Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th January 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 12^th January 2022 were confirmed as an accurate record.

All members will make a declaration at each meeting if they have an interest in any item of business on the agenda which would affect them more than tenants or residents of the ward(s) affected generally.

No declarations of interest were made.

A report of the Head of Landlord Services.

The Head of Landlord Services submitted a report presenting the board with a draft customer engagement strategy that replaces the existing one. (Item 4 on the agenda)

The Landlord Services Manager attended the meeting to assist with the discussion of this item and gave an update as follows:

i.          A new four-year strategy for customer engagement had been produced.  The previous strategy had been due to be renewed in 2021, however it had been delayed by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.  All face-to-face engagement had had to stop as a result of the pandemic.

ii.         The Council was now in a position to resume full engagement and it was fitting to look at the entire strategy and produce a new one. 

iii.        The Council had worked closely with tenants and leaseholders on producing the new strategy.

iv.        There had been a continuation of the core objectives of the previous strategy which had been taken into the new strategy as they were still relevant to the function of customer engagement.  An action plan to deliver on objectives over four years had been developed.

v.         There has been a vacant position for a customer engagement officer post for two years.  This had not been filled as there had not been the sufficient work at the time to usefully employ someone because of the restrictions imposed as a result of the pandemic. The recruitment process was now in progress as there was now the work for the officer to do.  Interviews would take place over the following weeks and once the officer was employed, the capacity of the service for delivery could be increased.

vi.        The strategy had been considered by Charnwood Housing Residents Forum (CHRF) and changes had been made as a result.  This was reflected in the report presented and a glossary of terms had been added to make the report accessible.

It was clarified by the Landlord Services Manager that CEO referred to Customer Engagement Officer rather than Chief Executive Officer.

Action: CEO to be added to glossary of terms.

In response to a query from the Board, the Chair informed those present that an article on the strategy would be published in the June newsletter including reasons why certain proposals had not been carried out and information on the Senior Citizens Forum and the CHRF.

In response to a query from Councillor Seaton, the Landlord Services Manager clarified that elected Members would be able to take part in estate walks and would be informed when they would take place.

RESOLVED

1.         That the report be noted.

2.         That the Board recommend adoption of the proposed strategy subject to any agreed amendments and cabinet approval.

Reasons

1&2. To acknowledge the Board’s consideration of the matter.

A report of the Head of Landlord Services.

The Head of Landlord Services submitted a report to consider the results of the STAR survey, and the actions in progress and proposed to support greater satisfaction with services. (Item 5 on the agenda).

The Head of Landlord Services gave an update as follows:

i.              The delivery of kitchens and bathrooms had been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and this in turn had an impact ton tenant satisfaction.  It was thought that as work resumed, satisfaction would increase.

ii.            As a new Customer Engagement Officer was recruited, capacity would increase.

iii.           The survey had identified that tenants reporting issues online were the least satisfied.  As such it was concluded that those on a digital platform were feeling as though they were not being heard.  In order to address this, the Customer Engagement Strategy had included a digital agenda.

iv.           The survey had found that those who had made an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)-related complaint in the past 12-months were less likely to be satisfied.  It was concluded that this had a significant bearing on activity and it was recommended that a report on Anti-Social Behaviour should be brought before the Board.

v.            Satisfaction had been lowest amongst those in Loughborough

vi.           Southfields, Loughborough Hastings and Loughborough Lymington. These areas covered the town centre. Estate walks with residents and Councillors were currently being re-introduced having stopped due to the pandemic. Customer engagement estate-based activities would be prioritised in these areas.

vii.          Tenants in Thurmaston were significantly less likely to feel the Council provides a home that is safe and secure compared to the other areas.  This would be investigated.

viii.         With regard to Rent Value for Money, it was noted that rents for Charnwood Borough Council properties were lower than those in comparable authorities and as such feedback had likely been based more on quality of service.

ix.           Regarding repairs and maintenance, the attitude of workers was perceived highly by tenants (93%), however, perceptions amongst customers was lowest regarding the time taken for work to start.  Recruitment was taking place to address resourcing issues.  Repairs being carried out correctly first time had a bearing on the satisfaction of the service.

x.            The opportunity had been taken to ask specific questions about the service:

a.    Questions were asked on the rent payment pattern, specifically whether tenants would rather pay a lower weekly rent rather than having some rent-free weeks.  A majority of those surveyed favoured the current system and as such it would not change

b.    When asked about priorities for investment, the following priorities were identified by those surveyed: acquiring more housing, replacing kitchens, bathrooms and heating and investment in sheltered housing.

xi.           83% of those surveyed had thought it important to be able to go into Southfield’s offices to consult with officers.

xii.          Overall benchmarking data showed there had been a drop in levels of satisfaction across landlords, with the lowest levels of satisfaction recorded in September where monthly perception surveys were completed, but there were clear messages from tenants arising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

A report of the Head of Landlord Services.

