Agenda item

The Panel received a presentation which provided an overview of Housing Service performance, comparing year-end results for 2024/25 and 2023/24.  It included the KPIs used in the services monthly reporting and covered areas such as; repairs and voids, compliance, asset management, tenancy management, estates & neighbourhoods, income collection, leaseholder services, and support & wellbeing. The presentation was introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Director of Housing as set out in the published agenda pack at pages 61-92. Paul McCabe, Head of Repairs was also present for this agenda item, along with Christian Carlisle and Neehara Wijeyesekera, AD Housing Management. Cllr Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning was present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

1. The Panel sought raised concerns about the length of time it would take to undertake tenancy checks and sought clarification about the frequency with which they would be undertaken. In response, officers advised that they were committed to complete 20% tenancy checks year-on year, so that would mean all tenancy checks would be completed on a five-year cycle. In response to a follow up, officers advise that the checks were undertaken by the housing officer responsible for that location, and that it was done through an in-person visit.
2. The Panel sought an update around progress on bringing the Noel Park Estate up to the Decent Homes Standard. In response, officers advised that the programme was split into two phases. Stage one was completed earlier this year and stage two would begin later this year. Officers provided assurances that they were still committed to undertaking all of the renovations in Noel Park.
3. The Panel sought clarification about the Decent Homes standard and how the Council would be able to meet the decency standard on the remaining 20% of homes, given the 2.3% improvement in the last year. In response, officers advised that they had agreed a five-year plan on getting to a 100% decency rate with the regulator. This plan had year-on-year targets for decency levels, and the Director of Housing officers advised that he was confident that the organisation would meet those year-on-year targets. The Director of housing advised that the organisation had gone from a position where 32% of homes were non-decent when he arrived, to 20% in around two years. Officers also acknowledged that the year-on-year targets were back loaded, and assurances were given that additional capacity had been built in in order to achieve this. Officers advised that a key factor was having the supply chain contracts in place, which Cabinet had recently agreed. In response to a follow up question, the Cabinet Member commented that she did not think that there was a big gap between what a tenant might consider a decent home and what the technical definition was. Both included things like double glazing, modern kitchens and a reasonable standard of repairs.
4. The Panel sought assurances around the reason behind an increase in new voids up from 393 in 2023/24 to 619 in 2024/25. In response, officers advised that the increase in voids was a result of the Council’s housebuilding programme as well as the neighbourhood moves scheme resulting in people moving to new homes and that empty property needing to have work done to it. It was commented that LBH managed around 15k properties and the industry standard would be around 350 voids per year. In response to a follow up, it was acknowledged that only 488 of the 619 new voids in 2024/25 were made ready for let, and that in an ideal world this would be 100%. However, the Cabinet Member commented that this represented a 25% increase in output from the team from the previous year. The Director of Housing provided assurances that the service also utilised external resources to help provide additional capacity. It was also commented that the service had made significant progress in reducing the number of voids in the last 2.5 years.
5. The Panel sought clarification around the estates parking project. In response, officers advised that engagement on the first tranche of estates was underway and that the plan was to role this out over nine zones, with planned completion in 2026/27. As a follow-up, the Panel raised concerns about residents having to pay for parking on estates. Officers emphasised that the driver was to ensure consistent access across the borough and to make it fairer. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the charges were not the same as they were for a CPZ and that by implementing this, residents would be able to park on their estates.
6. In relation to the timescales for the new Asset Management system, officers advised that a contractor had been appointed and the service was now at the mobilisation stage. It was stated that it would take three to six months to transfer the legacy data from the old system to the new one. The new system would be fully integrated with the tenancy management system and the repairs system.
7. The Panel sought clarification around the estate inspection programme, it was commented that there used to be a much more systematic approach in the past. In response, officers advised that there was a programme of inspections and that these were publicised to allow residents to attend. It was noted that the frequency with which they took place was decided in discussion with individual resident groups. Officers comments that they attended an inspection recently and that it was very well attended. It was commented that this experience did not necessarily chime with that of individual Panel members. Cllr Bevan commented that he could not remember the last time a resident attended an estate inspection in Northumberland Park. The Chair commented that in his experience they tended to be something that was driven by ward councillors.
8. The Panel commented that there seemed to be an issue with getting feedback on the actions that were picked up as part of the estate walkabouts. It was suggested that sometimes ward councillors did not receive any feedback and it was speculated that a failure to see resolution to actions had led to residents not engaging. In response, officers accepted that it was a mixed position and it was stated that there was a continuous improvement group being set up. The Director of Housing acknowledged the concerns put forward by the Panel and advised that he would take the feedback on how the service communicated the outcomes from inspections back to the team for further consideration. The Head of Repairs provided assurances to the Panel that his officers were attending resident group meetings and that the feedback they gave was used to improve the service.
9. The Panel sought clarification about how the indicator for satisfaction with last repair was compiled and also whether the satisfaction with a first fix was a judgment call by the resident or by the service. In response, officers advised that satisfaction with repairs was responded to by residents via a text message that they were sent asking to provide feedback. Officers also advised that the first fix was a judgment call made by the service.
10. In response to a question, officers advised that there was no indicator specific to general satisfaction rates with repairs but that a comparative score of 90% would be seen as good performance in light of benchmarking with other boroughs.
11. The Panel sought clarification around the deep cleaning service. In response, officers advised that as part of the Housing Delivery Plan, it was agreed to have a deep cleaning programme, which consisted of a team of three, as a pilot programme, who would do deep cleaning on blocks where the organisation received particularly negative feedback. It was commented that this was an endorsement on top of the usual caretaker services, and it was partly in recognition that the caretakers did not have the resources to undertake a deep clean. It was acknowledged that the deep cleaning programme could only improve feedback scores so much and that painting the blocks was outside the scope of the deep cleaning programme. Officers advised that the programme would be paid for through the service charge.
12. The Panel queried how residents would get assurances that they got the services that they were paying for through the service charge. In response, officers set out that residents were only recharged for the services that they were given. In the case of the deep cleaning programme only residents in blocks who had received this service would be charged for it.
13. In response to a question about charges to leaseholders for major repairs and a sinking fund, officers advised that what could be charged for would be determined by the individual lease. It was commented that Haringey had a very generous set of repayment options available to leaseholders including a 25 year repayment plan. Leaseholders also had the option of placing a voluntary charge against the property so that it would be paid when the property was next sold.
14. The Panel enquired about how clearing the backlog of Right to Buy applications in response to a change in the rules on the amount of discount available. In response, officers acknowledged that they had received over 700 applications and that the responses has been issued to those who were able to move forward. It was commented that work was being done ensure that verification was accurate and that, like most councils, it would take a bit of time to get through it.

RESOLVED

Noted