Agenda item

The Housing Panel received a report that provided an update on key aspects of voids performance, including context on the service’s past and recent performance, and also provided an update on the work in progress to improve voids performance under the Housing Improvement Plan. Accompanying the report was a presentation tabled by officers and set out in the published tabled papers pack, that provided further information around voids performance. The report and presentation were introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Operational Director, Housing Service and Building Safety. Cllr Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning was also present for this item, along with the Director of Housing and Placemaking. The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Panel sought clarification about some of the most common reasons a property became void and the reasons that a particular property might not be re-let after it became void. In response, officers advised that the Neighbourhood Moves scheme often led to chunks of voids becoming available in a particular ward as people were transferred from a regen property to a new property. The Council was looking at how it could make sure that it spent less time doing works and that it could turn properties around quicker. Officers set out that social housing properties often became available because of a death and that some of these could require extensive works as the tenant had either not reported disrepair or had undertaken renovation work themselves. Officers advised that they would like to be able to get into those properties much earlier and to undertake repairs as and when disrepair arose.
2. The Panel queried whether there was a process in place for vulnerable tenants and their carers to report disrepair and whether this was acted upon. In response, officers advised that the Housing Management team should be aware of vulnerable tenants and that Housing officers should then be undertaking frequent checks on vulnerable residents and picking up repair issues as part of those visits.
3. The Panel enquired about the extent to which Housing was joined-up with social services. In response, officers advised that the relationship was there and that since coming in-house Housing services had been building the relationship with colleagues in Children’s and Adults. Officers advised that they would like to be able to share more of the data held by those services.
4. The Panel sought clarification around the revised liveable standards. In response, officers advised that they had condensed the liveable standards down from around 12 pages to 4, with the aim of making them easier for residents to understand and also easier to turn around properties.  An example noted of where an improvement had been made to those standards was that they now offered a much greater range of paint colours to new tenants of previously void properties. Rubber mats were offered to reduce vibrations from the washing machines of neighbouring properties and new residents were also given the chance to keep the flooring from previous tenants (as the Council did not provide flooring).
5. In relation to a question about a disproportionate number of properties taking longer to turn around in some wards, officers advised that they would expect more void properties to come through in wards with a higher number of social housing properties. The Team had been tasked with clearing the backlog of voids and this may have an impact on how resources were targeted. In response to a follow-up, officers advised that the contractors did work according to geographic area. In general the contractors were expected to undertake major works, whilst the DLOs would work on void properties.
6. The Panel queried about instances of squatting and whether there were any delays in turning properties around due to asbestos. In response, officers advised that there had been a number of reports of potential squatting made aware to officers and that there was a legal process that had to be followed for removing those squatters. Officers also acknowledged that there was a potential for delays arising from asbestos and other types of compliance works before they could be re-let.
7. In response to a question, officers confirmed that the lettable standard did conform to the Decent Homes standard.
8. The Panel requested a copy of the checklist that tenants received when they moved into a property and also queried whether they were advised of where the stopcock was located. In response, officers agreed to circulate a copy of the check list to members and to clarify whether the location of the stopcock was included on the list.  (Action: Jahedur Rahman).
9. Officers also agreed to share the next set of feedback from residents about their experiences of moving in, when it was available. (Action: Jahedur Rahman).
10. The Panel requested an update on the procurement of more contractors. In response, officers acknowledged that the tendering process took some time but provided assurances that they were hoping to award a contract very shortly.
11. In response to a question, officers advised that the Council did incur costs from void properties, including standing charges from utility companies.
12. In relation to inspections being carried out of properties when they became void, it was noted that it was possible to undertake these if sufficient notice was provided, but that in cases where a tenant died this would not be possible. Officers acknowledged that some process of pre-inspection could be introduced to speed up the transfer process but that this would not be possible in all circumstances.
13. Officers advised that monitoring and inspection of works carried out was done by the team leaders to ensure that repairs were done to the required standard.
14. A Panel Member raised a specific property on Waverley Road that had been cant for two years. Officers agreed to look into the issue and provide an update to Cllr Bevan. (Action: Jahedur Rahman).
15. In response to a question, officers advised that there was an apprenticeship scheme in place but acknowledged that this needed to be scaled up and that there needed to be a greater focus on succession planning and development of a work force plan for the repairs service going forward.
16. The Panel sought assurances around the target to get back to pre-pandemic performance of 150 properties a year and whether there was any scope to be more ambitious. In response, officers advised that they were hoping to achieve void rates of 2% in 2024/45 and 1% in 2025/26. Officers commented that they hoped to achieve 1% in the latter half of 2024/25 but this would depend on when contracts were mobilised and productivity increasing.
17. The Panel queried the fact there were out of borough properties and why this was. In response, the Cabinet Member set out that some of these out of borough properties were long term private sector leases, some are HCBS properties and some were Haringey properties that were out of borough, such as those at Imperial Wharf at Hackney.
18. In response to a question around data, the Panel was advised that a lot of the issues experienced around repairs related to data integrity and sharing data. Bringing this together in one place was a huge piece of work.
19. The Panel questioned whether improvements to performance levels were sustainable long-term given the levels of additional investment that had been put in. In response, officers advised that there had been pressures from the Housing repairs service taking on HCBS properties and PSL properties and that discussions were taking place to see what the Housing repairs service should focus on general need properties going forward.
20. The Panel raised concerns about the number of properties managed by the Council increasing with 3000 new homes being built and additional properties being managed through the HCBS but that there was no additional staff to support this. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that there was a resource issue within the repairs service, particularly in relation to HCBS properties and private sector lease properties. The Housing service were working to address this.

RESOLVED

Noted