The Head of Landlord Services submitted a report presenting the Board with a draft policy that sets out the council’s position as landlord in respect of its provision and maintenance of boundary structures such as fences, hedges and walls.  (Item 6 on the agenda).

The Landlord Services Manager and the Repairs and Investment Manager attended the meeting to assist with the discussion of this item and gave an update as follows:

i.          A new policy had been borne out of the desire to provide consistency to the issue of fencing that was contentious to both tenants and the Council as a landlord.  A draft policy had been produced that sought to set out a position that the Council had previously held but never expressed explicitly.

ii.         The existing tenancy agreement does not mention fencing; the new tenancy agreement, however, is more clear on the issue as it refers back to the fencing and boundary policy.

iii.        The policy had been considered by the CHRF who had proposed changes, all of which had been accommodated.

iv.        Obligations had been set out in order to have a consistent approach.

v.         Scenarios had been outlined showing the responsibilities of the tenant and the council and actions that would be taken in certain situations.  In situations where the set scenarios did not apply, matters would be settled on a case-by-case basis.

vi.        If a tenant wished to change a boundary, then they would need permission to do so from the Council.

vii.       The Council had the right to remove fencing if it was damaged or in a state of disrepair or if it had been erected without permission.  Tenants could be charged for the removal of fencing erected without permission.  This also applied to walls and hedges.  If hedges were overgrown they could be cut back and re-charged.

In response to a questions from the Board, the Head of Landlord Services suggested it was feasible that tenants could pay for fences to be upgraded and that the Council would not unreasonably withhold permission if tenants wished to improve their fencing themselves as there was a general right for tenants to request permission to improve their dwellings.

In response to a question from the Board surrounding the responsibilities for each side of a fence that divided two properties, the Head of Landlord Services suggested that land on both sides belonged to the Council, and the fence was therefore a dividing one, and the intention is that tenants will be given shared responsibility for maintaining the boundary structure. 

Action: Conditions of tenancy to be published on the Council website to clarify responsibilities for each side of a fence dividing properties.

Action: Situation to be monitored to assess how the policy was working.

RESOLVED

1.         That the report be noted.

2.         That the policy be endorsed.

Reasons

1.         To acknowledge the Board’s consideration of the matter.

2.         To acknowledge the Board’s approval of the policy.

A verbal report of the Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing.

The Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing gave a verbal report on the Sheltered Housing Review. (Item 7 on the agenda).

The Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing gave an update as follows:

i.              The review of sheltered housing started in 2009, which had included the conversation of bedsits to flats and the development of the Riversdale Sheltered Housing Scheme.

ii.            A Project Board and PID has been set and agreed.  To date a Sheltered Housing Standard has been approved, all schemes have been assessed against the standard and prioritised. 

iii.           The first scheme to be taken forward is St Michaels at Thurmaston, the Council are currently looking at options for the site and once this has been discussed and agreed at the Board a report would be presented to Cabinet.

iv.           Consultation with residents and HMAB will continue through this process.

v.            Work is underway to review the age designation on some of the Council stock, due to the level of voids. 

In response to a query from the board it was clarified by the Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing that the site at Thurmaston could be demolished and rebuild over 2-3 years.

RESOLVED

1.    That the verbal report be noted.

2.    That an update be brought to the Board at the meeting on 11^th May 2022.

Reason

1.    To acknowledge the Board’s consideration of the matter.

2.    To allow the Board to consider the scheme once it had been through the Sheltered Housing Board.

A report of the Head of Landlord Services.

The Head of Landlord Services submitted a report for the Board to consider

performance at the end of Quarter 2, 2021-2022, April to June 2021. (Item 8 on the agenda).

The Landlord Services Manager attended the meeting to assist with the discussion of this item.

Councillor Draycott noted the rise in ASB incidents reported on the Bell Foundry Estate from Quarter 2 2021/22 to Quarter 3 2021/22 and enquired as to the reasons behind it.

The Head of Landlord Services suggested that within the data there could be cases where many residents were reporting the same incident to the Council.

The Head of Landlord Services remarked the Council had obtained two closure orders at the location in the last few weeks.

Action: Head of Landlord Services to produce a breakdown of ASB reports.

With regard to a further query about ASB incidents the head of Landlord Services posited that there may be more reports of ASB where residents were living in close proximity to each other in areas where there were a lot of flats.

In response to a query regarding how the Council approached rent arrears for tenants on Universal Credit the head of Landlord Services explained that the Council tried to intervene as early as possible and there was a dedicated Universal Credit Officer and Tenancy Support Officers to help tenants claim if needed.  It was further clarified that enforcement ran in parallel with support.

