month project. The first phase, focused on repairs and customer interaction, was expected to span nine months. It was estimated that a full comparative analysis of current and future performance would be feasible within approximately one year, once the recommendations from Lizzie Skillen’s team, the new contracts, and the improved data systems had been embedded. Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) provided reassurance that improvements in service delivery were anticipated to be visible on the ground in the short term. However, he noted that enhancements in reporting and data analysis would take longer to materialise.

• Members questioned how the Council had arrived at a position where there was a significant gap in data and knowledge, which had hindered early identification and resolution of issues, and enquired whether this was attributable to outdated systems, insufficient training, or administrative shortcomings. In response, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) advised that the deficiencies were largely the result of legacy systems which had not been updated in line with technological advancements. Modern tools such as GIS and complaint mapping were cited as examples of innovations that had not yet been adopted. Members were assured that efforts were now underway to address these gaps.

• The Chair requested further clarification on the definition of complaints and the noted overreliance on service requests. In response, Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) explained that, while the Council had a formal definition of a complaint, namely, an expression of dissatisfaction however made, there was a need to ensure that staff were trained to apply this definition in practice. The importance of recognising dissatisfaction during resident interactions and proactively offering the opportunity to lodge a formal complaint was emphasised. Lizzie Skillen further elaborated on the distinction between service requests and complaints. A service request typically involved a first-time request for a service, whereas a complaint indicated a failure in service delivery. It was noted that, over time, the boundaries between the two had become blurred, with service requests increasingly being used improperly, and advocated for clearer guidance and processes to ensure that complaints were properly identified and investigated. The Chair stressed the importance of ensuring that complaint systems were accessible to all residents and that artificial barriers to lodging complaints were not created. The Chair reiterated that the Committee’s original concern stemmed from the Housing Management Complaints Annual Report, which had revealed that over 60% of complaints were being upheld. This indicated not merely a high volume of complaints, but a significant level of service failure. The Chair cautioned against interpreting the data as a reflection of system blurring and instead urged a focus on addressing the underlying issues of service quality.

• Members sought details around whether the number of upheld complaints constituted a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for triggering penalty clauses within the newly established contracts. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) informed that while upheld complaints were not explicitly defined as a KPI triggering penalty clauses, the contracts did contain provisions enabling the Council to take action where dissatisfaction with service delivery was evidenced. It was confirmed that repeated complaints concerning similar issues could be used to invoke contractual remedies, including penalty clauses, where appropriate.

• The Chair expressed concern that upheld complaints, where service failure had been formally confirmed, were not being used to inform KPIs. The Chair referenced comments made by Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) during the Housing Management Complaints Annual Review in April 2025, in which he had stated that all contracts should contain mechanisms for holding contractors accountable for upheld complaints and associated service failures. The Chair emphasised that the Complaints Team was required to report on compensation payments, and that failure to align this data with contractual performance measures represented a missed opportunity to ensure accountability and value for money. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) acknowledged the concern and explained that the contracts currently in place had been developed over a two-year period and may not fully reflect the latest expectations regarding complaint data integration. It was noted that while the contracts were not legacy in nature, they had been initiated prior to the current scrutiny and reform efforts. Members were informed that the Council was working towards a position where complaint data would be sufficiently detailed to identify patterns of service failure. This would enable the Council to hold contractors to account, either through penalty clauses or by reallocating work between contractors where performance was found to be lacking.

• The Chair requested information on the number of penalties issued under historic contracts over the past five years. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) advised that he was unable to provide that information at the time of the meeting. The Chair suggested that the details be provided as an information request following the meeting.

• The Chair recommended that the Council prioritise the integration of complaint data into KPI frameworks, noting that such measures were essential for holding contractors accountable. The Chair stated that penalty clauses represented one of the most effective tools available to the Council for driving service improvement and ensuring value for money. The Chair cautioned that failure to use these powers proactively would undermine efforts to deliver high-quality services to residents. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) concurred, stating that contract management under the new arrangements must be significantly more robust than in previous years.

• The Chair questioned where ongoing performance and quality management updates would be reported, noting the importance of transparency and oversight. In response, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) explained that performance updates would initially be reported to the Lead Member, followed by the Council Management Team (CMT), and subsequently to Cabinet. Following up, the Chair asked whether such updates would also be presented to the Scrutiny Committee, given its responsibility for overseeing housing management. In response, confirmation was provided that performance updates would indeed be presented to Scrutiny.

