Agenda item

Cllr Chandwani, The Cabinet Member for Customer Service, Welfare, and the Public Realm attended the meeting to respond to questions on the Customer Service and welfare part of her portfolio. The Cabinet Member provided a brief update to provide some context and background. The following key information was noted:

• The vision for Customer Services was for the Council to be able to serve people in the way they want and way that they need. This was through effective use of resources in a multi-faceted way, ensuring accessible services for those in need and everyone else served in a different but accessible way.

• Ensuring Services connect strategically which also requires getting the atomisation right so the council can help people most in need whilst ensuring that day to day contact and interaction is as efficient as possible.
• Customer services supports 17 council services and does not answer phone calls for all Council services.
• There were varied and complex contacts with the council ranging from planning enquiries, council tax enquiries and parking fines .
• The logo of the council was important for setting out the identity of the council. There was a need to be clear on the brand and what this means to everyone.

There had been a lot of work over the last year to create new support structure including:

Ø  The Haringey Here To Help [ welfare scheme] which  was one place to find information on welfare support.

Ø  Haringey Support Fund – which residents  can  get information on access to the Discretionary Housing Payments policy and Council Tax Reduction Scheme

Ø  Debt Partnership Board – This includes several partners and stakeholders who work together to support as much as possible the residents that are likely to face severe hardship.

Committee discussion included:

There was a question on the use of new IT system for parking permits which was useful as accessible online and worked well for people that have basic IT literacy. It was acknowledged  by the  committee that, new systems will have discrepancies that need to be resolved once starting to be used and the question was how quickly these discrepancies can be resolved with the contractor when they become apparent. In response, the Cabinet Member outlined resources to provide basic services and the previous identified need to invest the money in IT element of Parking services. In taking this service forward online, there was a good baseline of information on demand for parking permits and on this basis, the service had done well. The service had worked on the basis on 20% of customers needing assistance but this figure currently stood at 35%. The services had identified simple issues to fix which would improve this figure. There was a frustration that limit on parking permits being issued and this issue as well as others was being managed through the Customer Services Programme board as this involved four services, under different directorates. Therefore, important to note that an identified issue with the system could belong to a different service area or provider. For example, the number of permits being issued would be an issue to resolve with Civica.

The Cabinet Member invited councillors to forward her issues that were being experienced with the new Parking permit system and she would pass these to the Programme board to take these forward. It was recognised that potentially more issues could have been identified by more ‘working in person’ with a customer to track their customer journey but this was not possible over the year with the working from home requirements of the government and safety of staff. It was noted that , prior to the implementation of the parking system, staff were manually distributing permits and this also meant that customers were queuing up for parking permits and taking up time of customer services staff  who can help more residents in greater need. Once these issues were resolved, this system was expected to be smooth running.

There was a question on support to residents that have had a cuts to their Universal Credit payment. In response, it was noted that there were large group of people, a majority who were disabled residents, that did not receive the previous £20 increase and this was currently being challenged in a High Court case. The Cabinet Member underlined that the previously provided £20 was not a bonus, as badged by the government, but a necessary increase which should have been given to respond to inflation and previous year’s standstill in increase of benefit. Noted that there were 41000 residents in Haringey claiming Universal Credit and each had lost £1000 over the year. It was noted that there were 17000 residents eligible for the Universal Credit earnings taper. The Cabinet Member advised that those residents eligible for an earnings taper payment would have likely only received £2 to £3 a week. She advised that the Council were always clear that the most damaging effect, going forward in the coming years for residents would be the cost of living. In readiness, the council had instigated the Haringey Support Fund where residents can apply for one off emergencies. So far since this scheme had been in place from 1^st of April, there have been 800 applications. The applications had been for help to purchase necessary white goods and buying cooker to help with daily living requirements. The council were exploring how to ensure that young parents are aware of this scheme and can apply to the council for support. Noted that there had been requests for help with fuel costs and food costs.

The Cabinet Member outlined that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme improvements had allowed 6000 families to access the scheme. The proposed updated scheme was currently being consulted on. Improvements aimed for were making it an automatic right for a resident on the right level of universal credit to be exempt from council tax payment requirements. This was in line with the priority of making the council tax scheme more accessible . The Council also now have information from DWP where a resident is exempt from council tax and are applying for this rather than awaiting the resident complete the application form.

Further information was provided on the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme[ DHP] which helps people with rent arears or helps them to move to a cheaper rented property. There were now a financial support team of 4 officers who will support the residents accessing this scheme and may have debt problems.They will help with relevant applications for benefits that are needed.

The Committee noted that there are two benefit maximisation officers that residents can access and talk through what they are eligible for. The council was not relying on marketing and looking closely and policy and practice data , to see the income of households and completing targeted work with people that we find on the data base to ensure that they know and understand the benefits to apply for or help them do this.

There was a question about the Digital Together programme and including voluntary groups in this data sharing work in the community. In response, it was noted that there was a need to explore and discuss with officers the wider reach of this programme. There was also a need to understand and investigate partners use of technology or interface with this.

In response to a question on the Debt Management team working with law centres in the area and getting financial assistance. The Debt Partnership Board included Haringey Law Centre, Citizen’s Advice Bureau , and Housing Associations. The aim of this Board was ensuring partners and stakeholders work together and are not working in silos but in a team mentality and acting as critical friends, with  the overall aim of protecting residents and build resilience. Board Members were accepting working together to meets the needs of residents.

There was a question about directing money raised from CPZ’s for street safety. In response noted that there were several ring fenced funding pots for highways and road safety. The funding for road safety and CPZ’s were from different budgets. The Committee noted that the parking income was protected by the road traffic act 1974 and could only be used for infrastructure. Noted that the first tier of priority of spend was concessionary travel and most of the parking income funded freedom passes with the council paying for any shortfall.

The Cabinet Member continued to respond outlining that the Mayor of London has a Vision Zero , which will mean a zero-accident rate in London by 2040.The Council had received some LIP money from TFL for this. Noted that TfL had structured the funding and would only give money for serious accidents or death caused by an accident. The Cabinet Member spoke about a road in her ward, Belmont road, which had 17 near misses and had had road humps added. She was not content with the funding situation and had proposed a £8m capital bid  for this area  be included in the  budget for consideration at  the full Council in March. In the meantime, the Council’ Transport engineers were compiling information on accident hotspots as where an accident takes place is loaded to the Met database which is accessed by the Council. Consideration would also be given to specific areas that needed to be as safe as possible such as roads near schools, doctors’ surgeries and where there was a high footfall. Also including  roads that need to be  safe for walking and cycling too.

The Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Welfare and Public Realm was thanked for her attendance and information shared.