The Cabinet Lead Member for Public Housing added that it was in the interest of the council to be compassionate to those on Universal Credit who were in rent arears as the Council needed to avoid tenants becoming homeless.

The Landlord Services Manager further explained that in cases of rent arrears an Income Officer would visit a property following the second letter issued.  If the officer knew the tenant and their historical pattern of payment, they may intervene earlier.

The Board drew attention to the number of tenants in arears on Universal Credit compared to those not on Universal Credit.  The Landlord Services Manager noted that whilst the balance of those in arears on Universal Credit was higher and was increasing, this was due to more tenants going on to Universal Credit and the balance of those on Universal Credit was not increasing by as much as it had previously.

The Board raised the issue that it was the responsibility of a Universal Credit claimant to arrange direct payment of rent from Universal Credit payments and this was often unfamiliar to claimant as they did not have the experience of the system which could lead to the claimant being in rent arrears.

The Landlord Services Manager further explained that the ability of the Council to intervene on rent arrears to get payments made directly from Universal Credit was limited by criteria based on the vulnerability of the tenant.  If a tenant was in eight weeks or more of arrears, direct payment from Universal Credit could be requested.  All arrangements were temporary and subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

In accordance with the Board’s decision members of the Board were asked in advance of this agenda being published whether they had any questions on matters within the remint of the Board that they wished to ask, for response at this meeting.

On this occasion no questions were submitted.

In accordance with the Board’s decision at its meeting on 22nd March 2017 (HMAB Minute 24.1), members of the Board had been asked in advance of the agenda being published whether they had any questions on matters within the remint of the Board that they wished to ask, for response at this meeting.

On this occasion Councillor Draycott asked the following:

(i)            Regarding the sheds at Moria Street flats. With many problems of misuse, Anti-Social Behaviour, drug dealing, personal safety risks, damage including fire could it be seriously considered as to whether they any longer serve the original intention?     

(ii)          Regarding the disabled adaptations back log. Could the number and type of disabled adaptations required be provided and listed with the year requested?      

The Head of Landlord Services provided the following responses:                

(i)            The use of the sheds at Moira Street Flats would be investigated.  An initial review had identified several leaseholders and the sheds may be part of these leases.  This could give rise to potential legal issues.  The Tenancy and Estates Team Leader was investigating the sheds and would advise Ward Councillors on the issue.

(ii)          There had been 410 minor adaptation requests and a small number of these had been cancelled.  17 of these requests were with the in-house repairs team.  There was a backlog on major adaptations.  Of 287 major adaptation requests, 140 had been completed and 147 were outstanding.  A plan was in place to clear the backlog and the first properties were programmed in for survey in April 2022.

Councillor Draycott thanked the Head of Landlord Services for his response and added that the push for completion of major amendments would improve the quality of life for tenants.

Councillor Seaton asked whether Charnwood Borough Council funded adaptations.

The Head of Landlord Services confirmed that adaptations at Council stock were funded through the Housing Revenue Account.                                          

A report of the Head of Landlord Services to enable the Board to review and agree its Work Programme, together with meeting dates for 2021/22.

For information further meetings of the Board are scheduled as follows in 2021/22:

Wednesday 11^th May 2022 at 4.30pm

The Board received a report of the Head of Landlord Services to enable the Board to agree its Work Programme.  (Item 10 on the agenda).

Members of the Board could identify matters that they considered required looking at over the next few meetings of the Board, including any already listed on the Work Programme but not yet scheduled. Officers present could provide advice as to whether items might be appropriately considered at the time proposed.

Summary of discussion:

i.              The final draft of the Housing Strategy was yet to be completed.

ii.            The draft Garages Review had been completed in 2020.  In terms of properties that could be delivered a review was needed in terms of voids and rent loss to ascertain whether draft recommendations were correct and if there would be a waiting list.  An assessment of how many tenants needed garages would also be needed.  Planning constraints would need to be assessed.  The majority of garage sites that could be developed had been developed, however, some may involve compulsory purchase orders to ensure access.  This would need to be analysed prior to reporting.

RESOLVED

1. That the Housing Strategy, Re-designation of Stock, Approach to Damp and Mould and Anti-Social Behaviour Report be added to the Board’s Work Programme for the meeting on 11th May 2022.

2. That the Board’s Work Programme be updated to reflect all decisions made above and earlier in the meeting.

Reasons

1. So that it can be considered by the Board.

2. To ensure that the information in the Work Programme is up to date.

It is recommended that members of the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item on the grounds that it will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

It was resolved that members of the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

At this point in the meeting the livestream was stopped.

An exempt report of the Head of Landlord Services circulated to members of the board. To Follow.

An exempt report of the Head of Landlord Services was considered (Exempt item 12 on the agenda).

A summary of the Board’s discussion on this matter is provided in the exempt minute (Housing Management Advisory Board 49E. 2021/22).