• Members queried the process followed when a resident reported a problem within their property, specifically whether a Council Housing Officer attended first to assess the issue or whether a contractor was allocated to undertake the initial evaluation. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) conveyed that the approach varied depending on the nature of the repair. Ordinarily, under the Council’s price per property contract model, the contractor would attend directly. This model encompassed a predefined basket of standard repairs, each priced and agreed in advance. For example, if a resident reported a leaking radiator, the contractor would attend without the need for a surveyor, as such repairs fell within the standard scope. However, in cases involving more complex issues, such as damp and mould or multiple interrelated faults, a surveyor would be required to attend, specify the necessary works, and pass the specification to the contractor for implementation.

• Additional queries were raised regarding the evaluation of proposed solutions, asking whether the Council reviewed the appropriateness and completeness of the contractor’s response to reported issues. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) highlighted the importance of understanding whether repeat service requests at a given address were attributable to contractor failure, tenant behaviour, or property-related issues. It was suggested that such data would be instrumental in improving the effectiveness of repair delivery.

• Members were keen to seek details around how repair visits and proposed solutions were documented, noting that clear communication with residents regarding the scope of works was essential to reducing complaints. It was also questioned if such communication was consistently provided and whether it was documented in writing. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) conveyed that the process began with a call to the Council’s call centre, which operated under a separate contract. Call centre staff were expected to set clear expectations during the initial contact, ensuring residents were not misled regarding the nature or timing of the repair. For larger jobs, an inspection would be conducted to determine priorities and establish a plan of action. For routine repairs, the aim was to achieve a first-time fix by allocating a suitably experienced contractor. It was explained that if additional works were identified during the visit, the operative was expected to report these and communicate the next steps to the resident. In cases where follow-on work was required, residents should be provided with a follow-on card detailing the nature of the work and the anticipated timeline. While an exact date could not be provided immediately, residents would be kept informed as the order progressed. Members suggested that the Council review its complaints data to determine whether complaints stemmed from actual service failures or from unmet expectations due to unclear communication and also emphasised the importance of documenting interactions in plain language, particularly given the diverse nature of Brent’s population. It was suggested that improved documentation and communication could reduce the volume of complaints and enhance service satisfaction.

• Further information regarding how the Council was managing the financial implications of repeat repairs was sought by members and whether the associated costs, including compensation payments, were being integrated into contract performance assessments. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) noted that the Council’s price per property contract model meant that contractors were paid a fixed annual sum per property, approximately £500-£600, regardless of the number of visits required. Consequently, if a contractor had to return multiple times to address the same issue, they would not receive additional payment. This arrangement incentivised contractors to complete repairs correctly on the first visit, as repeat visits incurred costs to the contractor rather than the Council.

• The Chair queried whether compensation payments issued in response to service failures were funded by the Council or by Wates. The Chair also raised concerns regarding the price per property contract model, noting that if repair tracking systems were insufficiently robust, repeat repairs might be incorrectly flagged as new issues. This could result in duplicate charges to contractors, particularly where residents delayed reporting unresolved issues due to personal circumstances. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) clarified that under the price per property model, the contractor received a fixed lump sum per property, irrespective of the number of visits required. Therefore, repeat visits did not incur additional charges to the Council. Regarding compensation, it was explained that liability depended on the source of the service failure. If the fault lay with Wates, they would bear the cost; if the failure originated within the Council’s housing service, the compensation would be paid from Council budgets. Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) further advised that the Council was currently paying approximately £5,000 per week in compensation across various cases and expressed hope that the ongoing review and improvement efforts would lead to a reduction in compensation levels.

• Details were sought around the impact of staffing levels and turnover within the Housing Repairs and Contract Management teams on service delivery and performance. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) noted that staff retention varied across service areas. In tenancy management, staffing levels were stable and retention had improved, resulting in a noticeable increase in compliments received. In contrast, the repairs service had experienced higher turnover until recently. Recruitment to permanent positions was underway, and it was hoped that the new appointments would bring greater stability. Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) further informed that staffing changes did have a direct impact on service delivery and cited a recent case in which a change in homelessness caseworker had led to a service failure, emphasising the importance of continuity in staffing. Members suggested that the Council implement a formal policy to ensure that when a staff member leaves, their caseload is immediately transferred to a senior officer or manager and stressed that unresolved cases must not be allowed to stagnate, as repeated failures in this area were unacceptable and could not be mitigated by financial compensation alone.

