The
Panel undertook a question and answer session with Cllr Chandwani,
the Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality & Resident Services.
The following arose during the discussion of this agenda
item:
- The
Panel questioned waiting times and queried what strategic
performance data was collected in regard to the call centre. In
response, the Cabinet Member set out that the call centre was not
the only place that dealt with people’s issues. The call
centre was the front door for 15 key service areas but that the
other 85 or so service areas were dealt with in a different way. It
was noted that the time spent waiting on hold would therefore
depend on what the issue or service involved was. The Committee was
advised that call centre staff were trained to deal with 90% of the
issues that would arise and that there would always be some complex
multi-service issues that were perhaps not best responded to
through a call centre setting. The Cabinet Member advised that the
three service areas that received the greatest number of calls were
housing repairs, council tax and parking.
- The
Panel also sought clarification about what the average time taken
on a call was and whether comparative data was known about how well
Haringey did in relation to call answering in comparison to
neighbouring boroughs. The Cabinet Member set out that in order to
make a meaningful comparison, it would be necessary to compare like
for like and that, for example, most other authorities did not deal
with housing enquiries directly through the ‘front
door’ call centre. Officers advised that in relation to call
answering times, the latest performance information up to
11th November was that:
·
40% of calls were answered within 30
seconds
·
61% of calls were answered within 5
minutes
·
70% of calls were answered within 10
minutes
- Officers commented that there was generally a single digit
percentage of calls that hit an hour in terms of call waiting
times. The call centre received around 8k calls a week and 70% of
those were answered within 10 minutes. Officers advised that in
general waiting times could vary significantly, particularly when
dealing with complex multi-level issues that related to
residents’ welfare. Staff were encouraged to engage with
these difficult complex problems, as it was recognised that there
were residents with a high level of need.
- Officers advised that in relation to neighbouring boroughs, 92%
of calls were answered and that this was broadly in line with other
neighbouring local authorities.
- The
Committee sought clarification about whether, when people were
on-hold, that they were waiting for a person with specialist
knowledge to become free or whether calls were handled in a more
generalised manner. In response, the Committee was advised that the
customer service staff had a main specialist service area, along
with two other smaller areas of knowledge. This meant that calls in
relation to a particular service area were dealt with by specific
staff and that there could be a high waiting time in one particular
area and not in another. Staff would not necessarily be able to
jump on to an area with high call volumes, as they may not have had
the requisite training. Officers advised that staff were receiving
regular training to allow them to develop their knowledge base.
Staff received weekly training on a Wednesday morning, and this was
quite varied. Some of the training was about keeping staff up to
date with recent developments within the organisation, as a well as
more operational service based training.
- The
Cabinet Member invited OSC members to come and visit the call
centre to see first-hand how it worked. Members also commented that
they would like to come and observe one of the staff training
sessions, perhaps in the new year. (Action:
Clerk).
- The
Chair advised that he had made some test calls to the contact
centre and that he was impressed by the automated verbal
instructions that were received and that the options were really
clear. Similarly, the information provided to a query around
leaseholders was very good. Concerns were noted about receiving the
option of call back on one of the numbers dialled but not on
another. In response, the Cabinet Member welcomed the feedback and
advised that a call back should be offered on both the old HfH
number and the council number. However, if the call was made after
4pm then no call back was offered as staff may not have enough time
to undertake the call back before the end of the day.
- The
Chair queried whether there was a professional accreditation open
to customer service staff. In response, officers advised that the
Council was part of the institute for customers services for a
couple of years but that this was stopped as it was felt that the
Council did not get much out of it, particularly in light of the
cost involved. Officers advised that they were continuing to
explore alternative options and would examine whether a formal
accreditation was worthwhile. (Action: Elaine
Prado).
- The
Chair noted that the Cabinet Member had challenged the Committee to
take a more strategic approach in scrutinising complaints to the
organisation and sought clarification about how she thought OSC
could best undertake this. In response, the Cabinet Member set out
that she estimated that around 40% of calls to the call centre were
regular or repeat calls and that there was probably a role for
scrutiny to look at how the Council could make it easier for
residents to get the answers they needed without having to make
repeated calls to the call centre. One example put forward was
around the quality of written information provided to residents and
whether this resulted in residents having to call up to seek
clarification. The Cabinet Member suggested that there were 8k
calls to the contact centre a week and that Scrutiny should look at
what could be done to reduce repeated contacts. The Chair noted
that the complaints annual report was coming to the next meeting
and that there seemed to be scope to work together with the Cabinet
Member to take this forward once, the report had been published and
the information therein digested.
