Agenda item

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

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1. Approved, pursuant to Contract Standing Order 2.01(b), the commencement of a procurement exercise to procure two contracts for the provision of repair works in connection with legal disrepair claims for an initial period of 3 years, with up to two further one-year extensions totalling a maximum term of 5 years at a contract sum stated in the exempt portion of the report.
   
   

Reasons for Decision

It was essential to maintain continuity of high-frequency repairs completions in disrepair cases, as this was the main action by which legal costs were reduced. If the service had stopped work for any period of time, increased legal expenditure would have been incurred. It was therefore essential to have adequate contractual provision to service this demand at all times.

It was a strategic objective of the Council to ensure cases were managed within the required timescales and to reduce costs associated with this type of work. Previous work and investment had reduced case levels over previous years, and this procurement ensured Haringey Council could appropriately manage future caseloads.

Approximately 35% of the previous year’s gross spend on works was attributed to capital works. Accordingly, this contract was conceived at a value which was expected to mitigate the disparity between required contract value and the budget position, by building in projected capital works values over the period.

Residents would otherwise have remained living in properties which were in a state of disrepair, presenting a risk to health and wellbeing to residents, in addition to financial and reputational damage to the Council, for want of appropriate contractor resources.

Further legal breaches would otherwise have arisen needlessly, attracting negative perception from the Courts and causing reputational damage to the Council.

Alternative Options Considered

• Do nothing
  This option was rejected because it would have left ongoing legal cases without an appropriate facility to complete works in a compliant manner, at the required scale to meet the overarching strategic objectives to reduce claims and the costs associated with them.
• Utilise the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) to deliver works
  This option was rejected as the DLO was already under significant pressure to deliver the Responsive Repairs Service, which performed a vital responsive function for residents. The nature and scale of the work required in disrepair claims was more appropriately delivered by contractors under existing operational practices. Accordingly, this option was not a viable proposition for either the short- or medium-term planning of the Council.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services introduced the report.

It was explained that the Cabinet Member wanted to ensure that there was fairer housing across the borough. It was explained that the Council had retrofitted and refurbished Council homes all over Haringey and that the Estate Renovation Plan committed more than £500m to home improvements over the next ten years. It was explained that the plan aimed to bring 100% of council homes in Haringey to Decent Homes standard by 2028. It was explained that this would take the average Council home from a C-grade energy rating to B-grade, cutting bills for thousands of residents.

It was explained that the proposed new contract for disrepair cases would bring in additional contractors to deal with repair works for formal disrepair cases, helping the Council clear the backlog inherited from our outsourced service and build a high-performing repairs service for residents.

Following questions from Councillors Connor, the following information was shared:

• It was explained by officers that success in managing disrepair cases would be measured in number of cases closed satisfactorily, which officers noted had increased in comparison with benchmarking undertaken from two years ago.
  
  
• It was explained that success on disrepair cases were measured case by case basis, as each case was different in nature, however, it was noted that the service could undertake benchmarking with other authorities to measure comparability.

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1. Approved, pursuant to Contract Standing Order 2.01(b), the commencement of a procurement exercise to procure two contracts for the provision of repair works in connection with legal disrepair claims for an initial period of 3 years, with up to two further one-year extensions totalling a maximum term of 5 years at a contract sum stated in the exempt portion of the report.
   
   

Reasons for Decision

It was essential to maintain continuity of high-frequency repairs completions in disrepair cases, as this was the main action by which legal costs were reduced. If the service had stopped work for any period of time, increased legal expenditure would have been incurred. It was therefore essential to have adequate contractual provision to service this demand at all times.

It was a strategic objective of the Council to ensure cases were managed within the required timescales and to reduce costs associated with this type of work. Previous work and investment had reduced case levels over previous years, and this procurement ensured Haringey Council could appropriately manage future caseloads.

Approximately 35% of the previous year’s gross spend on works was attributed to capital works. Accordingly, this contract was conceived at a value which was expected to mitigate the disparity between required contract value and the budget position, by building in projected capital works values over the period.

Residents would otherwise have remained living in properties which were in a state of disrepair, presenting a risk to health and wellbeing to residents, in addition to financial and reputational damage to the Council, for want of appropriate contractor resources.

Further legal breaches would otherwise have arisen needlessly, attracting negative perception from the Courts and causing reputational damage to the Council.

Alternative Options Considered

• Do nothing
  This option was rejected because it would have left ongoing legal cases without an appropriate facility to complete works in a compliant manner, at the required scale to meet the overarching strategic objectives to reduce claims and the costs associated with them.
• Utilise the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) to deliver works
  This option was rejected as the DLO was already under significant pressure to deliver the Responsive Repairs Service, which performed a vital responsive function for residents. The nature and scale of the work required in disrepair claims was more appropriately delivered by contractors under existing operational practices. Accordingly, this option was not a viable proposition for either the short- or medium-term planning of the Council.