• As a further issue highlighted, members queried how Wates’ internal monitoring processes aligned with the Council’s complaints data and how both parties were collaborating to identify root causes and implement shared solutions. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) acknowledged that the previous process had been fragmented and ineffective. It was reported that Wates now held weekly meetings with Brent Council to review outstanding complaints specifically related to repairs. These meetings focused on identifying issues, such as delays in material procurement, and analysing service failures. The aim was to implement corrective measures and prevent recurrence. It was further explained that the review process encompassed all complaint stages, including service requests, Stage 1 complaints, Stage 2 escalations, and Ombudsman referrals. A comprehensive approach was being developed to ensure clarity regarding roles and responsibilities across the complaint process. Lessons learned were being used to inform process changes and improve service delivery.

• Members asked whether the weekly meetings between Wates and the Council were formally documented. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) confirmed that all complaints reviewed during these meetings were recorded. Monthly reports were compiled, detailing the nature of service failures and identifying responsible parties. These reports were analysed holistically to detect trends. In addition to the weekly meetings with the Council, Wates held separate internal complaints meetings. It was stated that she was working closely with Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) to strengthen the complaints process.

• Members queried the nature of recurring issues identified through complaint trend analysis, asking whether factors such as staff turnover or incomplete assessments were contributing to service failures, and what remedial actions were being considered. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) highlighted that one key issue previously identified was the allocation of direct labour resources. Staff assigned to day-to-day repairs were being diverted to address complaints, resulting in delays for other residents awaiting routine repairs. To address this, Wates had established a dedicated team of multi-skilled operatives specifically tasked with resolving complaints-related repairs. This separation of functions was intended to reduce missed appointments and improve service delivery, and had already shown positive results. Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) further added that further joint work was required to ensure consistency in data interpretation and reporting. It was noted that current classifications, such as ‘service delayed’, were insufficiently descriptive and did not support meaningful qualitative analysis. The need for improved data sharing and integration between the Council and its contractors was emphasised.

• The Chair sought clarification on whether complaints were managed solely by the Council or whether contractors operated their own internal complaints processes prior to escalation. In response, Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) confirmed that there should be a single, unified complaints process managed by the Council. However, it was acknowledged that in practice, cases had sometimes been raised initially with Wates, then subsequently escalated to the Council, and in some instances further referred to the Chief Executive’s casework team. It was stated that efforts were underway to streamline and consolidate complaints handling across all landlord services, including repairs, estate services, and pest control, to ensure consistency and transparency.

• Members questioned why Wates had not invested in modern technology to improve service delivery, noting that reliance on physical follow-on cards appeared outdated. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) informed that Wates did utilise digital communication methods. Residents received text message confirmations immediately upon booking a repair appointment, with additional reminders sent 24 hours prior to the scheduled visit. On the day of the repair, residents received a further message allowing them to track the operative’s arrival in real time.

• Members enquired about the usage rates of the Council’s ‘My Account’ system and how residents typically reported repairs. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) advised that a review conducted by Housemark had found ‘My Account’ to be difficult for residents to use when reporting repairs. As part of the Council’s system upgrade, residents would soon be accessing a new platform, NEC, which would be integrated seamlessly with ‘My Account’. Residents would be unaware of the transition, but would benefit from improved functionality, including the ability to report and track repairs more effectively.

• The Chair sought details from Wates on how their internal systems were being modernised. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) confirmed that Wates was in the process of implementing a dynamic scheduling system. This system would automatically allocate repair jobs based on operative availability and proximity, thereby reducing delays and missed appointments. The system would track all trades and locations in real time, enabling efficient job allocation and minimising disruption caused by staff absences or overruns on previous jobs.

• Highlighting concerns relating to operatives allegedly attending properties, but failing to knock or ring the doorbell, and leaving a calling card without attempting contact, raised further questions around how Wates monitored such incidents and verified whether the resident was genuinely unavailable or whether the operative had failed to attempt access. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) clarified that operatives were expected to knock or ring the doorbell upon arrival. If no response was received, they were required to telephone the resident using the contact details provided. Should this also fail, the operative was to notify the planning team, who would then attempt to contact the resident directly. If no contact could be made, the visit was recorded as a ‘no access’. It was confirmed that operatives were required to take a photograph of the calling card being posted through the door as evidence of attendance. It was acknowledged that in cases involving residents with mobility or hearing impairments, additional notes should be recorded in the system to ensure appropriate adjustments were made, such as waiting longer or knocking more audibly.

• Following up from the previous question, members questioned whether operatives could call ahead to confirm their arrival time and ensure the resident was available. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) stated that she was actively encouraging operatives to make advance calls. However, it was noted that even if contact was made, operatives were still required to attend the property. It was acknowledged that some residents might be temporarily unavailable, such as being at a nearby shop, and that not all residents had access to mobile phones, which posed challenges for communication.

