Agenda item

The Panel received a presentation which provided an update on a number of key performance indicators relating to the Housing Service. The data related to performance as of July 2025. The presentation was introduced by Jahedur Rahman, Director of Housing; Scott Kay, AD Repairs and Compliance; and Christian Carlise, AD Asset Management, as set out in the published agenda pack at pages 13-42. Cllr Williams, the Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel sought assurances around the fact that it appeared that the organisation was failing to meet the targets on nearly all of its KPIs, and queried the extent to which this was a significant problem. In response, officers commented that was one way of looking at. Officers clarified that there were a number of KPI’s which had a 100% target. These were statutory targets for compliance areas. It was suggested that there were legitimate reasons for not being able to achieve 100%, such as not being able to get access to a property to undertake gas safety inspections. The Director of Housing set out that whilst the service aspired to achieve 100% every month, there were practical challenges to achieving it. The Panel were advised that the service undertook benchmarking of its performance against a range of other landlords and Haringey tended to be in the upper quartile when measured against other providers.
2. The Panel raised concerns about the fact that Haringey had come last for two years running in relation to the number of Ombudsman complaints per head of population. It was suggested that his painted a different picture to some of the information provided in the presentation. In response, officers commented that context was important when reviewing performance against Ombudsman complaints. It was commented that, last year, Haringey had just over 1500 Stage 1 complaints, and of these, 55 complaints ended up being referred to the Housing Ombudsman. Officers set out that the service undertook 60k repairs a year, including gas safety and mechanical works, of which 1500 residents raised a complaint. It was suggested that in this context, the proportion of repair work delivered that resulted in a complaint being raised was relatively small.
3. As a follow up to the above question, the Panel sought assurances that performance on Ombudsman complaints would improve. In response, officers advised that they were not entirely clear about the methodology of the measure being referred to. It was commented that these figures did not relate specifically to the presentation and that Ombudsman referrals related to complaints, rather than repairs performance specifically. Officers set out that that the service benchmarked their outturn with the Housing Ombudsman with similar authorities like Hackney and Southwark. It was reported that both of these authorities had a higher maladministration rate to Haringey. It was commented that a lot of London local authorities did share a commonality around an ageing stock profile, and a lot of the complaints that were received related to stock condition.
4. In relation to tenant satisfaction measures, officers advise that outcomes had improved since the ALMO came back in-house. Against a majority of indicators in this areas there was a year-on-year improvement since 2023. In relation to the methodology of the tenancy satisfaction surveys, the service used an independent external company to undertake the surveys. The expectation was that 1000 of these were done in a year, Haringey tried to undertake 2000 a year.
5. The Panel queried how Leaseholder service charge collection could increase above 100%, to 102%. In response, Officers advised that the service profiled the monthly performance figure based on the annual target which was based on the amount received in cash terms. It was possible that from month to month the amount collected could exceed the monthly average that had been set, hence 102% represented a figure that was in excess of the monthly average.
6. The Panel requested further information about the reasons behind the dip in performance for satisfaction of last repair. In response, officers advised that the service had been focusing on outstanding and complex cases that had been going on for a long time. It was suggested that this tended to skew the satisfaction scores as the resident may be happy with the repair but dissatisfied with the time it took to resolve the repair.
7. In response to a follow-up, officers advised that there were dealing with a higher volume of complex cases and damp and mould cases that a year ago, because they had additional capacity from having a number of specialist contractors on board. The Director clarified that the service measured satisfaction with a repair at the point of the case being closed.
8. The Chair commented that whilst he accepted that levels of dissatisfaction were being measured at a particular time, he contended that the results still showed that residents were dissatisfied. It was suggested that perhaps there was scope to consider how the Council communicated with residents on repairs and kept them updated. In response, officers acknowledged that there was scope improve resident satisfaction through looking at how the organisation communicated the status of repairs with its residents.
9. The Panel queried the figure of 302 voids in July and asked if that was calculated in the same way that the number of voids was calculated in the last update to the Panel. In response, officers provided assurances that it was calculated in the same way. Officers advised that the current number of voids was around 270 and that the Council had a round 500 voids a year. This compared favourably with 600 a year in 2023.
10. The Panel noted that the stated 186 responses to the satisfaction survey in July seemed quite low. In response, officers advised that the satisfaction surveys were sent out to residents, when a job had been completed and that Council had little control over whether people chose to fill in the survey and return it. By way of context, it was highlighted that of the 186 returns, 146 were satisfied.
11. The Panel queried the 7% figure for tenancy audits. In response, officers advised that there had been a delay with uploading these. Officers advised that as a result performance was lower than expected, but it would increase. It was expected that 2000 audits would be completed by year end.
12. The Chair requested that future standing KPI updates included information on the number of legal disrepair cases, if possible. (Action: Jahed).

RESOLVED

Noted