- The
Chair questioned whether the HfH mailbox could be removed
altogether. In response, members were advised that officers were
undertaking a review to join up the council and HfH complaints team
but that the two teams operated very differently, with different
SLAs. It was noted that there was certain amount work to do to
implement this. Similarly, officers needed to ensure that the
General Fund was not paying for things that were ring-fenced under
the HRA. It was noted that the timescales for joining up the two
services were still being worked on. In terms of the two mailboxes,
the email addresses used were still active, but all emails
submitted to either mailbox came through into the council’s
central mailbox.
- The
Committee requested an update in due course around the project to
join up HfH and Council complaints processes. (Action: Elaine
Prado).
- Similarly, the Chair noted that there was an overlap between the
financial support and guidance that HfH offered to tenants and the
financial support offered by the Council. The Chair requested an
update on when the two schemes would be brought together and what
support would be offered. (Action: Cllr Chandwani/Elaine
Prado).
- In
response to a question around the Council Tax Reduction Scheme
(CTRS), officers advised that it was a rolling process and that
eligible residents could apply at any time of the year. There was
no upward limit on the number of people who could apply. The
Council gave a reduction in Council Tax to around 27k residents, at
a cost of circa £30m. In relation to eligibility queries, the
Cabinet Member advised that the most people could apply for was an
80% reduction and that eligibility could vary for those on variable
incomes. The Council had brought in an extended income threshold to
support those with variable incomes.
- In
response to questions about how the CTRS worked, officers advised
that secondary eligibility criteria were used, so for example,
those on Universal Credit would be automatically put on CTRS, once
confirmation of the fact that they were on Universal Credit was
received from DWP. The Council had a council tax calculator on the
website that residents could use to calculate how much they should
be paying.
- Officers advised that some of the concerns that Members had
raised at the meeting related to instances of historical
overpayments of Housing Benefit subsidy, which the Council claimed
back from the government. Previously, some issues had arisen when
the accounts were audited, and any errors found by the auditor were
extrapolated to one in twenty cases, as a way to calculate
overpayments. There was a threshold for error above which the
government would not pay out. There was a delay in the external
audit of the accounts and the 2019/2020 accounts had just been
finalised. No serious errors were identified in that year’s
accounts, and it was noted that Haringey was below the threshold
for a subsidy loss.
- In
relation to figures for mental health support for people in
libraries through the warm welcome scheme, the Cabinet Member
advised that this came under Cllr Das Neves’
portfolio.
- In
response to a question about how the CTRS was advertised, the
Committee was advised that information was included in the Council
Tax statement that was sent to people as well as being advertised
on the website.
- In
relation to fraud, officers advised that CTRS was a secondary
benefit and claimants had already undergone checks as part of their
application for Universal Credit, so instances of fraud were low.
Housing Benefit fraud was a more prevalent issue for the
Council. Officers recalled the details
of two recent secondary housing fraud cases in which the Council
was awarded around £400k for a case involving a couple with
multiple identities. In terms of officer resources to investigate
suspected fraud cases, it was noted that historically a number of
resources had been transferred to the DWP and that the Council used
a single fraud team to investigate claims.
- In
relation to the advertised two posts for benefit maximisation
officers, the Cabinet Member advised that the two members of staff
were in place and that they were currently working a project to
identify claimants who would be better off claiming pensions
credit. It was noted that the Council already had the relevant data
to make this assessment. The Committee requested that a dedicated
session be arranged for the Members to review the data around
benefit claims and benefit maximisation in detail. (Action:
Clerk).
- The
Chair sought assurances around whether there was a project in place
to bring the benefit maximisation officers and the HfH staff who
used to deal with rent arrears together into a combined resource.
In response, the Cabinet Member advised that there was review
taking place on the level of resources that were available across
the borough to support people to ensure that these were not being
duplicated and that there was borough wide provision in
place.
RESOLVED
Noted