• The Chair requested detailed information on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to monitor missed appointments, including the thresholds for acceptable performance, the point at which penalties might be considered, and the criteria used to assess subcontractor performance and service quality. In response, Charmen Tulloch (Wates Representative) advised that she would need to consult with the contract leads and provide a formal response at a later date. The Chair suggested that the details be provided as an information request following the meeting.

• Members queried the Council’s approach to benchmarking complaints and performance against other local authorities. In response, Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) informed that Brent Council was actively engaged with other London boroughs and sector-wide organisations such as Housemark. These partnerships facilitated the sharing of research and best practice. The importance of data reliability when participating in benchmarking exercises was emphasised and noted that the Council was committed to increasing its contributions to sector-wide transparency and learning. Reference was also made to tenant satisfaction measures, which, while not designed for direct comparison, were increasingly being used as informal benchmarks.

• Views were then sought around the role residents played in monitoring service performance. In response, Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing Services) confirmed that the newly established Housing Management Improvement Board included both independent members and tenants. The Board would receive regular reports on service performance, including complaints and repairs. Lizzie Skillen (Quality Assurance and Standards Officer) further stated that a dedicated resident group focused on complaints was currently being developed. This group would co-design service improvements and receive regular updates on complaints performance.

• As a final query, members questioned whether the performance data and resident feedback would be escalated to the Lead Member, Cabinet, or relevant scrutiny committees. In response, confirmation was provided that all performance data would be incorporated into the Council’s reporting structures, including the Council Management Team (CMT), Policy Coordination Group (PCG), and Cabinet.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of Housing Complaints as part of the Housing Management Complaints Annual Report. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following suggestions for improvement and information requests identified were AGREED:

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

(1)  Collaborate with the procurement and complaints teams to assess how complaints data and areas of underperformance can be more effectively embedded into the management and monitoring processes of the Wates contract, and the upcoming Mears contract.

(2)  Develop a communication standard in collaboration with key contractors, such as Wates and Mears, to ensure consistent, transparent, and high-quality engagement with residents throughout the repairs and complaints journey.

(3)  Establish mechanisms that enable residents to play a meaningful role in monitoring the performance of the repairs service and in holding both the council and contractors accountable.

(4)  Ensure regular reporting on the performance management of the Wates and Mears contracts to the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.

(5)  Develop and implement a robust guidance framework for succession planning to be rolled out across relevant internal teams and extended to contractors, with a specific focus on managing staff turnover and maintaining continuity of service in the delivery of repairs for residents.

INFORMATION REQUESTS

(1)  Provide a copy of the Housing Services Complaints Management Review Findings Report for 2024/25, along with a progress update on the implementation of the recommended interventions outlined in the report.

(2)  Provide details on the number of penalties issued under the Wates repairs contract over the past five years, specifically those related to upheld complaints in the repairs service.

(3)  Provide a yearly breakdown and comparison of compensation paid by Wates for repairs over the past five years, alongside compensation paid by the council over the same period in response to complaints about Wates’ service.

(4)  Provide a summary of the responsibilities and service scope for both the Wates and Mears contracts.

(5)  Provide details on the key performance indicators (KPIs) and penalty clauses included in the Wates repairs contract.

(6)  Provide details on the proposed key performance indicators (KPIs) and penalty clauses in the upcoming Mears repairs contract.

(7)  Provide a clear overview of how the price-per-property model works in repairs, along with a five-year breakdown of the percentage of council properties that did not require any repairs each year.

Please note that the specific wording of the suggestions for improvement and information requests was subject to refinement following the meeting, with the agreement of the Chair.

At the conclusion of the previous item and prior to the commencement of the Budget Update item which was scheduled for formal discussion later in the meeting, the Chair invited Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) to comment on the issue of temporary accommodation (TA).  The Chair noted that temporary accommodation continued to represent a significant financial pressure on the Council’s budget and requested insight into any recent developments, interventions, or concerns. In response, Tom Cattermole (Acting Corporate Director, Residents and Housing Services) acknowledged that temporary accommodation remained a substantial and ongoing budgetary challenge. It was confirmed that while the issue of subsidy had been addressed, it had not been fully resolved. It was further noted the emergence of pressures relating to supported exempt accommodation, which warranted further discussion in collaboration with Lawrence Coaker (Director Housing Needs and Support). Tom Cattermole concluded by affirming that the matter continued to be a serious concern for the Council and was recognised as such by the political leadership.