Agenda item

To receive the report from Homes for Haringey on the outcome of the external inspection in June 2010.

The Committee received the Homes for Haringey report on the inspection by the Audit Commission in June –July 2010, introduced by Sue Hunter (Homes for Haringey (HfH) – Business Improvement Manager) and Doris Acquaah (ALMO Clients Manager). 

The Committee discussed concerns about squatters taking over void properties and noted that some deterrents were in place for example HfH staff tried to ensure that empty properties looked as though they were inhabited e.g. curtains hanging, and also that boilers and other utilities were disconnected. Properties that staff perceived as vulnerable to squatting had security doors, window screens and sometimes alarms fitted, although some squatters had the equipment to get through such security measures.  Investigation into the possibility of using house-sitters was being conducted but this solution would mean associated costs. 

In response to a question on what happened if a tenant refused decent homes work to the property they lived in, officers explained that the works would be added to a “mop-up” programme to be conducted in the last year of the Decent Homes Programme or when the property became vacant. The Committee asked for more information on this (Action No. 174.1).  The Committee noted, in response to a question, that there was a compliance team who inspected Decent Homes work once completed.

The Committee observed that the inspection concluded that improvements were required in customer services and understanding customer needs.  The Business Improvement Manager explained that this was based largely on Mystery Shopping results and Homes for Haringey’s 2007 STATUS survey results. Mystery shopping results had improved steadily over time. The 2007 STATUS survey was done during year 1 of the Decent Homes Programme. Homes for Haringey will undertake a further tenant survey this year to check progress. The Audit Commission also commented that not all staff had had recent customer care training. The Business Improvement Manager explained that this referred to a group of Customer Service Centre staff whose training was not controlled by Homes for Haringey –inspectors took the view that HfH should be able to insist on this through the service level agreement.  Whilst HfH had over 90% of demographic information against most strands (information was collected by surveys and by going out and talking to people (door knocking)) the inspection concluded that understanding customer needs was low. HfH is continuing to increase collection and has plans in place to do so. HfH staff also respond to customer needs in less formal ways – examples given were that estate-based staff will call on a resident if they have not seen them for a couple of days or after a hospital stay, staff knowledge of residents is fed into plans for Estate Action Days.

The Committee was informed that the role of an income collection officer included working with tenants who were not keeping up with rent payments. More information about Homes for Haringey’s approach to income collection was requested, including figures for outstanding rental payments, and what specific actions would be taken to improve the collection rate.  (Action No. 174.2).

RESOLVED to note the report.