Agenda item

The Executive Director (Resident Services and Climate Change) introduced the report which summarised the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and commentary across the Council’s housing services for Quarter 1 (2024/25). Some KPIs were amber and therefore slightly under target: timescales for emergency repairs; properties without valid gas or electric safety certificates which were due to no access and the Council needing to go through a court process; and around 6% of repairs not being completed due to no access. There were also some red KPIs: overall customer satisfaction with planned work; the number of disrepair cases was higher than officers would like although staff worked regularly on them; the percentage of non-emergency repairs completed in target; and the timescales for voids and major voids.

The Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood) spoke in respect of voids which were not in line with targets. Refurbishments were carried out by Morgan Sindall with whom officers had agreed a 16 week improvement plan that would start the following week. Weekly reports would be provided so that officers could see the new voids figures and also how Morgan Sindall was reducing legacy voids. There would also be an internal review into how internal processes were managed. People would not necessarily be put into potentially long-term voids as decisions needed to be made about whether those properties were likely to be demolished, for example, or held for decant as part of a long-term regeneration plan etc. The Assistant Director wanted to be able to show CHP how voids figures were comprised from different categories of void, i.e. when it was expected a straightforward void would be delivered, and how effective processes were when there were complicating factors. Officers would be working with cross-party members on a deep-dive of voids including figures, benchmarking, and what ‘good’ would look like. This work would be reported back to CHP.

A member was disappointed Morgan Sindall still had not dealt with legacy voids. More detail was needed in terms of voids and he noted the financial cost to the Council. While the improvement plan was welcome, he felt the KPI should be expanded to look at specific problems. Another member supported this and felt KPIs could be more meaningful if there was further detail. Officers did not disagree and advised more detail would usually be provided when performance dropped in order to better understand the reasons why; there were a number of steps in terms of voids and the Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood) had spoken with staff about looking at performance indicators for each step in the process.

It was confirmed current voids reporting did not include flats at Queensway House.

A member referenced BPI 38 – average void property relet time for major voids – and commented that if much more work was now taking place but existing targets were used those targets were not likely to be met, and suggested targets be reviewed. Officers said future reports would identify what would be looked at this year and what targets should realistically be by the end of the year; this would need unpacking in terms of identifying key issues and how long it would take to improve them.

A member said performance against BPI 133 (disrepair cases) seemed worse than last year. Officers said a tenant could claim disrepair themselves or use a legal firm which could take a sizeable part of any successful claim and the Council had no control over this, so it needed to minimise the housing condition claims made, primarily around damp and mould. The stock conditions survey was a very useful tool in addressing this. It appeared the majority of claims were being made by legal firms. The member felt the number of disrepair cases upheld would be a better target to measure performance and it was agreed the Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood) would add this to the performance indicator.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood)

A member asked why there was no data from previous years for BPI 151 (non-emergency repairs) and was advised this was a new indicator. He asked about the direction of travel. The Executive Director (Resident Services and Climate Change said the cross-party maintenance group had looked at the data, was aware the position was slightly worse than it had been and regularly discussed it. This was an issue about contractor performance and the Council was working on an improvement plan with them.

A member commented on the red KPI about overall customer satisfaction with planned works, noting the low response rate might mean that satisfied tenants had not completed the survey they had been sent.

A member asked if work had been done in respect of residents who had not returned customer satisfaction surveys (BPI 129). The Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood) said the number of questions had been reduced and the contractor had agreed a prize draw would take place as an incentive. Residents would also receive a card with a QR code to access the survey. The member felt it would be helpful to door-knock a sample of those who had not responded to understand why they had not completed it. Another member felt people would be unlikely to complete it unless they were particularly pleased or dissatisfied.

A member asked about BPI 37 (void property relet time for standard Council homes) as it seemed the time to relet standard voids had more than doubled; this represented a loss of income for the Council and also represented costs in terms of people on the waiting list living in temporary accommodation. He asked if this was factored into calculations. The Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood) would pick this up when she came to do the analysis as part of the issue was about ensuring right-sizing. The member said there was a budget for the contractor to manage voids and a separate budget for delivering temporary accommodation; the meeting had heard earlier that the latter had caused financial difficulties for some local authorities so it was a missed opportunity not to prioritise this and it should be considered more holistically. It might be that focusing more finances on voids would reduce the cost of temporary accommodation.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Homes and Neighbourhood)

The Executive Member for Housing advised there had been a number of recent discussions about performance and voids and she supported officers’ decision to pull back and review performance as quality homes were not just a quick fix. 

The Panel noted the report.