Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Adults, Housing and Health. To be presented by the Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning (Deputy Leader)

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, and Deputy Leader of the Council introduced the report.

It was explained that Housing services had undertaken a range of work to improve services for residents through the Housing Improvement Plan, where there had been improved performance for the repairs service from the impact of the work carried out. Although the outcomes of these improvements were being seen, it was important to continue to reevaluate how services were delivered to ensure the Council was equipped to deliver the best service it could for residents.

It was explained that the proposals highlighted the need to deliver a responsive and high-quality repairs service that was cost efficient, which was also echoed by the Consumer Standard requirements set by the Regulator of Social Housing.

The Cabinet Member explained that there was a need to undertake an options appraisal to be completed for different delivery models of the repairs and voids service, so that the scope for improvement was not limited and the Council could ensure the delivery of a high-quality repairs and voids service that was cost-efficient and offered value for money.

In response to comments and questions from Councillor Cawley-Harrison, the following information was shared:

• It was explained that there were some internal costs from the proposals, but these were justified based on condition of properties and higher internal specifications.
  
  
• Officers explained that the service had a six-month long timescale to undertake detailed analysis of the delivery of repairs and voids.

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1. Approved an options appraisal on the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) of Haringey’s Repairs & Voids Service and consider alternative delivery model options.
   
   
2. Noted that the options appraisal would consider performance management and cost control arrangements currently in place and provide recommendations for further enhancements or revisions, and/or where such arrangements should be realigned as part of any alternative delivery model options proposed.
   
   

Reasons for the decision:

When considering the findings of the high-level review, it was evident that there were further improvements needed to the Council’s repairs service for both responsive repairs and voids in order to provide a good value service for its tenants and leaseholders.

The review identified that the cost of the repairs service for both repairs and voids was high when compared to the wider industry costs. On average it would have been expected to see an average repairs job value of between £140 and £170, however Haringey’s average repairs job value was between £305 and £337. The same applied for voids, in that the average void refurbishment job value for the wider industry was £3,000 to £3,500 and Haringey’s average void job value was between £8,297 and £9,068.

There were considerations however that could have explained part of the difference in these costs, for example where Haringey’s specification might have been of a higher standard than of the average registered provider, as this was not factored into the review.

In relation to productivity, the review identified that the average number of repairs per operative per day was very low when compared to the wider industry. The average figure for Haringey was around 1.35 jobs per operative per day, where it would typically have been expected to see at least 2 repairs per day as a minimum and a figure of 3 to 3.5 repairs per day as an industry standard. This was caveated by the size and nature of the repairs, and would have varied depending on trades, e.g. the number of electrical repairs per day, would have been far higher than roofing repairs.

The average value figures set out above were however above the industry average even when taking variables into account, and over time this would have had a significant and unsustainable financial impact.

As of April 2024, the Council was subject to the new Consumer Standards introduced by the Regulator of Social Housing, where there were 4 standards: Safety & Quality, Tenancy, Neighbourhood & Community, and Transparency, Influence & Accountability.

As part of the Safety & Quality Standard, there were many requirements of landlords that related to repairs services. Some of the most relevant requirements to the issues being considered in this paper were outlined below:

• Registered providers had to provide an effective, efficient, and timely repairs, maintenance and planned improvements service for the homes and communal areas for which they were responsible.

• Registered providers had to set timescales for the completion of repairs, maintenance and planned improvements, clearly communicate them to tenants and take appropriate steps to deliver to them.

• Registered providers had to ensure that the delivery of repairs, maintenance and planned improvements to homes and communal areas was informed by the needs of tenants and provided value for money.

As part of the introduction of the Consumer Standards, a new inspection regime was introduced which would grade registered providers based on how well they complied with the standards varying from C1 (where a provider was delivering the consumer standards overall) to C4 (where there were very serious failings).

The Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard required all registered providers to generate and report tenant satisfaction measures (TSMs) as specified by the Regulator. The TSMs were a core set of performance measures against which all providers had to publish their performance. This was to provide tenants with greater transparency about their landlord’s performance and informed the Regulator about how a landlord was complying with the Consumer Standards. Some of the TSMs relevant to the repairs service were:

• Overall satisfaction

• Satisfaction with repairs

• Satisfaction with time taken to complete most recent repair

• Satisfaction that the home was well maintained

• Satisfaction that the home was safe

• Satisfaction that the landlord kept communal areas clean and well maintained

Out of the 12 TSMs that were obtained from tenant perception surveys, 50% were impacted in some capacity by the repairs service whether this was within tenants’ and leaseholders’ homes or the communal areas surrounding them. The perception of the repairs service and how it performed had a significant impact on satisfaction and therefore how the Council complied as a landlord to the Consumer Standards.

This difference in cost when compared to the wider industry might have been unsustainable, however when coupled with the obligations the Council had to its residents and the Regulator of Social Housing, it was integral that alternative options were explored to ensure that the Council could provide the best service for its residents that was more cost effective.

Alternative options considered:

Do nothing:

This was not an option given that the current level of productivity and cost was not comparable with the sector and the mock inspection had found that the Repairs Service was not delivering a consistent standard.

Develop a new Target Operating Model (TOM) with the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) at its core:

Whilst this was comparable to the option being proposed as it would have required a similar review, only exploring options with the DLO would have significantly limited the Council’s scope for improvement and this option should have been considered with other options so that the focus was predominantly based on improvement.

All options required investment in both external expertise and core system development and were subject to contractual changes, either during the review or when consulting on, or implementing any recommendations.